Talk:International standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject International relations (Rated Stub-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organizations (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Measurement (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article needs to be broadened[edit]

I believe this article on International Standards needs to be significantly broadened. For example, the current focus does not consider the plethora of standards ("voluntary best practice rules") [1] that are made effective worldwide by the International Monetary Fund, BCBS, World Bank, etc., and that is just a list of financial-standards bodies. The existing article is too narrowly limited to technical standards bodies and NGO standards bodies, seeming to leave out the large and influential intergovernmental standards bodies and the whole idea of global governance via standards completely.

What do others think? N2e 01:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You raise interesting issues. However, there is some distinction to be respected.... in very many cases, governments will say that standards creation is the venue of the private sector and non-governmental entities, while the governments are happy to refer to the outcomes in rules and regulations. Conversely, standards bodies are quick to insist that their standards are not made binding upon anyone by virtue of their existence; it's governments and intergovernmental bodies that choose to refer to the standards in regulation. The ITU sometimes straddles the border, but is mostly behaving like a standards body in this respect. Agree that this issue deserves space in the article! --Alvestrand 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Alvestrand. I'm reading another fascinating paper now that would have a LOT of material to offer to the WP article on International Standards. It is:
Mattli, Walter and Tim Büthe. 2003. "Setting international standards : technological rationality or primacy of power?" World Politics, 56, pp. 1-42.
For someone with great interest in this topic, both the refs I've added have a wealth of info to be picked through that would make the WP article much more complete, as well as introduce the WP reader to the current vibrant sociological, political science and economics debate over evolving international standards. The Mattli article has some especially useful info on the (to the author's mind) significant difference in basis of the European and American national standards bodies, and why they believe that those two national approaches are primary drivers for the evolving international standards. N2e 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


  1. ^ Kerwer, Dieter (Oct 2005). "Rules that many use : standards and global regulation". Governance. 18 (4): 611–632. 

Hygiene Standard Institute[edit]

I removed two links for the "Hygiene Standard Institute" after checking out their website and doing an obligatory Google search. They appear to be a bogus organization formed for the purpose of selling training programs, but I could be totally wrong. Regardless, they have no web presence outside of WP scrapings and Yahoo answers. Clearly not a well-known international standards body. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes one should merge and give the links as in the norm here.

Arun —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Standard[edit]

Include section "International standard" at Standard article.

AND SUBSTITUTE LISTS BY A LINK with Standards_organizations#International_standards_organizations —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the rationale for this? Please explain why this is a good idea? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would second the request of User:Delicious carbuncle to see someone write a rationale for this proposed merge. In the meantime, my initial thinking (admittedly without having seen the "for case" rationale articulated) is that it is not a good idea to merge the two articles. While international standards might have a very specific geographic extent, and might be proposed top-down by a specific body with some sort of (complete or incomplete) authority on the matter, many many of the so-called international standards come about the other way, from the bottom-up. This can happen by a variety of mechanisms but one way is for a particular method or protocol or process that is "in use" in a particular product or set of products by a manufacturer or set of manufacturers to become a de facto standard by the self-organizing, forces, emerging into a result that is sometimes called a spontaneous order. In these sorts of cases it is quite typical for the so-called official standards bodies to designate the standard a formal international standard only after the standard emerged from rather natural but undirected forces. It would be very hard for me to see that any of this would relate to something as limited as a Geographically-limited standard. N2e (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We can create a special section at Standard article, without duplication, centralizing efforts. At this moment all the content of International standard is at Standard or standards organisation artilces. IF it grows as a section, yes, we return here for do a "Main article" and stay at Standard only a abstract (resume) from this main article. -- (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The sugestion is also to clean and centralize lists, because they are not "lists of standards" but lists of standards bodies. -- (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be helpful if you created an account, instead of using an anon IP account, so that people will know they are conversing with the same person. Are you also User:Krauss? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion poll: To merge or not to merge[edit]

Please add your opinion, starting with Merge, No merge or some other opinion, followed by your main reason for your opinion.

  • Merge Most standards are international these days. There is no really special information at International standard. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would not say that all standards are international these days. However, almost all standards are claimed to be or aspire to become international standards (see above-cited article by Mattli and Büthe). Niclas 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge. We can create a special section at Standard article, without duplication, centralizing efforts. The sugestion is also to clean and centralize lists, because these (here at International standard) are not "lists of international standards" but lists of international standards bodies. -- (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge Rationale: I understand the point that the article, as it exists today, is largely incorporated into the article on Standards (although I should note that I did not take the time to validate that assertion by others). But I am going to stay with the view (partially expressed in a couple of previous comments) that international standards are a sufficiently different and controversial issue (within the social literature) so as to be a separate Wikipedia article. The reasons have to do with the debate over the issue of market-based (bottom-up) standards generation by America-centric or America-weighted standards bodies having (arguably) an excessive impact on the formation of inter-NATIONAL (between nations) standards. Another quotation from the Mattl and Buethe article I previously cited will provide some insight into the concern:
"The U.S. system reflects a strong cultural and political bias in favor of market solutions. Decentralized and characterized by a high degree of competition among many SDOs, it operates with little government oversight and no public financial support. The U.S. private sector standards community comprises some 300 trade associations, 130 professional and scientific societies, 40 general membership organizations, and approximately 150 consortia, which together have set about 49,000 standards."
It is precisely this sort of criticism and debate, that is only about international standards per se, and is merly a single example of a broader issue, that will be overlooked in a more generic Standards article. N2e (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree. If you read the Mattli and Büthe article carefully you will notice that the authors do not distinguish between national and international standards. They are both the same. They do distinguish between different standardization processes though. Their main finding is that institutionally, the European standardization process is more likely to produce international standards than the American standardization process. They explain this with their hypothesis of institutional complementarity. The European system is more complementary with that of the official international standardization organizations. Therefore, Europeans are able to feed their standards into the international organizations much more effectively. The academic debate that Mattli and Büthe engage in, and that N2e refers to, is concerned with the different institutional processes--and not particular types of standards--that may (or may not) lead to the internationalization of standards. The main institutional issues that this debate deals with include:
1. standardization through market competition vs. committee collaboaration (Standards organization)
2. centralized vs. decentralized landscapes of standards organization
Both points can be dealt with in existing articles. The first point can be dealt with in the articles on de facto standards and de jure standards. The second point is dealt with the article on standards organization. Niclas 08:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge: Therefore, I am in favor of merging this article with the existing article on technical standards and/or the articles mentioned above. Niclas 08:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that some of the duplication of information has been added recently, presumably by the person instigating this proposed merge. The overlap is not entirely organic. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Most standards are international these days, and this article is a stub, not justify more than a section into standard article. When the section demonstrate big volume or better content, we can back here. --Krauss (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment User: and User:Krauss appear to be the same person, based on this edit by the IP editor to Krauss' user space, and based on similar edit patterns. I don't think it's to much of a stretch to assume that the other IP editors agitating for merge and copying material to Standard are also Krauss. "Voting" multiple times is sockpuppetry. I'm not comfortable with the merge under these circumstances. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, see reply at your talk page --Krauss (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge In case it was missed in my comment above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, you can edit 1 "Merge" as a "Cooment" (you reverted the edits) if you want, then, what your "tie-breaking vote" now? --Krauss (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edits because rearranging talk pages is not helpful for editors trying to follow a discussion. As for this discussion, there is no tie because this isn't a vote (as I tried to explain here). A summary:
  • you suggested the merge on the talk page on 2 February
  • you started copying content to Standard on 3 February (before getting any response)
  • since you gave no rationale for merging, I tried on 10 February to get you to discuss why you wanted to do this. You replied that the information already existed in Standard (not mentioning that you had copied it there)
  • User:N2e gave reasons for not merging, which you seem to have ignored
  • you then agitated for a "vote" on 11 February
  • you have use an IP account to make it appear that there is more support for merging, and told me it was for your "(not wikipedist) friend"
Please reread what User:N2e has written, instead of merely counting "votes". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Today all standards might be used internationally. We do not need this short article which does not really say much. -- Pkgx (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge as proposed, but "merge" nonetheless. The proposal literally says: "...article or section be merged into Standard#Geographic_levels." I propose a "merge" (or better, a move) in the opposite direction: cut away the "Geographic levels" section from the Standard article and insert it into this one, but keeping both articles apart. I believe it makes a lot more sense: one article ("Standard") would disclose the general concept, the types of standards, their enforcement, availability, usage. A needed addition would be "The History of Standards". The other article ("International Standards") would focus on organizations, with needed additions such as: enforcement problems, foreseeable future (ie., "is there any hope for the U.S.A. to join the civilized world?"), examples of risks and losses caused by non-compliance, past failures, achievements, and the current problems amd general state of affairs (or of chaos?). Regards, --AVM (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - What makes a standard an international standard has nothing to do with the standard itself. It is rather, as AVM points out, the enforcement, availability and usage of the standard. All three are the result of social, economic and/or political processes. Therefore, this (international standards article) either belongs in the [standardization] (the process of standard-setting) or--if one rather focused on the result of that process--the standards article. Niclas 08:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - Standards are generally adopted by some sort of community--industries, for instance. There is no reason to believe that most communities are international in scope. A University of Michigan library webpage suggests that industry standards are national as "different countries do things differently", accessed 25 July 2009. Further, I believe the issue for the "Standard" page is to describe 'what is' rather than discussing the normative of 'what ought to be' (e.g., 'standards ought to be international because of the trend toward globalization'). Normative statements amount to opinion rather than fact. Although it is doubtful that anyone has surveyed the standards landscape because of the size of the task, my impression is that most standards in the developed countries are national--and not international. Moreover, when standards are imposed by government regulation (e.g., safety or testing standards), those standards would likely be national and not international. I also don't believe that a standard adopted only across a group of countries (e.g., the European Union) is properly called an international standard when most of the world has not adopted the standard. ZZ (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge - nearly all standards of any significance are "international" so this description should be centralized at Standard ( or better , Technical Standard). We can easily spin out a List of international standards organizations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Counting votes: lets merge!?[edit]

Only valid votes:

  • Merge: 4 5
  • Don't Merge: 3

diffrenece between isi and ansi[edit]

pls sir help me to diffrent between isi and ansi.means ansi oranazation to wholl contry and isi is simliy india provide pls help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)