Talk:Bali Package

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bali Package article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Bali Package was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 December 2013.

Wikipedia

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trade Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Essence of agreement?

I see that this page is quite new and thank those who created it. However at the moment all I learn is that the agreement is "historic" and has a bit to do with reducing subsidies and lowering barriers. All good I suppose, but the article could benefit from a summary of what exactly has been agreed, when it goes into effect etc. Or a link to such a summary. Anyone? Thanks. 72.208.148.85 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find such detailed reports in the press, please link them here. --hydrox (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, this article needs the 10 decisions immediately Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what are "the 10 decisions"? It sounds like a WP procedure, but nothing shows up when searching help. Max Hyre (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference at the end of the sentence has them (today as ref 10; like here)… L.tak (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Article, plese define what is meant by liberalizm bacause if it is neo its a rebranded slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.190.163 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal POV

"The package includes provisions for lowering import tariffs and agricultural subsidies, making it easier for developing countries to compete with the developed world in global markets."

This sentence has a clear economic liberal viewpoint. Who can guarantee these countries will really be more competitive? There are some schools of thought that disagree on this notion; to cite a few: protectionism, developmentalism and economic nationalism. I changed the wording to make it clear that this is a POV, but this was reverted. Some feedback on it would be good. Pikolas (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you could cite sources, which are not thinking these provisions (if in force) will make competition easier as those three seem to be a bit ambiguous in this particular case… But adding different viewpoints is certainly a good idea! L.tak (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to "take sides" on whether this is liberal or not, but it seems clear to me that the sentence consists of two parts: (1) The package includes provisions for lowering import tariffs and agricultural subsidies, (2) making it easier for developing countries to compete with the developed world in global markets. The first part is a statement presumably of fact about the provisions, while the second part is more of a promise, interpretation, or opinion. It is as if I said "the new law sets the minimum wage at $100 an hour" followed by "and this will make us all rich!" The latter part is the marketing material, and probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, at least not cast as though it were revealed truth. If you said "proponents claim this will make it easier..." followed by a reference to that claim, I might find it appropriate, since there would be room for an opposing POV "opponents however state...". 72.208.148.85 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely my point. Pikolas (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where the IP is coming from, but note that all references I read make the link between lowering import tariffs and easy of market access for developing countries. For sure the first part of the sentence is more definite, but if the second part seems to be an non-disputed truth in reliable sources, then we shouldn't make this something of "proponents"…. I challenge you both to find reliable sources doubting the relationship in this specific case; so we can have a proper inclusion of the possibly existing minority view opponent. L.tak (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WTO see any trade as a positive thing. Lowering import tariffs and agricultural subsidies will make it easier to trade, and maybe the WTO really does want the 'developing' countries to compete. Whether these measures are good for the countries' overall economies and will put them on a level footing is the bit that remains to be proven. How do people feel about the follow rendition:

"The package includes provisions for lowering import tariffs and agricultural subsidies, with the intention of making it easier for developing countries to trade with the developed world in global markets."Jonpatterns (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no problem with that formulation... L.tak (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@L.tak: The fact that the sources are making this link only explicits their own bias. This isn't 'truth', it's a very particular point of view that serves to justify and legitimise this deal (a position Wikipedia should not be endorsing). And like I said above, other schools of thought disagree on this 'necessary relationship' between liberalisation and competitiveness. When markets are opened, the local industry may become more competitive, but it also may just die out as it fails to compete with bigger players. Pikolas (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but what's virtually undisputed, is that import barriers of rich countries, disturb market entrance of parties from developing countries.... I agree there is discussion regarding the statement "competition is always good; as it will make people more focussed" etc, but that's not what's debated; it is about lowering import tarifs by mostly rich countries and its effect on developing countries... Or am I seeing something wrong? L.tak (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'm not entirely convinced. I do favour @Jonpatterns's phrasing, though. Pikolas (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've going to go ahead and update the page will the proposed rewording as people seem to prefer it. I'm also going to expand on the provisions agreed. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; time to implement what seems to be the consensus indeed. If anyone finds sources specifically criticizing the package from this POV in Reliable Sources, such info would also be very welcome to be added! L.tak (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Estimates

Moving second paragraph from introduction into its own section. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 03 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Accord → Bali Package – In July the page Bali Package was moved to Bali Accord. This discussion serves to evaluate if there was consensus for this move, or that it should be moved back to its original location.... L.tak (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move to "Accord", Support return to "Package". The ministerial declaration of WTO on Bali called it Bali Package, as well as reliable sources like Deusche Welle, FAO, the Guardian and the European Parliament, to name just a few. The term Bali Accord is also used, most notably by a recent UNCTAD source, but I have no indications it became the formal name (UNCTAD uses Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement), nor is it the common name (Google hit numbers are far from authoritive, but Bali Package does have 40 (!) time more of them...)... A mve to "Accord was thus not justified... L.tak (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with L.tak. Pikolas (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support return to "Package" per L.tak. Bali Package is the common name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bali Package. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224114149/http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/8056-wto-bali-declaration-least-development-countries-trade-facilitation-agriculture-doha-round to http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/8056-wto-bali-declaration-least-development-countries-trade-facilitation-agriculture-doha-round

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bali Package. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]