Talk:World Trade Organization

An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

Viet Nam or Vietnam

in Membership: Since when is "Viet Nam" two words? How about "Vietnam"

Isn't "Viet Nam" what the people that live there call it? matturn 05:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its official name in international organizations is two words: Viet Nam. User:Modi 06:40, 26 May 2005 (CET)

EU

The article doesn't mention that the European Union represents the countries of the EU in the WTO, and there seems to be a discrepancy in the Template:WTO because it lists some members of the EU (such as Belgium, Germany) but not others like the UK, yet they're all represented by the EU and therefore probably shouldn't be listed. -- Joolz 11:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also think there is a problem with the member list. For one, an article "WTO" should not be in a category "WTO members". The WTO is not a member of the WTO. And, as pointed out above, the member list is not accurate. I also don't like the fact that the list points to "Economy of" articles instead of the articles on the members itself.

I therefore would like to remove the category "WTO members" from this page if no one objects.

Karl-Friedrich Lenz 00:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the cat:WTO members thing, and someone else seems to have fixed the template as I don't see any EC member states there now. I think it's fine to link to Economy of. Rd232 15:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP Law

Some people in Kenya complain WTO forcing India to adopt anti generic drug regulation. [1] 142.51.21.5 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) India had been the largest source of cancer and other medicines for many poor countries. All that's gone now because of pressure from US pharmaceutcal companies.Fkh82 23:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Information on Pranksters

The Yes Men are extremely important when discussing critism of the WTO. Does anyone have anything to say them?

Saudi Arabia

please note that Saudi Arabia now is a member of WTO.

SPECIAL THANKS FOR ALL MEMBERS IN THE WIKI FOR THERE WORK......

Great! One minor clarification: it is not yet a member, but soon. According to the WTO website entry for Saudi Arabia:

WTO General Council formally concluded on 11 November 2005 negotiations with Saudi Arabia on the terms of the country’s membership to the WTO. Saudi Arabia will become a full member 30 days after acceptance by their government.

Which is (correct me if I'm wrong) 11 December 2005? And this assumes that the SA government has accepted the WTO's terms for their admission. Right? If so, I'll update the map etc. then. In any event, welcome! :) E Pluribus Anthony 04:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to my information, SA will become a member on... checks Yeah, 11 December.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly! (Ah, feel the wikilove. ;))

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

This section should be deleted. An encyclopedia has no room for a partisan belief. If it's absolutely necessary, it should be titled "controversy" and should contain information about the various groups resisting the WTO. It should not just be a list of the author's views regarding the WTO and world trade.

A critique (or controversy) section is valid if verifiable criticisms/issues from reputable sources can be cited. Yes: it should not summarise a particular author's views. E Pluribus Anthony 20:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support a renaming to 'Controversy'. The section needs to be rewritten though, so that it avoids stating interpretations and opnions as fact.

Maltese membership

A Maltese reader has written to the Help Desk saying that the member box at the bottom doesn't contain Malta. He wanted to add it but was unable to. I wanted to add it but am unable to. Could someone please add Malta to the list of member countries at the bottom of the Malta article. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map needs to be updated, Saudi Arabia has officially become a member -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 08:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been updated.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 links?

Why are there no links between this and 9/11? Or indeed between this and the World Trade Center? I find that to be quite confusing. I was just writing up a bit about s11, the anti-globalisation and anti-WTO group who were a prime suspect for the World Trade Center bombings of 2001, and was going to check back links, but there is absolutely nowhere to put this. Are we trying to avoid controversy here? Avoid controversy at the expense of accuracy? I think that there should be some linkage in there somewhere. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map: two styles

E Pluribus Anthony, I see that you have reverted to "your style" of the map [Image:WTOmap currentstatus.png] again. It has some noticable differences with the "other style" [Image:WTOmap.png].

Negative:

smaller (mostly island) states are totaly unnoticable. In contrast "other style" has circle-represantation of smaller states, becouse zoom level does not allow for them to be seen if scaled according to real size.
"other style" represents states with application, but no approval yet, better. In contrast the description in the WTO article below the "your style" image is wrong - gray-colored Syria HAS official interaction with the WTO, even if it is not observer - it has OFFICAILY lodged applications multiple times.

Other:

"your style" has less levels of distiction than "other style" - so it puts different states in the same category. (for example there is no distiction between negotiating observers and non-negotiating observers)
I have already implemented the "no borders inside the EU" principle that was previously added to the "your style".

Positive:

dual-coloring of EU member states - to show that they are collectively represented as "European Communities", but are also individual members. This is even better than the "no borders" way.

So, I suggest to take the better things from the two styles. If you agree I can make a version of "other style" with EU-internal borders. Then you can make it double-striped? Alinor 10:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: noticeable and positive differences:

actually, your (other) style of map/projection is not in common use in Wp (it's also inaccurate; see below). It's not merely my style of map: it is one based on a commonly-used map image (also listed here).

The dual colouring/bordering of the EU states is more representative and accurate (as they are members singly and collectively); previously, it was – and still is – wrong.

As for Syria, we can easily revise the categories on the map (actually, the caption), but there's no reason to single it out based on its applications: while it has official interaction, it is a non-member and is not an observer (Syria isn't even mentioned on the WTO website.) Actually, since the WTO does not categorise countries this extensively, we should possibly limit (i.e., members, observers, and not) or eliminate them all on the map – i.e., including only members and not, saving any distinctions for text (as is now the case). Any additional categorisations on the map may lead a user down a garden path. Also, see the map's talk page.

As for microstates, we can depict them similarly on either. As well, your map is incomplete: much of the Pacific is cut-off on your map, omitting the eastern portion of Siberia and providing inaccurate locations for numerous island groups in Oceania – circles mean nothing if they aren't placed properly.

Since "my" style of map is more commonly used and consistent with others on Wp, we can possibly retrofit your notions onto it, not the other way around. Until then ... E Pluribus Anthony 19:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice to each other, I don't want to see two of my favourite country-and-organization-article-editors quarrelling. ;) I agree with Alinor that we should use circling for the smaller island nations, since it makes them more easily visible; and we should probably revise the categories a bit. While I'm commenting here: Recently a government official of the Bahamas stated that they wouldn't join the WTO in the immediate future, just FYI. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree: users should obviate unnecessary debates in the first place by not insinuating adversarial "your-and-other"/"us-and-them" notions with maps and exercising better tact. :)

Regardless, at least the current map has undergone additional rigour/discussion and the other map is still incomplete. I'm all for compromise: microstates can be accommodated for on either with circles et al. and the prior one is incomplete. As for categories, the WTO doesn't distinguish as we have (as per their website), so we should probably limit this on a map (to three categories: members, observers, and non-members) and describe distinctions in-text. To that end, I will update the Bahamas as an observer. E Pluribus Anthony 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]