![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't thi s WP:POVFORK to be avoided.-- ZayZayEM 03:04, 30 August 2007 (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 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)
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 genemnfaddahbfjsdhj bh jhwer hh wer erhwerbfehr rbuher bherbhri hsfbhsdkbjh csdkbjh sd bjhkdfsj bhk sdadjkhashb liw haberlfral ihuawfeliu hhaf khbharf basrih aslihhb sdafbh sdibh iasfdlibh asfhhkhl hbasd lsbhhdral 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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Should this article have a maintenance template for being seriously out-of-date? Oceanflynn ( talk) 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)