Talk:Fair trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Fair trade was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 5, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
October 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
July 4, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Fair trade:
  • Rewrite Key fair trade principles in prose format.
  • Write short section on the worldshop movement and link to worldshop page
  • Write short section on Alternative trading organizations and link to ATO page
  • Create a new page History of fair trade and move the history section there (getting too long)
  • Write a short summary of the fair trade history and link to new History of fair trade page
  • Expand the section: Comparison with conventional trade
Priority 1 (top)
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

"Fair Trade" or "fair trade"?[edit]

I would like to change the capitalization pattern throughout the whole article to be Fair Trade rather than fair trade or fairtrade. I think that capitalizing it in this way stresses that it is a movement and there is more behind it than just fairly traded goods. Please let me know your thoughts about this proposed change! ElleMegan (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Fair trade (movement)" to address concerns like the one you express, ElleMegan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Websites as sources[edit]

Over the years (see above) there have been repeated criticisms of the use of company or organization websites as sources. Again much of the plug for Fair Trade is based on them. Websites are written by highly paid public relations professionals to support the organization. When they have unsupported statements, vague statements,statements that a casual reader will misunderstand, and when relevant and readily available information is omitted, it is reasonable to suspect that there is an attempt to mislead.10:05, 5 July 2012 Statements like, "Fairtrade International claims that some fair trade products account for 20-50% of all sales in their product categories in individual countries, and in June 2008, claimed that over 7.5 million producers and their families were benefiting from fair trade funded infrastructure, technical assistance and community development projects.[1]" show the extremely misleading and false inferences that can be drawn.

Listing all the aims and values of an organization is similarly misleading. "Wants higher prices for exporters in the Third World, supports Trade Justice, fond of children, kind to animals" are the sort of thing most firms and organizations would claim, and none would publicly attack. Wikipedia should concentrate on statements of what they actually do,based on evidence. And if possible, state what resources are devoted to each strand: no doubt someone in the organization does sign a Trade Justice petition once a year, just to make it true.

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidWorker (talkcontribs)


  1. ^ Fairtrade [Labelling Organizations] International (2008).FLO International: Annual Report 2007. URL accessed on June 16, 2008.

ESPM 163AC Critique Attempt on Wiki Fair Trade Page[edit]

This article was a good read but there is not enough criticisms about the fair trade systems. I do not mean about the conceptuality of fair trade but more of the critiques of how it is a great idea but one that is not working well due to globalization and the capitalistic market controlled by global institutions such as the World Bank and IMF.

Additionally, there needs to be more critique on the process of getting 'fair trade certified' to even begin to reap the benefits. Who controls this process, and where does the corruption lie? Is it exclusionary for the commonwealth farmers? Is there an economic middleman, who buys non-fair trade but can afford the certification and therefore receives the benefits? There is a short section on how farmers miss out on fair trade opportunities, but I am of the opinion that that fact should be the main point of the article, instead of starting the article praising the entire fair trade system. While it is a system that I am glad exists, it is not available to most global farmers and I would like to see more statistics/references/research to that fact.

There are lots of resources and references, and everything is relevant. The article is seemingly neutral but since I have studied global food systems I do not think it fairly describes how fair trade has not been working out, and its intersectionality with economics, race, class, privilege and even international trade deals. Yet that is simply my opinion.

Simrjot Mahal EJ 101 Skmahal (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Article evaluation[edit]


The citation referring to Fairtrade International statistics in the fourth paragraph of the article refer to 2011-2012. This is out of date and perhaps should be updated if there are more recent statistics.

However, this article does a good job of representing multiple perspectives on fair trade equally. There is equally as much information of the criticism of fair trade as there is on its benefits.


Ericabohdan (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Original research or not[edit]

Hi Lawrenvekhoo, I see you have reverted the content removal from the Fairtrade article. While I agree the headings may be relevant, I found that once I read the cited content articles I found that each of them related to tiny individual (eg sample size of 1) problems with various forms of corruption. I consider all these cites as individually irrelevant and inappropriate to be cited this way in this article. I assume this is why they have all been collected to try and emphasise a point. wp:synth wp:or and wp:rs.CamV8 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I confess that I'm unfamiliar with this topic. If on a close reading of the sources, you believe that they don't support the text, then I have no basis to object to it's removal. However, can I suggest that you leave something behind, whatever you feel is supported by the sources. Thanks, LK (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)