Talk:World Intellectual Property Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent turmoil at WIPO?[edit]

Seems to be nothing about recent disputes at WIPO involving Gurry (see [1] etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

French name[edit]

Hi 2.242.24.209 (talk · contribs), as explained on your talk page, it appears entirely unnecessary to add the French name of the organization in the first sentence. In my understanding, the French name isn't "the very original name" (as you claimed in an edit summary). See Art. 20(1)(a) of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization providing that four languages are considered authentic: English, French, Russian, Spanish. Of course, I may be wrong. If so, please explain! Otherwise, I'll just have to revert your edit again. --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit for now, in the absence of any reaction from you. --Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 2.242.84.213 (talk · contribs), according to your edit summary, WIPO would have been "founded back then with the unilingual French name". What is your source for this statement? As mentioned above, Art. 20(1)(a) of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization provides that four languages are considered authentic: English, French, Russian, Spanish. Furthermore, under MOS:FORLANG and MOS:LEADALT, even if WIPO had been "founded back then with the unilingual French name", this would not even be a reason to add the French name in the first sentence. --Edcolins (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@2.242.82.18 (talk · contribs): Considering your unwillingness to discuss the matter on the talk page, I've semi-protected the article for now. Please discuss this matter on the talk page! --Edcolins (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Entirely POV[edit]

The article reads like promotional material and contains zero criticism for a world body that organizes countries over a controversial issue -- especially even in a space like Wikipedia's, a project which largely depends on fair use and public domain, aspects of copyright which WIPO et al erode continually over time. Particularly of damnability is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which (as the DMCA article itself notes) was passed in order to satisfy rules imposed through WIPO treaties. The lack of any and all critique on this page is striking, not only from a self-interest perspective, but also from an encyclopedic comprehensiveness perspective. - 64.187.160.52 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.159.160 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)