Talk:OECD

Hong Kong

The OECD has 25 different observers or regular members in the committees and around 50 countries participating in some way in the work of the OECD. Therefore, why Hong Kong should be mentioned as observer if we don't name any other observer in the different committees. There is also no accession negotiations or enhanced cooperation. Therefore, I removed mentioning Hong Kong's observer status. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

The article says that Cyprus applied in 1995 but was blocked by Turkey. It is true that these two countries have rigid relations and they blame each other in every case. I also believe that Turkey would like to block Cyprus accession and have blocked in several OECD committees and programmes. However, from technical point of view it can't block the Cyprus accession in 1995 as after accession of four CEEC countries which was decided already in the beginning of 1990s, there was no further enlargement strategy and no countries were invited to join the OECD (again, technically country application is a political document which has no legal status as the OECD invites itself its members) until the results of the Noburus working group were presented. As the working group never proposed inviting Cyprus, there was nothing to block by Turkey. Of course, the working group was aware of the Turkey's position and it may (or may not) had influenced their decision but this is a pure speculation. Therefore I think that we should avoid spreading the conflict between two countries into this article and keep only solid facts which is that CYprus applied in 1995. Beagel (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The giant box obscures the main text

Visually impaired persons need to enlarge the screen. The box enlarges, and the main text shrinks to a thin column with just a couple of words on a line, then disappears completely below the box.

The problem can be addressed by making the box narrower.

The box has a standard size. You probably have to address this issue at the template's talk page. Beagel (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Indicator data updates

Quite a bit of the indicators data has just been updated, without explanation, and without any changed references. If these are good faith edits, please update the references accordingly. It may be necessary to revert these changes otherwise. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

slovenia missing from title box image

estonia and israel along with slovenia joined the oecd in 2010 so i´m guessing slovenia´s omission from the map is due to its small size making it easy to miss. i´d correct it but i have no idea how to... --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose

Thinking that I should have a better idea of what the OECD is, I skimread the article. Or rather, I tried to. I quickly became sleepy and gave up. This was not because the OECD is an unglamorous subject. Rather -- well, let me illustrate by randomly plucked example:

The countries contribute to the OECD's work in a sustained and comprehensive manner by direct and active participation in substantive bodies of the Organisation determined by mutual interest.

This strikes me as having a peculiarly high bullshit ratio. No apologies for the vulgarism: it's one that has been supported by Princeton University Press, no less. For I mean, of course, bullshit in the the Frankfurtian sense: language designed to lull or impress or both, rather than to communicate information.

Let's have a bash at that one sentence. On a single word, "substantive": We can assume that what's talked about is substantive: if it weren't substantive, either we wouldn't talk about it, or we'd qualify by pointing out insignificance. And likewise for other verbiage in the sentence, resulting in:

The countries contribute to the OECD's work by participating in its bodies.

To which one might respond "Well, yes, obviously", and want to scrap the sentence in any form.

Is there something that I misunderstand here? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstood that a sentence like that is to be deleted and rewritten, without this attempt at sarcastic superiority masquerading as humour on the talk page. You are not George Carlin. Just fix it. 203.161.10.6 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltheblunt (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)