Talk:International Development Association

International Development Association has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Globalization High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization 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.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Revision

This article is being discussed at the World Bank Group talk page. Please visit to participate in the discussion about the future of this article. --Brettbergeron 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improve section

Missing info on IDA replenishments.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMDK:22495227~menuPK:6827445~pagePK:51236175~piPK:437394~theSitePK:73154,00.html

Phd8511 (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section

is inaccurate. All sources mostly from the Bank itself.Phd8511 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred the following post by Phd8511 from my talk since it should rather be posted here on the article's talk. John Shandy` • talk 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references ignore the power relations in the creation of IDA. The US was never initially supportive of the IDA; it was only the threat of developing countries forming UN-related fund that the IDA was created.

Read

Kapur, D., Lewis, J.P. and Webb, R., 1997a, The World Bank: Its First Half Century: Volume 1: History, Washington DC : Brooklings Institution Press

However I usually lose out in arguments with Wikiepedia editors. If you believe what you wrote about IDA's history is 100% accurate, then you can spread that information. Phd8511 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you lose out in arguments with Wikipedia editors, but perhaps you are starting arguments that needn't be had? Maybe I am mistaken, but looking at your posts here and at your edit summaries in this article's history, I perceive a presumptuous and snarky tone. I invite you to assume good faith on my part, as I can promise that I have no agenda to "spread" any kind of glory or misinformation about the IDA. I never consider any revisions I make to be final, and I am happy to review those sources and revise the history section accordingly. Have you considered that perhaps I hadn't found those sources and this is the first time I've seen them? Perhaps I didn't have access to them? Perhaps I have some sources on a shelf or on my computer that I've not yet had time to read and review? These are the kinds of good faith assumptions that help keep Wikipedia civil and collaborative.

Yes, I have used quite a lot of the IDA's website and publications as sources, because they are quality reliable sources, but I have not used them to write promotional verbiage or glorify the association in any way. Further, I did make an effort to bring in outside sources (from the Center for Global Development, The Economist, Financial Times, Bretton Woods Project, Bank Information Center, and from the Independent Evaluation Group). I found some journal articles on Elsevier's ScienceDirect, but I no longer have access to any university's subscription databases as I am no longer a graduate student or employee. So clearly, I have made an effort not to inject or spread misinformation and I think that should be acknowledged.

Further, you bring these sources only now... You had been editing the history section of the article as recently as July 5, 2012. Looking at that revision of the article, I see that none of those sources were cited, and indeed not even any other source was ever cited to support the "power play" lines in either the History section or the lead. Since no sources were cited to support it and I didn't come across any that could be cited to support it, I tentatively removed it. Seeing as you have sources and you even added the citation needed template, you could have cited these sources yourself (WP:SOFIXIT). At any rate, you don't need to, because I am happy to do it. I will obtain those sources you've listed and revise the section accordingly. It may take me some time to revise the history section, but I didn't start editing this article to make drive-by edits and I intend to work on this article over the long term. As for your assertion that the entire section is inaccurate, that's a rather odd claim - it can be added to, I agree, but to say that everything contained within it is simply wrong is entirely unconstructive. At least now it cites numerous sources and the reader can verify that all of the content is characterizing what the referenced material says by actually reading the sources cited. John Shandy` • talk 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical reply. Never mind. Facts come from sources not Wikipedia.Phd8511 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that facts come from sources; everything I added to the article cites a source. Everything I removed from the article did not cite a source. You have provided new sources that I will happily read and review, to incorporate their facts into the article (with citations). But all of this has little to do with the fact that you posted a snarky message accusing me of "spreading information I believe to be true" - where are your sources that I am acting on such an agenda? Oh? You have none? Why are you griping at inadequacies in my edits that I had no sources with which to correct, while you instead were sitting on them and not actually using them in the article? In other words, why are you bitching at someone else for not doing what you could have done yourself? Are you familiar with the concept of laziness? If you think my reply was a "typical reply," then perhaps you should lose your typical hostile attitude? You also seem not to have actually read my reply, as I said I will be happy to review the sources you mentioned and revise the article to cover the political power plays. In other words, I said I'd do your work for you, despite your whiny complaint and rude assumption of bad faith. John Shandy` • talk 22:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have obtained the Kapur, Lewis, & Webb book and have found its discussion of the background and politics behind the establishment of the IDA. I will read it and modify the History section to more accurately reflect these soon. John Shandy` • talk 22:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the history section with the Gwin chapter of the Kapur book, and have also been adding more content with journal articles as references. John Shandy` • talk 01:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very pro-US.Phd8511 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replenishment section

inaccurate too. Limited range of sources.Phd8511 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete? Perhaps. Inaccurate? Questionable without further detail as to inaccuracies since the material is referenced. And yes, there is a limited range of sources. Seeing as I am human and not an android, it is entirely consistent that I haven't found or referenced every single source on the planet that ever discussed IDA replenishment rounds. You are welcome to provide new references and help incorporate them into the section. John Shandy` • talk 22:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again typical reply that I've heard before. Sitting from a typical high ground.Phd8511 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one sitting from a typical high ground? How do you figure? I made an extensive series of good faith edits to the article, expanding it from 18 cited sources to 32 cited sources. I tentatively removed some content for which absolutely no source was cited. Then, I find a message on my user talk page accusing me of spreading information I believe, rather than information published in reliable sources. The message also complained about me not adding information contained in sources I didn't even know of, that you could have added to the article weeks ago on July 5th when you last edited the History section. Again, your laziness is not my fault, so you could lose your attitude and dampen your presumptuous tone when suggesting improvements for the article. I think you have it duly backwards as to who is acting like they're on higher ground, and that is clear from your edit summaries like "some writers just dont know theri IDA facts", "THIS IS ALL WRONG. Edits to come", and talk page posts like "inaccurate" (followed by nothing substantive). I have no problem revising the article to incorporate the political power plays, or more information on IDA replenishment rounds, but you are wrong, and I will let you know that you are wrong, to levy unreasonable expectations on me or assume bad faith in my edits. John Shandy` • talk 23:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have revised the section on replenishment rounds to give an explanation of some of the political power plays in IDA replenishment negotiations citing the Gwin chapter of the Kapur book. I think I have addressed your major concerns about this section. John Shandy` • talk 20:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. There's more about replenishment that the Edited book I cited. Alas, typical Wikipedia.Phd8511 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not write more about it? I honestly don't know much about replenishment rounds and I don't have any other sources that cover them in detail, so I added what I could and the rest I need help with. All you've done is criticize my efforts. John Shandy` • talk 08:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, best to leave it to experts.Phd8511 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

history is not history

fails to accurately show US influence over IDA formation and tussle betweeen UN and IBRD.Phd8511 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations need updating

2nd and 30th do not open to citation. Also the lending section could use more updated information and other countries Japswep21 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International Development Association. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]