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.
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.
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.
Every once in a while I come across an article that does more to confuse the reader than explain, as this one does. It's common in controversial articles where arguments and vandalism are frequent and more is done to keep peace or not disturb the fragile apparent tranquility of the talk page. When dozens or hundreds of editors write an article, they often do so by inserting a sentence here, a paragraph there, which does not help the cohesiveness of the overall ideas that are presented in sources. Often in controversial articles, the bits that are added are from people with specific pet points they would like to see highlighted, rather than editors who consider the weight that sources give the issues.
I am unfamiliar with the issues of the WTO, which is why I came by to read a summary. The lead in this article is completely confusing. It does not explain what the WTO is trying to accomplish and what the issues of resistance are. Every time the WTO has a conference rioting breaks out. For what?
It would greatly help the article for one or two editors to access the most authoritative sources on what the WTO is and does and explain the issues to someone who just landed on the planet and can somehow understand English. --Moni3 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I note that the trade project still has only two participants signed on and that someone has awarded us a "semi-active" smear, which is justified only by the fact that we've been actively editing without relating to the project. Perhaps more folk would like to come aboard so that we can lift the tag. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Why there's no mention of the fact that the principal end of the WTO concept is the progressive reduction of customs, and all the other goals, like non-discrimination, transparency etc, merely accessory aspects of this foremost end?
WTO members aren't allowed to heighten their tariffs (freeze-up obligation), they are to the contrary bound to take part in negotiations on tariff-reductions. This can be deducted from the WTO-page of the german wikipedia. Even the french wikipedia page cites "la lutte contre le protectionnisme douanier"! 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)firstname.lastname@example.org
In the 'Members and observers' subsection this statement is made: Iran is the biggest economy outside the WTO. But the reference only confirms Iran isn't a member, nothing about the size of its economy compared to other non members? http://www.irantradelaw.com/?page_id=5Jonpatterns (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added a better source from the WTO. TDL (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism or controversies section?
This seems odd to me given there are non-trivial criticisms of the WTO both from within modern industrial nations and from less developed economies who are sometimes said to be at a disadvantage due to WTO policies (for example, this Guardian article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanharmon (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)