Talk:World Bank/Archive 1

Top
Adopted orphan redirect for Google: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

why didn't Bono (U2) become head of this organization. He had great support behind him, much more than wolfowitz.209.148.145.55 04:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He who pays the piper... Rd232 14:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, which is entirely about how the World Bank, IMF, and USAID are used by mainly American corporate and government interests. Perkins, who claims he was an inside man, says that private companies will try to convince developing governments that their economy is on the verge of explosion, and would explode if only it had more modern infrastructure. The private companies, with close ties to the US government, convince these governments to make huge loan deals (with the world bank, IMF, etc), promising that the people will love them if they have more airports or roads, or that with a new electricity or telecommunications infrastructure the economy of the country will explode. So the "aid" agencies will loan the developing country billions upon billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars, all of which are almost immidiately transferred to American construction and infrastructure corporations as they recieve the contracts for the work. The promised economic miracle of course never happens, and within a few short years the countries are riddled with multiple billions of dollars of debt. Now the US government can move in, effectively takign control of the country. It dictates repayment plans- sometimes including "selling" valuable natural resources (such as oil-rich land) to american corporations, other times part of "repayment" would mean voting certain ways in the UN, etc. In any case, the indebted country becomes almost completely under the control of america and american corporations. I personally am EXTREMELY far from those stupid liberals who scream "it was the greedy corporations!" every chance they get, and I realize the the majority of corporations as they are currently defined are law abiding and have nothing to do with the extortion mentioned in this book. However... the more I think about it, the more it makes perfect sense. I mean, why else would Paul Wolfowitz want anything to do with the World Bank? Think seriously here... I am neither democrat nor republican... but the premise of the book just makes so much sense. Actually, I found the book a little too liberal at times, as the author occasionally slanders globalization or common macroeconomic principles that I generally agree with...

anyway, over with this rant. I was wondering if there would be objection to me posting something about this terrifying use of the world bank on the main page.

charlie


 * Of course you can (and should) add this. But make it clear that you're giving the point of view of John Perkins, as put forward in his book. I suggest you put a short version of this here, add a link to John Perkins (thus: John Perkins ) and put the complete story there.

DirkvdM 10:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I removed the reference to leveraged loans. The World Bank does not issue any leveraged loans. Someone uses these words to make the reader associate the World Bank with the private financial sector and the negative connotations of leveraged buyouts and highly leveraged institutions. One can say that the World Bank is leveraged as an institution, but this is because it makes loans (on terms beneficial to the borrowing country) while borrowing itself on the capital markets, with a small amount of capital (provided by mainly high-income countries). Globalwikireader (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro: What is it?
I looked up the World Bank to get a quick idea of what it basically is. Alas, I only got a partial answer by reading the entire article, with the best answers in the last paragraph, while these should obviously be in the intro. Here's how my questions popped up as I was reading the article:

What kind of organisation is it? Who owns it (financially and in terms of decisionmaking)? Governments, banks or other organisations? Is it a non-profit organisation? There's some clarification under 'organisational structure', but that doesn't quite answer everything and it should be made clear at the beginning, not in between some stuff about the new president. I understand that it's a cooperation of governments, but which ones? Is it rich countries lending money to poor ones or do the rich countries mediate between banks and poor countries? In short, where does the money come from? A phrase like '...get their funds through bonds issued on the global capital markets' doesn't really mean anything to me. Also, the voting arrangement and US dominance (see the history section) should be mentioned in the intro, I'd say. And the best answers to above questions are found way at the end (last paragraph), such as who owns how much, where does the funding come from (governments, I understand, but which ones?) and that the IMF is it's sister organisation. All of of this should at least be mentioned in the intro.

Another question: what is 'transmigration V'?

DirkvdM 10:33, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

why is the EU on the list? i believe that it is not important and is just counting member states twice. i dont thinkb it is also relevant information and i think is best placed at the bottom of the page thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.39 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

brief explanation
I don't have much time to spend on this talk. I really appreciate people asking questions about what I'm researching on. Sometimes I feel like I should have asked them, too. Now my answers:

In fact, taxpayers finance the WBG. This means that a share of annual government expenditure goes to the world bank. However, most of the money the WBG is based on never leaves countries' vaults. This money serves as a security for the WBG to be able to release bonds in international capital markets. Since the WBG has a AAA rating, it has access to financing at conditions that are way better than those for poor countries, since it doesn't have to pay a risk premium.

There is always a risk premium, its just paid after the fact when these 3rd world countries default on these loans. IMF will collect interest on these bad debt through the IDA. 38% of the funds of the IDA are procured from federal income tax dollars of the American people. 76.95.176.142 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)KCG

Despite?
I'm really confused by the "despite" in this sentence: It has been accused of being a US or western tool for imposing economic policies that support western interests, despite evidence that free market reform policies in practice are often harmful to development if implemented badly, too quickly, in the wrong sequence, or in an inappropriate environment (e.g. very weak, uncompetitive economies).

It seems like the second part of the sentence suports the first part of the sentence, rather than contradicting the first part (as "despite" suggests).


 * Me too. I'm going to change it. --Heron 11:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one forces at gunpoint a government or nation state to accept a Wold bank loan, as no one coereces membership in the IMF. The reidiculos critizisms need to be (1) identified by name who makes the criticism (2) placed separately in a subsection entieled "critisism", apart from the main disgussion regarding its purpose. Nobs01 00:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Why even reference the EU holding 30 percent when the EU is not a member? Only confused the discussion with nonsense.Nobs01 23:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. has used guns and various other coercive tactics, overthrowing democratic governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, installing dictators in many others, promoting violent uprisings and terrorist attacks against resistant regimes all over the world. Our vast military network and longstanding violent foreign policies leave few in question that we do indeed trade 'at the point of a gun'. Even without the being forced at gunpoint, these "reidiculos critizisms" would still seem to be valid, however, given the vast power differential between a great economic hegemon like the U.S. and small poor nations, most of which have suffered the ravages of colonial oppression from the U.S. and its allies.SDali2008 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

EU consists of a lot of european countries who are member.No nonsense here.

Conspiracy
I think that we should add a section on the many conspiracies that surround the world bank.


 * I think YOU should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.43.187 (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I Deleted the section on conspiracy theories from the Criticism page. Making reference to them can only serve to cst doubt upon more substantive and empirically supported critiques. I also added info from the WBG page as it applies equally to the WB.McAlcibiades (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good move! Plus, the obvious does not need to be stated. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic Policy
I Herd that the World Bank is more neo liberal than the IMF--J intela 17:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The world bank workforce
I think this page should also have a section dedicated to the people working with the world bank. Are the employees nominated from the member countries or is this an organisation open to recruitment? Also, having links to profiles and testimonials of the employees will be quite interesting. We are talking "about" the bank and the workforce is an important part of it. Whatsay? 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Ashish Khattri
 * Interesting thought—do you have the information? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparent Contraditions and possible distortions of the truth
There seem to be several contradictions, and much confusion embedded in this article. It needs to be looked at critically, or else it risks sounding like a press release for the World Bank. I have no strong reason to criticize the institution itself, as I came here to learn about it. But I can see there are contradictions:


 * It refers to the organization as "non-profit."


 * It says that the selling of AAA rated bonds "does generate some profit."


 * Selling bonds can never generate profit, and is always a loss unless the money borrowed is loaned out again at a higher interest rate, which is clearly not the case here.


 * It claims that the majority of the IBRD's "income" is generated by lending its own capital, but this does not appear to be true "income," and the structure actually appears to be an overall money losing system.


 * It then gets to the meat of the matter when it says "The IDA obtains the majority of its funds from forty donor countries who replenish the bank's funds every three years," which most strongly suggests that this is the only actual "income" of the institution, which otherwise operates at a perpetual loss.


 * It neglects to explain how an organization that perpetually loses money (actually gives it away) manages to get a "high credit rating," and AAA rated bonds. It can only be assumed that the people who lend their money to the World Bank by buying bonds do so because of their faith that the obligations will always be honored by the continued donations of the member nations, not because they expect the organization to be able to generate any other kind of income.


 * It seems strange to describe the organization as "market based" when in fact it is grant based, and its bonds market activities are actually a way for the organization and its members to get deeper into debt by borrowing at a higher interest than is ever charged to any customer. Obviously this is done for a purpose, and it may very well be a good purpose.  The purpose of the borrowing appears simply to be the need for more funds now than are currently available from the direct funding of the governments.  But clearly, unless the World Bank intends to default on its debts and sacrafice its high credit rating forever, all of these loans will ultimately be repaid, and the loss incurred will have to be paid out of the funds received from the donor countries (and the money that goes to pay this interest will ultimately not be passed on to the developing countries who are meant to benefit).  This should be made explicit, if it is the case, and it doesn't fit well with the description "market based."

There may be very many good reasons why, for humanitarian purposes, or to further development and improve trade, the donor countries would want to give their money to assist poorer nations. However, there's no reason why contradictory and unclear language needs to be used to describe this activity. It seems that much of the text here involves a spin to (falsely) portray the organization as somehow largely self-sustaining. That may be how the organization would like to be perceived by the public which actually pays for it, but it's not our business to promote them or their interests, but merely to tell it as it is, and make the reader aware of how the organization operates. We don't have to take anyone's word for it that borrowing money at interest is a way to generate "income." And it would be entirely reasonable and expected for this article to discuss the motives of the donor countries, if in fact they are giving their taxpayers money to a largely charitable cause. zadignose 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This article is taken from a hastily undertaken report written by myself using mainly the World Bank website as my basis. I merely posted what I could on here to ensure that (as at the time the World Bank Group and World Bank were considered one and the same by the Wikipedia Community) people could have some basic understanding of what the World Bank is and what it does. I do not pretend to understand how exactly the Bank works, or I would be happy to clarify.

This article, as written by me, was intended as an entirely objective study for the company for which I work (these sections merely providing background) and as such, I must stipulate that most, if not all of this information comes from the World Bank website itself. I did not have time to research or verify any of the information herein and, as such, this article may indeed distort the truth. However, the vast majority of this information, although currently unsourced, is available on the World Bank (not World Bank Group) website.

I did not want to post too much about the conspiracies surrounding the Bank as I have no factual evidence to support them. It is of course worth looking into the Wolfowitz scandal, the Transmigration project, and the accusations of the World Bank as a tool for US Imperialism or Covert Globalism and the possibility that it operates without an adequate understanding of its beneficiaries and their problems. I have no views on these matters, but have come across various points during my research. I hope this may have been of some use to any interested readers. 62.72.110.11 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)/Whiskey in the Jar


 * Two important points I would make in response to the original query: 1. The World Bank does not make grants to developing countries, it loans money and then charges interest on the loans (I assume that the interest rate on the loans is higher than the interst charged on the AAA bonds, suggesting that this is one of the ways that the bank remains sustainable).
 * 2. Saying that the Bank is 'Market Based' could be referring to the policies of the World Bank, which are to promote market based policies in developing countries, e.g. large infrastructure projects and aid conditionality which encourages the privatization and marketization of developing country economies - encouraging Foreign Direct Investment, liberalization of trade etc. This is also one of the key criticisms of the Bank (as alluded to by the second editor to post here) - that it opens up developing country economies to compete in a global marketplace, when these economies are unable to compete in on an equal footing and lose out to TNCs, rich countries that subsidise their agriculture etc. Pexise 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you're mistaken, the WB does administer interest free grants through the IDA. You can check the Bank site at www.worldbank.org.McAlcibiades (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

lack of balance
I found the discussion interesting. It is reasonable to say that the article at present is unbalanced because it presents the bank's policies in a neutral and uncritical way. These policies are deeply disputed, both among academics (see David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism) and among activists who have protested the bank's policies. There should at least be a section on "Criticisms of the World Bank" See the Wikipedia article for Neoliberalism Alan, 22 Aug 2007.
 * Agreed - the article uses World Bank claims with no critical balance. For example, saying that the bank promotes the reduction of poverty and empowerment of the poor would be hotly disputed by many academics and practitioners working in the field of development. Definitely needs a section recognising some of this literature, Harvey would be a good start, also  Noreena Hertz, Naomi Klein and policy work by many NGOs.  Pexise 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added revisions to the history and criticism sections that are quite critical of bank policy. I'm a little bit hesitant to go after the sections describing what the bank does, for example "the bank promotes the reduction of poverty and empowerment of the poor". What do people think: should the critiques be interspersed in the article, or contained to the criticism section?McAlcibiades (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality Warning
Presenting factual information in a neutral manner is not, as has been suggested, the hallmark of unbalanced, POV writing. "Neoliberal" ideology should be kept out of the this article. Readers should be provided with factual information on the organization of the World Bank and its means of operation does and should be allowed for form their own opinions as to whether these activities are beneficial or harmful. If this issue needs to be refereed it should be resolved quickly and the neutrality warning removed. Jaedglass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The difficulty with what you're suggesting is that information relating to the banks organization and operation will need to contain criticisms or else the people who are viewing this page will have an extremely skewed and narrow understanding of the bank. An article that doesn't explain the motivation for the legions of bank critics would leave readers uninformed. Presenting statistical data such as "the bank lent X amount of dollars to counrty X for the construction of a hydroelectric dam" can be seen to be purely objective. The problem is that this makes no reference to how that project was carried out, what people may have been potentially displaced, what multinationals profited from the sale of turbines, engineering consultation, etc., what farmland was lost, and so on and so forth.McAlcibiades (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On Neutrality
I thought it necessary to present external links from both sides - PROs and ANTIs. This might help in removing the neutrality warning. But I think it is best if someone present another section addressing the negative views. (Don't say it should be me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F345 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the article World Bank Group contains mostly criticism, and this article contains mostly "about us" style information, so merging the two and rephrasing non-neutral statements would probably result in a more balanced article. -- Beland 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Except that they are different organisations. Thus, merging the two would be akin to merging articles on Christianity and Islam; sure, they may have their similarities, but they arren't the same. 62.72.110.11 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not different organisations: the World Bank refers to the IBRD and the IDA, two of the five institutions of the World Bank Group. So, the World Bank is actually PART OF the World Bank Group.  In which case, two articles is appropriate. Pexise 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I was saying, and what I thought I made clear in the article... You wouldn't say Texas and the USA were the same thing, thus the World Bank and the World Bank Group should not be considered as the same thing either. 62.72.110.11 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How would one go about getting a "to-do" list to remove the neutrality tag?McAlcibiades (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality to-do list
The three above "neutrality" sections of this talk page address, I think, similar concerns. As the article stands today there is a "criticisms" section which is well sourced. I'm sure that there are still a number of issues which need to be addressed; I agree that most of the article is pulled from the "about-us" type pages on the World Bank's own website. Why don't we start a list of "to-do" type items: things that need to be fixed in order for the neutrality tag to be removed. Then we can discuss and tackle each in turn, and make progress to getting rid of that eyesore tag :-). I'll start a list if no one else does, but I'd rather have someone with a stronger opinion else kick it off. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The issues of the missing "Criticism" section and the unbalanced external links section have already been resolved. I failed to find any other specific reasons for the neutrality tag on this talk page. Could anyone point to the specific statements of the article that they believe are POV? This is the only way how we can fix them. If there are no specific POV statements, the tag should be removed. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Especially the section Clean Technology Fund Managment seems rather POV. I'm talking about sentences like because its continued investment in huge coal-fired power plants, as well as its short-sighted proposal to use the Clean Technology Fund as an additional source of money for business as usual. which seem highly polemic to me, furthermore the link to a blog is certainly insufficient for a statement as heavily biased as this one. --Christoph.sta (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The source where appears the statements is not a blog. It is the Congress of the United States. But, I am seeing a change in the WB that is now in some way promoting renewable energies. And now the section´s text has changed.--Mac (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So... what remains on the "to-do" list for the neutrality tag?McAlcibiades (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this page after all the neturality arguments have been sorted through, I can appreciate why the article is no longer considered biased. There is obviously extensive criticism of the Bank put forward; it is a much-maligned global institution. At the same time, I find the overall structure problematic. Even though an overhaul would be a lot of work, I think it would be worthwhile and at the least it is a good lesson for other articles being written up.

My main issue is that the first section is presented as a factual report on what the Bank does, yet includes plenty of self-serving material. For example, the "poverty reduction" section described its aid as "gifts," which I've just corrected as "loans." There are also a number of "in-house" quotes from the Bank. From my experience of working for an NGO I'm very confident that the Bank would have dedicated some of its PR resources to this kind of material. So I think this needs to be signalled in an explicitly "Pro" section, or one marked as representing the Bank's own view.

An alternative solution would be to incorporate the for's and the critics under each specific issue heading. Though it's much more work, I support this proposal as a way of remedying the initial impression that the early material is factual and neutral and the subsequent material is the "opinion" of leftists, liberals, self-hating Jews, socialists, or whatever else you want to call those not given to patriotism and the self-justification of "our" way of running the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thectexperience (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy of map
The map showing the location of the headquarters of the World Bank is quite irrelevant. No reader needs a map to highlight where Washington DC is. Also, there needs to be some schematic purpose for the map i.e. if there were arrows linking the location of the headquarters to various places around the globe then the map would serve some purpose and contribute to the article. At the present moment, it is unnecessary and thus I am removing it. Zuracech lordum (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the evidence?
I see the criticism and the sources, but why are there no examples or statistical information in the article to support the criticisms? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Template deleted.--Obamizacion (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

POV
As I'm going through and copy editing the article I'm finding that a lot of the wording is POV: I think it reads like a corporate advertisement for the bank. For example: GDLN Affiliates collaborate in holding events that connect people across countries and regions for learning and dialogue on development issues. i.e. "They do conferences." Another example: Clients also benefit from the ability of Affiliates to help them choose and apply these tools effectively, and to tap development practitioners and experts worldwide. I'm going to try and remove the POV tone, I welcome any help or input as I do.

On a sort of related note, the article doesn't explain how the GLDN is connected to the WB or why I'm reading about it; or at least I couldn't figure it out. And it's uncited. I'm thinking of taking that section out, what do folks think? Thanks, delldot   &nabla;.  21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything about if they are legit or a fraud?
What are the actual stats of what they got done? There is stats that the lowered extreme poverty but that could still mean they are a fraud, people in extreme poverty can't work. If you get to to be in regular poverty they can still work for low wages. Wouldn't a bank be able to pretty much make as much money as they wanted to give to poor countries through loans (except ask for nothing back) If you really needed to help you can't have the money be paid back with interest unless that country does really sussesuful and then the money being paid back should go to another country. It they are legit why are there still so many countries in poverty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Effectiveness
Apparently World Bank is ineffective? All that belongs to this section is a link to "Criticism of World Bank"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.57.47 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section seems disproportionate to the size of the entire article. It accounts for around 1/3 of the space. It should be cut to a more appropriate size per WP:UNDUE. I'm posting here for discussion. If no one comments, I'll be bold and just make some edits. ask123 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be balanced with the achievements of the bank. But giventhe sources and thirty party reviews, I 'd say cthe criticisms sections would be large.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with you on that. It might make sense to trim some of the wording in the criticism section, and maybe remove some of the unsourced/missourced ones. 24.9.63.64 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, let's work on it. Still very hard to have a NPOV for an organisation which has promoted damaging neoliberalism.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Add a "positive" section if you can find any content for it. But an organization that is so damaging and corrupt with large amount of criticism that it has must be noted and not swept under the rug by ideological users with an itchy finger on the delete button.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.155.37 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

History section : 1989 to the present
This reads:- ''From 1989, World Bank policy changed in response to criticism from many groups. Environmental groups and NGOs were incorporated in the lending of the bank in order to mitigate the effects of the past that prompted such harsh criticism.[15]'' One line on events of the past 22 years! And it's ludicrous! And the only reference is to a book which the vast majority of Wiki readers will not have access to. Nothing substantial changed in 1989 and has not changed since. The bank continued with it's free-market, neo-liberalist policies as it had done under McNamara which it continues with to this day. This section is in dire need of a re-write and I will try and do this soon.  Smokey TheCat  23:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

US Veto Power
I was doing research on the Articles of Agreement, and there appears to been a set of amendments in the agreements which change the majority required for changes from 85% to 80% ("four-fifths"), which goes against the claim that the US can veto with its 15-16% of shares. See: [IBRD / Articles of Agreement, Article IX (pdf version), "Eight-five percent was substituted to four-fifths by amendment effective Febuary 16, 1989"], [IDA / Articles of Agreement, Article IX (html version), also says "four-fifths"]. Not sure about the IFC, since the wording of the html version suggests it either was changed from 80% to 85% or from 85% to 80% sometime in 1993.

Not an expert, so may be wrong. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.159.194 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed that US franchise of the vote for the IBRD is 16%, ICF is 23%, IDA is 11%. Voting franchise power can be seen on tables here: http://go.worldbank.org/VKVDQDUC10. Unless I'm missing something, it would indeed appear the US has unilateral veto power only in the ICF and none of the other two banking institutions. Unless has reason to suggest the World Bank's numbers are incorrect, I would suggest the next editor to do a sweep through the article remove (or clarify it only applies to the ICF) all references of US's unilateral veto power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.3.26 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama's Choice for World Bank Chief?

 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMeE0kC1ArE&feature=g-user-u
 * President Obama is considering naming his former economic advisor Larry Summers to be the World Bank Chief.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.155.37 (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Head of the World Bank
I'm confused about the head of the World Bank. Is it normally a citizen of the U.S. or is it someone who is highly sponsored and backed by the U.S? I know the head of the IMF is normally a European. This notion was challenged in the most recent election of World Bank President. MrNiceGuy1113  (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a convention; it's not written in stone. There's a good article here. bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cattle was the first international currency
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Cattle was the first international currency, and livestock is the oldest form of money, known since 9000years BC. The Latin name for money pecus means  cattle. In parts of Africa, livestock are still used as currency. 78.2.99.53 (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the World Bank.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 00:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This spammer is a known problem. However, when I tried removing the spam it was reinstated by another editor. bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

i need this file in khmer
please write in khmer !!! i need this document in khmer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.242.185 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wolfowitz history
Paul Wolfowitz's article extensively covers his prominent role in promoting the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as the employment of his mistress which pressured his resignation as the head of the World Bank. Wikipedia presents notable reality, warts and all. If any bias has been shown, it has been by virtue of this sanitizing revert. Please read the Wolfowitz article and seek consensus before reverting this again. Activist (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please avoid violation of the 3R rule. Activist (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed
- In the 1944-1974 section of the article more citations can be used in the second body paragraph, there seems to only be one - In the same section, the paragraph right below it does not have any citations - The section from 1980-1989 also only has one citation and could use one in the first body paragraph of that section ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissahaines (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Query - World Bank Group reference
Newcomer, please bear with. What is the purpose of the disambiguation links? [The World Bank page not to be confused with the World Bank Group page? Why are there two separate pages? Why does the World Bank page have more than 20 specific textual references to "World Bank Group" if the subject is "World Bank"? Cannot they be merged?

Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salty3dog (talk • contribs) 08:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

CGAP
Would CGAP qualify as a World Bank training wing? They seem to be missing. I trtied to post the link but apparently the URL is registered on the blacklist. http://www.cgap.org/about TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)