Talk:List of specialized agencies of the United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International relations / United Nations (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Image copyright problem with Image:Unido logo.png[edit]

The image Image:Unido logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Recently a few logos were removed from the table [1]. Would it be OK to put these back in if we add the following non-free use rationale to the picture description page: "Utilized in the List of specialized agencies of the United Nations article to identify the organization XXX and to help the reader find its entry there." (or something similar)? Alinor (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In short, no. Longer answer, the use of fair use images as icons virtually always generates a failure of WP:NFCC #8, as well as #3. A rationale could be provided, but it would never suffice. We strive to reduce dependency on non-free media use as much as possible (#3), and listing every sub agency with its associated logo in icon form creates a situation of dramatically increasing the dependency of non-free content by this article from 0 such images to 9. This pops it to one of the top 250 articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free image use, or the top 0.007% of all articles. That would make this article an extreme case; extreme cases require extreme reasoning. That doesn't exist here. Further, we do not use non-free images in tables/galleries if we can avoid it. See WP:NFG. Lastly, we have links in the article to the respective agency. It is not necessary to include the logo. While it would be useful in some cases, for some users, to include the logo it is not necessary. There is no criteria exception for 'useful'. As noted, this generates a failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that this s:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 applies to these (e.g. that their copyright status is "public domain" and can be used here)? Alinor (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think it applies. It's not a specific release of emblems of the UN. In fact, it only mentions emblem or logo once, and that is in regards to official uses of their main emblem. This document does not specifically release UN emblems or logos into the public domain. Without that release, they must be considered copyrighted, as copyright is automatically conferred on creation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

who are the specialized agencies[edit]

The article states "17 below", but then we have IMF at 18th place and 2 more organizations before the "conventions secretariats" (that I assume are not of these 17). This chart [2] shows only 15 specialized agencies: ILO, FAO, UNESCO, WHO, World Bank Group (5 sub-units), IMF, ICAO, IMO, ITU, UPU, WMO, WIPO, IFAD, UNIDO, UNWTO. The UNFPA, WFP, IAEA, OCPW, CTBTO are not listed on the chart as specialized agencies. UNFPA and WFP are programs/funds of GA - not specialized agencies. Maybe the number 17 is derived from the 15 agencies listed and the IAEA/WTO that have some dotted non-explained (?) line linking these two to the group-of-15. IAEA, WTO, OCPW, CTBTO are listed as "related organizations". OCPW, CTBTO are reporting to the GA. IAEA is reporting to GA/SC. All of the 15 specialized agencies are reporting to ECOSOC. I can't find anything linking WTO with the GA, SC or ECOSOC. So, maybe we should clearly separate the 15 specialized agencies from the rest of the UN System. Alinor (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.
Also, I am not sure if we should keep the "Other UN organs" section - maybe these should be moved to the United Nations System? Alinor (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The ICJ is not a "related and comparable organization", and the "summary" includes the UN itself. Shouldn't these entries be deleted? By the way, from the World Bank Group, only IBRD, IDA and IFC are specialized agencies. According to numerous sources, MIGA and ICSID are such agencies, too, but I have never seen a relationship agreement signed by the UN and any of these organizations under Articles 57 and 63 of the United Nations Charter – most likely because such agreements don't exist. Henning Blatt (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
WBG is mentioned as one/umbrella organization.
Yes, the ICJ is not a specialized agency, but it is part of the UN System and along with the IAEA and UN itself is one of the Vienna formula organizations.
The WTO is mentioned because it is somehow related to the UN (I don't know how, but it's included in multiple sources about UN System) and is a somewhat different realization of the concept of ITO - a proposed specialized agency.
I don't think that we should remove any of these. Alinor (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The World Bank Group is just a term to describe five independent organizations. Only three of them are specialized agencies within the meaning of articles 57 and 63 of the Charter. This fact should find its way into the article.
    Why do you want to mention other organizations/agencies/institutions/organs, that are part of the UN System? There are some 96 others that are still unmentioned here. This article is about the specialized agencies only.
    The WTO is mentioned because of a cooperation agreement with the UN, that comes very close to the relationship agreements concluded under articles 57 and 63 of the Charter. The same is true for IAEA, OPCW and the CTBTO Preparatory Commission.
    Henning Blatt (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see any source describing the WTO "relation" to the UN - unlike the IAEA/ICC/OPCW/CTBTO that "report" to the UNSC/UNGA.
According to [3] and [4] (and other similar official sources) the WBG (with its five sub-bodies) is one of the 15 UN specialized agencies. I don't know why you think that these official sources are wrong.
Why mention: ICJ, IAEA - Vienna formula; WTO - ITO. Alinor (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's solve this stepwise. First I'd like you to believe me that the WBG is not a legal entity in its own right with an ability to enter into any relationship agreement. It is just a name for a group of legally independent organizations. So if you want to list all of the WBG organizations, please list all five of them, bringing the number of specialized agencies to 19. Can we agree on that? Henning Blatt (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
See [5] - the specialized agencies are 15 and not 19. The arrangement at [6] and [7] (and other similar official sources) also shows that WBG is considered as 1 and not 5 separate. Maybe there is some UN decision about establishment of a WBG that will consist of 5 separate organizations and all 5 together will be a UN specialized agency? Anyway, the sources show that there are 15 specialized agencies and WBG is one of them. Alinor (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, there always is quite a discrepancy between statements by organizations (international and national, public and private, political and commercial etc.) on their websites and what is really going on in a legal sense. Apparently, the UN website counts 15 specialized agencies. What a pity! But a website is not a reliable source of such legal information (especially such a poorly maintained website like un.org). I have to add, that the question whether an organization qualifies as a specialized agency, is a strictly legal question. It is a very simple fact that the WBG is not one legal entity. Actually, it is well documented here at Wikipedia, at worldbank.org and in any legal text dealing with this matter, that the WGB comprises five organizations. So if some (non-legal) sources consider the WBG as one entity, this is just proof of negligence. Of course, the UN never decided on the establishment or the structure of the WBG. That's not their business (not legally and not politically). Henning Blatt (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have corrected the related organizations section. These changes are beyond our discussion here. So I hope you're fine with them. Henning Blatt (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that in principle sources may be wrong, even official websites in extreme cases, but I don't know if this is such extreme case and we don't have any "legal source" showing otherwise.
About the changes you've made - see [8]. Only IAEA and WTO have the dotted line going from the list of specialized agencies to them. The two WMD control organizations are outside of this. Your text about agreements concluded under articles 57 and 63 may be or not be correct, but under your definition it's unclear whether some additional organizations also have such "almost specialized agency" agreements or not. So either the two WMD control organizations are not to be listed here - or we have to list other additional organizations. "Some agreements come very close" - who has measured the distance and by which criteria?
from your edit-line: "ICJ is not related to the UN but part of the UN itself" - yes, but since non-UN states also can become state parties to the ICJ (unlike other purely UN organs) it's one of the Vienna formula organizations. Alinor (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please, if needed propose changes here, so that we can reach consensus before implementing and to avoid edit-warring. Alinor (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You seem to be obsessed with these graphical visualizations, aren't you? I don't know whether you have ever consulted a legal text on any of the issues of the article, or just rely on a simplified and incomplete organizational chart. And you are wrong if you think you can use the so called Vienna formula to determine the circle of related organizations. That formula – if used by a treaty – is just a technique to judge on the question whether a specific entity qualifies as a signatory to that treaty. Anyway, I don't want to waste my time here and fight with you for the changes I've already made. But any user reading the article gets a hell of a lot of wrong and misleading information. Those who read this discussion may trust someone who has lectured on the law of the United Nations for some years, or may not. It's up to them. Just in case you ever have a chance to access the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (one of the leading sources of information on international law worldwide), please read the article about the specialized agencies and insert my changes by yourself. Henning Blatt (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • At least ... PLEASE delete the ICJ from the list. That entry really is too silly!
  • PS: "Some agreements come very close" - who has measured the distance and by which criteria? Please read the agreements. Their contents are largely identical to the relationship agreements, but their conclusion did not follow the procedure provided for in articles 57 and 63. You find the agreements in the United Nations Treaty Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henning Blatt (talkcontribs) 09:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to law libraries, so if you suggest that I read something of these, please provide a link (and a page if you know where should I look).
I understand your frustration and I'm sorry for it, but we can't include WP:WEASEL phrases in the article such as "some agreements come very close" without any criteria or source to back this up.
There should be a reason for the WMD-control organizations not to be linked to the specialized agencies in the source we have (chart). I also haven't seen any "relation" between the WTO and the UN (relation that goes beyond "cooperation agreement" such as these that many others organization have), but since it's in the source its included in the article. Alinor (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you agree on the deletion of the ICJ? It is not an organization, but part of an organization (i.e., the UN itself). There is no such thing as a "Vienna formula organization". Okay? Henning Blatt (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but to be party to the Statute of the ICJ is one of the criteria of the Vienna formula [9], Article 81. I will reword it slightly. Alinor (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't understand the Vienna formula. Please let me help you once again: The Vienna formula is a legal tool to judge on the ability of an entity to sign a treaty that uses that formula. For example: Niue accedes to the XYZ treaty of 2005, but other states have doubts about Niue's ability to sign that treaty (because, e.g., they say that Niue is not a state), so they take a look in that treaty's rules of accession and find out that the treaty uses the Vienna formula, so all they have to do is to check whether Niue is a member of a specialized agency or a member of the IAEA or a party to the ICJ Statute. If any of these questions has to be answered with Yes, than Niue's accession to the XYZ treaty of 2005 is valid. Got it? Now you tell me what all that has to do with your (erroneous) qualification of the ICJ as a specialized agency. Henning Blatt (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of all that. And nowhere in the article there is a "erroneous qualification of the ICJ as a specialized agency". The ICJ is mentioned as "related organization" and it's explained what it is - a judical organ of the UN, to which statute some non-UN states become parties and utilized in the Vienna formula along with the specialized agencies, IAEA, UN.
The article doesn't say that ICJ is a specialized agency. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Now you tell me what all that has to do with your (erroneous) qualification of the ICJ as a related organization. Please note, that the ICJ Statute does _not_ use the Vienna formula. Henning Blatt (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
ICJ Statute does not use the Vienna formula - it's the other way around - the Vienna formula includes the states parties to the ICJ statute. Alinor (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, sorry. Please ... finally ... tell me what all that has to do with your (erroneous) qualification of the ICJ as a related organization of the United Nations. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Related to the specialized agencies, not to the UN. There are other organizations related to the UN that aren't mentioned here (look at UN System). Alinor (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, again sorry. Obviously, I hadn't read the article carefully enough. Indeed, the article says that IAEA, WTO and ICJ are related to the specialized agencies. But that is even more wrong than what I thought we were talking about. The related organizations listet in the UN Chart are related to the UN, not to the specialized agencies. Please refer to any text book on United Nations Law for that question. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Look at the UN chart and you will see that IAEA and WTO are connected to the specialized agencies unlike the other UN-related organizations (CTBTO, OPCW). And this is not surprising keeping in mind the nature of these organizations. Alinor (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please look here. You will see that IAEA, WTO, CTBTO and OPCW are linked to the UN, and not the Specialized Agencies. And this is not surprising keeping in mind the nature of these organizations. Let me quote again from the article United Nations, Specialized Agencies by Eckart Klein, published in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law:
Also the → International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not a specialized agency in the proper sense of the notion, because the relationship agreement of 14 November 1957 was not concluded under Arts 57 and 63 UN Charter. The agreement merely provides, according to the description of the function of the agency, for special co-operation with the UN Security Council (→ United Nations, Security Council) and the UN General Assembly. In many respects, however, its situation is very similar to that of a specialized agency, and it has become usual, notwithstanding the formal differentiation, to deal with the IAEA — as of March 2006, the IAEA has 140 Member States — alongside the specialized agencies.
I'd think that settles it. By the way, do you have access to any legal material dealing with any of the questions we talk about here? If not, it seems to be futile for me to look up any information (e.g., in the MPEPIL or a commentary of the UN Charter) since you won't believe them anyway. Right? Henning Blatt (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, IAEA, WTO, CTBTO and OPCW are related to the UN. But of these only IAEA and WTO are related to the specialized agencies.[10] And yes, I don't have access to the offline encyclopedia you use. But what's your point? What change do you want? Adding CTBTO and OPCW or what? On a side note - what is the relationship between the UN and the WTO? Does MPEPIL say something about it? For all other organizations mentioned at UN System there is a link specified. Alinor (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Concerning the individual specialized agencies, I quote from the article United Nations, Specialized Agencies by Eckart Klein, published in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law: In 2006 the following specialized agencies are in existence (listed chronologically according to the dates of entry into force of the relationship agreements): ILO (1946); FAO (1946); → United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1946); ICAO (1947); IBRD (1947); IMF (1947); UPU (1947); → World Health Organization (WHO) (1948); ITU (1949); → World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (1951); IFC (1955); → International Maritime Organization (IMO) (1958, following the change in name in May 1982 of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization); IDA (1960); WIPO (1967); IFAD (1977); UNIDO (1986); UNWTO (2003). (The arrows refer to other articles in the encyclopedia.) Is that proof enough? Henning Blatt (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The UN official website lists all five WBG organizations as subunits of the WBGroup on multiple pages and formats. I don't agree to delete/reformat these simply because they are not mentioned in Max Planck. Do we have a source with some explanation of this discrepancy and a reason why we should contradict the UN? Alinor (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thousands of websites list all five WBG organizations as subunits of the WBGroup. But that is a simplification. Again: In legal terms, all five organizations are totally independent and have to enter into relationship agreements by themselves. Do you doubt that statement? Henning Blatt (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's a simplification, that's why I asked - do we have a source with some explanation of this discrepancy and a reason why we should contradict the UN? Alinor (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you accept the fact that the WBG organizations are legally separate entities? Henning Blatt (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
What's your point? All 5 "entities" (organizations, subunits, whatever we call them) and the "umbrella" (term, organization, group, whatever we call it) are listed in the sources about specialized agencies. What changes do you propose to the article? Alinor (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The article lists WBG as one organization. That's wrong. The WBG are five organizations. (And only three of them are specialized agencies, but that's a different story.) So your counting is wrong. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to change 15 to 19 it's one thing (arguing how we count the WBG), but if you want to remove some of the organizations mentioned in the sources as specialized agencies (2 of the 5 WBG organizations) that's different. See also [11]: "The UN family encompasses 15 specialised agencies, programmes and bodies." linking to [12] where the specialized agencies are 15 if we count WBG only once instead of 2 or 5 times. Alinor (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
One step after the other, Alinor. First we talk about how we count (WBG as one or WBG as a term to refer to numerous organizations), and than about what we count (whether three or five WBG members qualify as specialized agencies). Right now I'd like to know whether you agree with me that the WBG consists of five organizations and (generally) counts as five. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
WBG consists of five organizations, but whether these should be counted as 5 or as 1 is a different question. The source I gave you says "15 specialized agencies", not 16/17/18/19. What is your suggestion for a number? Alinor (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
WBG is 5 organizations. You say that all of them are Specialized Agencies. So the number of Specialized Agencies is 19. (I object that, since I say that only three of them are Specialized Agencies, so the total number has to be 17, but we solve that problem later, okay?) Henning Blatt (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
But we have source giving us the number 15. I propose that we continue to use UK Foreign Office counting skills instead of our own. Alinor (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it really is time to end this silly discussion. Alinor, you will never accept any of my arguments, since you don't have access to any legal material. So may I ask you for an email address? I am happy to send you such material, e.g. scanned pages from text books on international public law, that proves my point of view. Henning Blatt (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

It seems that this article: Specialized agency is also a List of specialized agencies. Alinor (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing logos[edit]

Not all of the organizations logos are included. Alinor (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Added, but later removed - see here. Alinor (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Order of Malta observer status[edit]

According to [13] SMOM has "permanent mission" to the UNESCO, FAO, IFAD, WHO, UNIDO, IAEA, some UN programmes, and the UN itself. I assume that this means "observer status" (this is what it is listed as currently for UN, UNIDO, WHO). Should we add it as such to the others (UNESCO, FAO, IFAD, IAEA) - or its relations with/missions to those do not amount to "observer status", but to another forms of cooperation? Alinor (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Observer status (an invitation to observe the work of an organization) and permanent missions (similar to an embassy in diplomatic law) describe different things. Only those observers who are subjects of international law, may establish a permanent mission to the UN, but the greater number of them has in fact not established such a mission, see here. And not all entities (subjects of international law) maintaining a permanent mission, are observers: most of them are actually members (and not observers) of the UN. Of course, observer status in the UN and the existence of a permanent mission to the UN do not automatically extent to the specialized agencies; granting observer status and accrediting permanent representatives is within their sole discretion. Henning Blatt (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question whether SMOM is observer to UNESCO, FAO, IFAD, IAEA (where SMOM has permanent missions) or not. Alinor (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You really are a very difficult user to deal with, Alinor, but judging by your other discussions, I am sure you already know that. Let me help you once again: Having a permanent mission to the FAO does not mean that the SMOM is an observer of that organization. It just means that the SMOM has a permanent mission. Your assumption is wrong. If you want to find out whether the SMOM has the status of an observer of FAO, you have to search for that information by yourself. This is a good place to start from: www.fao.org. Henning Blatt (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not making any assumption - I just ask if somebody knows. So far I haven't seen a source showing that it's observer there. Have you? Alinor (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I permit myself to quote: According to ... SMOM has "permanent mission" to the UNESCO, FAO, IFAD, WHO, UNIDO, IAEA, some UN programmes, and the UN itself. I assume that this means "observer status"... Your assumption is wrong. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So you say it doesn't have observer status at these organizations. Fine, the article also doesn't say so. What I say is that it's unusual to have "permanent mission" to an organization where you are neither member nor observer, that's why I would like if we have some additional source explaining this discrepancy. Alinor (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't say that. I only say that having a permanent mission doesn't mean that you are an observer. Of course you still can be an observer, but that status does not flow from the fact that you have a permanent mission. And by the way, it is not unusual to have a permanent mission to an organization where you are neither member nor observer. Almost every country on this planet has a permanent mission to the European Union, but the EU doesn't have a single observer. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We are going in circles here. Nobody is objecting what the other one says, but also nobody is supplying additional sources. I would like a "list of organizations where SMOM has membership or observer status"-type of source, so that this is resolved unambiguously. Alinor (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are going in circles here. But only because you don't understand my point. Of course, I object what you said. You said: SMOM is an observer BECAUSE it has a permanent mission. That because is wrong. Of course it still can be an obersver, but not because it has a permanent mission. This can't be so difficult to understand. Please see here for a list of Non-Member States, entities and organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly (some of them with and some of them without a permanent mission). Henning Blatt (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't say that. I asked whether it is so or not. And I understood your point. Currently I'm not proposing any change related to that. What I say is that it would be good if we find additional (definitive) source about SMOM observerships. Take a look at [14] and [15]. What do you think? Alinor (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of ICAO.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of ICAO.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of ITU.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of ITU.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OPCW and CTBTO[edit]

Regarding this restoring of those two in the "Related organizations" section. I removed them and added sources showing that IAEA/WTO are commonly taken for specialized agencies while OPCW/CTBTO are not. As I said in the edit summary - [OPCW and CTBTO] are related to the UNGA and UNSystem, but this article is a List of specialized agencies, not of UNGA or UNSystem organizations. And of course the following (quote from section text) does not apply to OPCW/CTBTO: "In terms of cooperation structures, some agreements come very close to the relationship agreements concluded under articles 57 and 63 of the UN Charter." Japinderum (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources:

Japinderum (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See the source I added to the article. The agreements with the OPCW and CTBTO are based on the model of the IAEA agreement. TDL (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Their agreements may be "based on the model" of the IAEA agreement (what that means is not clear: is the author referring to the form - as part of UN resolution, or the relation is in something else, etc.), but as you see in the sources above - OPCW/CTBTO are never taken for and considered akin to the specialized agencies. But the IAEA/WTO are. So, OPCW/CTBTO have no place in the list of specialized agencies. Japinderum (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
These sources show that the IAEA/WTO are taken for and considered akin to the specialized agencies. The wording is mine (not copied from any source) and you can rephrase it, but that's what the sources show. As you can see that's quite unlike the OPCW/CTBTO situation, so those two should be removed from the article "list of specialized agencies". Japinderum (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No, your sources don't show that they show that they are "considered akin to the specialized agencies". They show they have an agreement with the UN, they have a seat at the CEB and and they have a "relationship" with the specialized agencies. And of course, your WP:CHERRY picking has conveniently omittied the sources which show that the OPCW and CTBTO are treated similarly to the IAEA and WTO: [16] [17] [18]. TDL (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While the two of you are trying to determine the best way forward, could you please halt the edit war [19]? I'm inclined to get protection for the article, but I'm hopeful the two of you can agree to work together rather than the current pattern. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)