Talk:United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNIDO non-members
The non-members of UNIDO are listed below the groupings, observers, etc. Cook Islands and Niue were listed as non members, but afterwards they were repeatedly deleted with the reasoning that "they are not mentioned by UNIDO" and that they should be put here only if they are put in the List of sovereign states article. So, I don't see why they should be deleted. Alinor (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "they are not mentioned by UNIDO" - yes, like all the other non-members of UNIDO. That is no reason to delete particular states.
 * the List of sovereign states is under overhaul currently (see its multiple discussion pages), CI/Niue may be eventually listed there (or not). I don't think all other articles on Wikipedia should wait for this.
 * the associated state article describes the status of CI/Niue elaborately - again, they are independent states.
 * CI/Niue are states according to the UNSG
 * page2 mentions something like "... should be changed according to changes in lists of membership of the UN, specialized agencies, IAEA" - so CI/Niue are indirectly mentioned by UNIDO - as they are members of multiple specialized agencies.


 * For a state to be mentioned in the article UNIDO, it must fulfill either of the following conditions: 1. Being mentioned by UNIDO; or: 2. Having the right to join UNIDO; or: 3. Being included in the article List of sovereign states. Note that "all the other non-members of UNIDO" fulfill the second/third condition.
 * The discussion page of articles is never a proof for anything. What does constitute a proof in Wikipedia, is what can convince all of the editors to agree upon, i.e. what is reflected by what's indicated in the articles, rather than what's indicated in the discussion pages of articles. The fact that CI/Niue are not included in the article List of sovereign states, reflects the fact that their being sovereign states is not a concensual fact agreed upon by all of the editors in Wikipedia, so why should this claim, about their being sovereign states, be agreed upon in the article UNIDO? These political entities will be mentioned in the article UNIDO, once they are mentioned by UNIDO, or once they turn out to have the right to join UNIDO, or once they are included in the article List of sovereign states, and yes: we should wait for this, because we should wait for an agreement among all of the editors in Wikipedia.
 * As for the the associated state article: according to it, CI/Niue are almost sovereign, i.e. sovereign in all other matters other than the issue of citizenship. Had this been a full sovereignty, these political entities would have been indicated in the article List of sovereign states, for reflecting the fact that their being sovereign states is a concensual fact agreed upon by all of the editors in Wikipedia.
 * As for UNSG's decisions, they don't obligate the UN organization itself. The CI/Niue should be considered "states" with regard to treaties deposited with the 'Secretary-General only'.
 * As for the old Unido page (of 1966), it says: "the lists of states contained in the annex shall be reviewed by the Board in the light of changes in the membership of the United Nations or of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency". This doesn't prove that being a member in specialized agencies entails the right to join UNIDO. Some former soviet republics, e.g. the "Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic" and the "Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic", were members in some specialized agencies in 1966 (the year this old document was issued), so the UNIDO Board had been guided to pay attention to every possible change in this membership, because such changes might have influenced the interim classification within the four lists.
 * Eliko (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Let's not discuss CI/Niue sovereignty here - there are more appropriate places for that.
 * CI/Niue fulfill your condition2: "Having the right to join UNIDO". See UNIDO Constitution, page 8: "States members of the UN or of a specialized agency or of the IAEA may become Members of the Organization". Alinor (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. This fact should be indicated in the article, and I'll add it. Eliko (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

UNIDO and IFAD

 * 1) IFAD's list A, contains: Canada, Iceland and USA, yet not: Cyprus, Malta, Monaco and Turkey, whereas UNIDO's list B contains Cyprus, Malta, Monaco and Turkey, yet not: Canada, Iceland and USA. Conclusion: IFAD's list A (being "primarily OECD members") is not "list B below" (i.e. UNIDO's List B).
 * 2) Additionally, linking the words "the rest of members" to the article "Developing economy", misleads the reader, because it makes the reader think that: the combination of IFAD's list B and IFAD's list C, is identical to the list of Wikipedia's Developing economies, whereas that involves two mistakes:
 * First, IFAD only claims that list C contains "developing countries"; It doesn't state that "the rest of members" (i.e. list B and C) contain "developing members";
 * Second, IFAD doesn't talk about "the developing countries" (about which the article "Developing economy" talks), but rather about "developing countries" only, so: not only doesn't IFAD claim that every country in list C is a Wikipedia's developing country (check: Cyprus, Israel, Malta, Korea), but also IFAD doesn't claim that every Wikipedia's developing country (which is not in IFAD's lists B) is in IFAD's list C (check Turkey - in IFAD's list A, and check the following Wikiepdia's developing countries, which are in neither IFAD's list: Bahamas, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Montenegro, Nauru, Palau, Poland, Serbia, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen).

Eliko (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I rephrased it so that its clear that the different lists are not exactly the same (UNIDO, IFAD, linked Wikipedia articles). Alinor (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Every change in the article should be made only after having discussed it on the talk page. Anyways, as I stated above, the version you support claims that IFAD's list, which comprises "primarily developed countries", is "list B below" (i.e. UNIDO's List B), but this is incorrect: IFAD's list A, contains: Canada, Iceland and USA, yet not: Cyprus, Malta, Monaco and Turkey, whereas UNIDO's list B contains Cyprus, Malta, Monaco and Turkey, yet not: Canada, Iceland and USA. Additionally, IFAD defines list A as comprising "primarily OECD members", rather than "primarily developed countries", whereas Wikipedia should prefer the original IFAD definition. Eliko (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From OECD page: "Most OECD members are high-income economies with a high Human Development Index (HDI) and are regarded as developed countries". It is better if we use directly "developed countries" as for the "rest" we use "developing".
 * OK, I will further rephrase it so that to signify that IFAD lists are not the same as UNIDO lists. Alinor (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that "most of" IFAD's list A are developed countries, i.e. that they are "primarily developed cointries", however such a definition for IFAD's List A can't be deduced from combining OECD definition (in OECD page) with IFAD's definition for List A, because: both OECD definition (in OECD page) and IFAD's definition for list A, clearly talk about "primarily" and "most of", rather than about "all of". Just check out the following case: if 70% of List E are European members (the rest being African states), and 70% of the European countries are developed countries, then one can't infer that "most of" the List E countries are developed: In point of fact, only 49% (i.e. 70% X 70%) of List E countries are developed. Now just think what may happen if I change the number 70% to 60%... Again, I agree that most of IFAD's list A are developed countries, but Wikipedia should prefer the original IFAD definition, which defines list A as comprising "primarily OECD members", rather than as comprising "primarily developed countries". You could have preferred the definition "primarily developed countries" to IFAD's defintion, only if the definition "primarily developed countries" could have been deduced from combining OECD definition (in OECD page) with IFAD's definition for List A. Eliko (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IFAD wording of list definitions has nothing to do here. IFAD is only the other agency with lists.
 * You agree that List B is "primarily developed" and the others are "primarily developing" (I agree too and this is obvious by looking in the relevant Wikipedia articles), so I will change it accordingly. Alinor (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If (as you claim) IFAD wording of list definitions is irrelevant to the topic of UNIDO lists, then (as I claim) also the level of economic development of UNIDO countries is irrelenant to the topic of UNIDO lists. I agree that such a level of development may be relevant to the topics dealt with by UNIDO organization, but once you assume that this level of development is also relevant to the topic of UNIDO lists, i.e. that UNIDO lists were determined according to this level of development, then you must back such a speculation by a clear source. Just to make my point clearer, try to think: why didn't you formulate the section this way:
 * "in both cases one group contains primarily OECD countries (List B of UNIDO, List A of IFAD) and the rest of the members (primarily non-OECD countries) are assigned in the other groups"...
 * As to me, I think that the answer (to my question above) is simple: the very fact, that UNIDO's List B contains primarily OECD countries, though being a true fact, is irrelevant to the topic of UNIDO article, hence shouldn't be included in UNIDO article! Whoever wants to know more about common properties of UNIDO's List B countries, e.g. the property of their being "primarily OECD countries" (or their being "primarily developed countries") and likewise, may look at Unido's List B itself - defined as "comprising WEOG countries (including...and excluding...)", and then may review the article about WEOG countries, in which one may find any relevant information about what kind of countries they are.
 * So, this is the same with the phrase "primarily developed countries", and also with the phrase "primarily developing countries", which has recently referred (in the last version supported by you) to the rest of UNIDO lists (rather than to the rest of IFAD lists).
 * Eliko (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we both agree that ListA/B is of primarly developed countries there is no reason to change the description. This is just a fact and is relevant to the very nature of UNIDO. So, unless you argue that it is incorrect - please stop removing it.
 * I already explained to you in the above discussions why the descriptions of the lists should not be exhaustive - and why it is even worse if they are exhaustive as they become so awful that nobody will use them, but anyway I agreed with your insistence to put these exhaustive descriptions. Alinor (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have to quote you:


 * "Since we both agree that ListA/B is of primarly developed countries there is no reason to change the description".
 * No reason? There is a reason to omit the economical description, and I explained this reason in my previous response.
 * "This is just a fact and is relevant to the very nature of UNIDO".
 * I've already agreed that the level of development may be relevant to the topics dealt with by UNIDO organization, but once you assume that this level of development is also relevant to the topic of UNIDO lists, i.e. that UNIDO lists were determined according to this level of development, then you must back such a speculation by a clear source.
 * "unless you argue that it is incorrect - please stop removing it".
 * 1. Unless you give a source for the linkage you try to establish between UNIDO lists and the level of development of countries in a given list, please stop adding this linkage to the article. 2. Every change in the article should be made only after having discussed it on the talk page.
 * "I already explained to you in the above discussions why the descriptions of the lists should not be exhaustive and why it is even worse if they are exhaustive"
 * And I already explained to you in the above discussions why the descriptions of the lists should be exhaustive, and why an exhaustive compact description is essential for readers who don't want to go through reading 94 names of countries in List A and so on.
 * "if they are exhaustive...they become so awful that nobody will use them"
 * 1. Nobody? Many readers will use the exhaustive descriptions, mainly readers who don't want to go through reading 94 names of countries in List A and so on. 2. Your old claim (disagreed with by me), about the "awefullness" of the exhaustive description, referred to an old exhaustive description (having 11 groups and 4 levels), which no longer exists in the article, and which has already been replaced by a far better one, some weeks ago.
 * "but anyway I agreed with your insistence to put these exhaustive descriptions".
 * Just as I agreed with your insistance to put the full lists of 94 names of List A and so on.
 * Eliko (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511144047/http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=13 to http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)