Talk:Criticism of the World Trade Organization

POV?

Isn't thi s WP:POVFORK to be avoided.--ZayZayEM 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. The WTO has received more criticism then most other international organizations and deserve an article that deals with the criticism. I think it follows policy because it does follow a neutral point of view. I'm actually surprised how well it does that. It still needs work but what wikipedia article doesn't. --Patrick (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Patrick here. While i was not around when the article was forked, I think it makes sense to have a seperate article for criticism. A lot of criticism is not about what the WTO (a place for negotiation) is but rather what the WTO is used (potentially harmful political decisions). So to demand that the article should be joined is a little bit similar to demanding that Stabbing should be joined with Knife. The WTO article focuses on the "technical" details of the WTO while the Criticsm focuses on the political conent. I do think this separation makes sense, while of course we should have critical sections inside the main WTO article where the "technical details" itself are responsible for the potential abuse of the institution. (e.g. intransparency of the decision-making-process) and on the other hand the Criticsm article should mention how the problems relate to the structural deficiencies of the institution. But both is already in place to some extent. Mond (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do sympathise with the sentiment that a seperate article that deals with the Criticism of teh WTO is probably appropriate.

I am probably more interested in getting a peer-associated discussion that examines if this article deals with the matter in an appropriate, encyclopedic, NPOV manner. That this article is not being used to coatrack points.

Perhaps an article more akin to Reception of the World Trade Organisation would be more appropriate? Dealing with both constructive, negative and protest forms of criticism, as well as positive responses from certain economic and trade groups.

I found the current while in parts well written, full of weasel phrases, terms to avoid, over reliance on partisan sources, and undue weight. It seems like an unmonitored copy of the WTO Article section. Very essay like, and trying to prove a point. It seems to be making criticism, not describing criticisms, who makes them, the motivation of such critics, and the reception/response of criticism by stakeholders.

This article is not included in the WTO hub footer (although it is present on this article). Nor does it significantly deal with the four "issues" listed in this footer, which have articles all of their own: Doha_Development_Round, Singapore issues, Quota Elimination and the Peace Clause.

Criticism of... article needs significant peer oversight. I am not observing much of that hear. Hence I am merely concerned, but would appreciate further input.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also see the problem of possible WP:COATRACK - after all WTO process is in one way or another responsible for many problems on this planet and so it might be hard to draw a line on where the criticsm off the politics persued through the WTO ends and where a possible WP:COATRACK starts. Despite this possible problem the article is focused on the WTO process and does not seem to dig into indirectly related topics. I do not think an article with the title Reception of the World Trade Organisation would be appropriate. This would suggest that the problems are only within the "Reception" and are not real. Those 10 million who die from hunger every year would certainly see such an aproach as a gross NPOV violation. Mond (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of not having the link to this page in the footer was the lack of oversight by myself. I corrected it. In terms of coattrack, I think there should only be content on the page that either eplicity deals with WTO policy or a particular aspect of the WTO. No, trade is bad type of stuff. I agree that this article could have major problems with that so it does need to kept a close eye on. I also agree that this article can be so much better. I'm hoping to work on this article in the next few weeks, after I finish with the main WTO and the Doha round. --Patrick (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"No, trade is bad type of stuff." - not sure how to interprete this sentence. Could you explain? Mond (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of WTO is interwoven with criticism of world trade. It is inevitable this article to include thoughts of the type "world trade is a bad thing". And personally I am OK with that. I am not against a renaming of the article, if this is deemed necessary, neither against a rewriting of it, but be careful not to reach the other side: we need no hagiography of the WTO.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

removing TWN's proposal since it's not a criticism.

I think the removal of the complete section was not really fair: By proposing what should be changed within the WTO process it makes a valid criticism (showing what is wrong/missing). I suggest that the paragraph is added again. (It could be reformulated so that every proposal for change is formulated as a criticism on what is missing/wrong) but i think should not be necessary as it is obvious to the reader. Mond (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed it for a couple reasons, the first is i don't think it belongs since it's not a direct cricisim. The second, which is actually far more important reason, is that it's copyright violation since it's taken word for word from the source. Lastly, it's a bit wp:undue since there are tons of other proposals out there from more recognized sources. --Patrick (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You also removed the source; by mistake obviously. You may be correct with undue, but I wouldn't agree with copyvio. The source is given, and the wording was kept because these were the exact proposals. After all, criticism is related with the proposals for what is regarded as problematic, and should change! That is why I included these proposals. Anyway, if there is consensus for removing this stuff, ok, but please, be more careful when deleting, so as not to remove proper sources. And maybe you should think about editing these "tons of other proposals out there from more recognized sources."--Yannismarou (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

i think the orginal proposals should be included again. if partrick insists on it then these proposals can be reformulated but i do not think that is needed. TWN is a good source and the cricitsm are just an example of many others. obviously not all the millions of cirticisms can be included. so the TWN proposals should stay unless replaces with other ones that provide the same critcism, Mond (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) a

Vague

"The lack of transparency is often seen as a problem for democracy. Politicians can negotiate for regulations that would not be possible accepted in a democratic process in their own nations. "Some countries push for certain regulatory standards in international bodies and then bring those regulations home under the requirement of harmonization and the guise of multilateralism."[15] This is often refered to as Policy Laundering."

IMO this is too vague, and it is in the wrong article. There is no reference to WTO, and I really feel a bit tired with this insistence on including this policy laundering stuff in the WTO articles. This is no general essay about policy laundering, and multilateralism in the IOs; this is an article specifically about WTO's criticisms, and the specific paragraph does not fall within its scope.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to join the thread on the main WTO article where patrick : [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Organization#Policy_Laundering_Paragraph removed the policy laundering paragraph. I think it is important to point out the lack of tranparancy. (It is a major point of the TWN proposals btw). I think it is also important to point towards the "policy laudnering". PL happens within major treaties and the WTO is just the place where the most imporatant treaties are created. Anyone who wants to get an overview of what the "fuzz is all about" concerning the criticism of the WTO should be pointed towards this important point. actually it is one of the 2 imporant parts of the criticsm: the first is: the WTO is used to exploit the poorer countries. b: it is used to imposse bad regulations on the richt countries as well via PL. Mond (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tertiary resource. Wikipedia cannot create conclusions. Wikipedia cannot include information that you feel might be useful for providing context or additional information. Wikipedia can include information from primary and secondary resources (and on occasiona other tertiary resources) that directly deal with the topic at hand. If your source does not directly deal with the WTO you have no reason to complain if it is removed. It does not belong on wikipedia.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointers

Nice to see some action taking place. excellent. First thing I would suggest is a clear an explicit lead. A good lead helps shape the direction of the article. The current lead is fuzzy and definitely creates confusion as to what this article is about, and what its purpose is.

I'm a sticker for standardisation, I would really appreciate someone helping fill in the blanks to:

Criticism of the World Trade Organisation largely/mostly/predominantly/sometimes/partly stems from !!FOO ISSUE!! said by !!FOO GROUP!! that the World Trade Organisation !!FOO ACTION!!. ...Key arguments lie... Key critics are... Criticism started in... Criticism is levied in the form of action groups, protests, letter campaigns etc.

Second criticisms must only be included only if they directly relate to the WTO. See my above note about Wikipedia being a tertiary refence. Please save your original research for your humanities paper at college. At wikipedia, regurgitation is all you are limited to. We can only put in what other people have said, and importantly we must attribute it to our source, particularly when dealing with opinions.

Un ocused Criticism of free trade, economic growth, and capitalism are not appropriate here. Directly related criticism I can sort of see from this are:

1. small countries don't hold sway over the WTO
2. consensus building regularly falls apart leading to inaction
3. the WTO is not doing enough to support labour and environmental rights

Please continue to elaborate on these points, and suggest further points. Please use examples directly relating to the WTO, state who makes such critcisms and what exactly they say, and preferrably the response of the WTO.

Comments welcome.

Missing

Should mention the secret closed tribunals in Switzerland which overturn national laws. For a long time, these closed tribunals refused to accept any citizen or NGO input whatsoever. The turtle-protection etc. motivated activism which helped fuel the original "battle in Seattle" was in reaction to these closed secret tribunals overturning national laws... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the article

Hello, I had to research critcism to the WTo and found this article. Thanks for it, this is certainly a good begin for research work. Just what I needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.30.245 (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

As someone who knows very little about the issues discussed in this article, I find it very difficult to understand and there is a large amount of jargon. Please amend this so that we who know little can know more. 122.57.18.172 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That list

What's the point of having a list of people who criticized the WTO at some point? We don't have such lists in articles about China, the Catholic Church or other subjects. We have nothing except a name in this list, no reasons for criticizm (e.g., Joe Blow "Doesn't think the WTO goes far enough toward global government"). And, we have no criteria for listing people, or leaving them off. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

seriously..that served no purpose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.176.53 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally found the list of interest but would like links to direct quotes of what they said that was critical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.233.136 (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a quote or a reason why they criticized the WTO would help a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.91.89.27 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Developing Countries

I recommend this section for deletion. This section starts with a sentence that is flagged for lack of support, and then presents an argument unrelated to the WTO: to wit, Khor’s position that the WTO doesn’t impartially do what it is not supposed to do, i.e., manage the world economy. As anyone who read the underlying World Trade Organization article knows, the WTO is an organization for managing trade relations, not for managing the world economy. The two are not the same.

Next, the following list is counter factual. Rich countries have, on average, lower tariffs than poor ones; anti-dumping barriers are explicitly defined and available to all members; and the TRIPS agreement in no way “limits developing countries from utilizing some technology.” Rather, like all IPR laws, it prevents theft.

Khor is again cited (as if he were the sole voice, in which case this article is unnecessary) this time suggesting that the historic rise in global standards of living, and the astonishing halving of the number of people living in poverty in the 15 years since 1995 – the aftermath of the Uruguay Round – didn’t happen. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the World Trade Organization. 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/20070318062301/http://twnside.org.sg:80/ to http://www.twnside.org.sg/

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) 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Most recent RS from 2007?

Should this article have a maintenance template for being seriously out-of-date?Oceanflynn (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)