Talk:International Electrotechnical Commission

CES/SEC

i don't know but

Swiss Electrotechnical Committee (CES) seems like it should be (SEC) --E-Bod 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Electrotechnical Committee is an English translation of Comité Electrotechnique Suisse. English is not an official language in Switzerland so CES is correct. OK BYE SEE U NEXT TIME

That sounds french. - Thai H. Nguyen 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IEEE vs. IEC

The IEC publishes standards with the IEEE and develops standards jointly with the ISO [...].

Then, why is there IEEE, and which of these two organizations develops what kind of standards? Or, put in another why - why is there IEEE when there already is IEC and ANSI? --Abdull (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IEEE is a professional body originating in the U.S. in the electrics, it is like the college of physicians, bar association, but it also develops standards; it develops industry platforms/standards, not government standards.

ANSI is a U.S. body, not an international body, it develops standards for the U.S., not just for electric stuff

IEC is an international organization it develops electric standards

ISO is a international organization that creates world standards, not restricted to electric ones

IEE is a professional body originating in the UK

BSI is the UK version of ANSI

GB is the PRC version of ANSI

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

What is IEC doing for the ISO standards....???

such as ISO/IEC 7812

• Further information: Talk:ISO/IEC 7812

--222.67.207.250 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

See also...

Unfortunately, there is no consistent organization of the IEC standards pages here. The page may be named IEC-6000, or IEC 6000, or IEC6000. It may be in the IEC category, it may not. It may be on the "list of standards page", it may not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Failed edit

I tried to add 4 links to the "see also" section:

• • All pages starting with IEC: Special:PrefixIndex/IEC
  • All pages in IEC category: [[1]]
  • All pages starting with ISO/IEC: Special:PrefixIndex/ISO/IEC
  • All pages in ISO/IEC category: [[2]]

They aren't very clean links: I don't know how to do better, or if it is impossible to do better. Unfortunately, the change was reverted: it appears that the links were found by some error bot, which, because of the way the links were formed, thought that they were some kind of bad link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quasi-governmental organization

The IEC article has used the description "Non-governmental organization" with no citation to back this up. Reliable sources on the IEC (which is headquartered in Switzerland) tell us that it is, in fact, a "Quasi-governmental organization". Several attempts to replace the uncited and erroneous description have been reverted by other editors for no apparent reason. Can anyone justify why sources should be ignored in favor of the personal preferences of other editors? JimmiCheddar (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The IEC is prima facie an NGO. That the Swiss government calls it something else for the purposes of meting out "privileges, immunities, exemptions and financial contributions" within the legal framework they've set up for themselves in their Host State Act and associated ordinances is irrelevant.

The Genevan government calls the IEC "an independent, non-governmental international organization" [3], the IEC's own Facebook page calls it a non-governmental organization [4], IEC Technical Committee 114 calls it a non-governmental organization [5], and independent authors corroborate that repeatedly: "The IEC was founded in 1906 and is a not-profit, non-governmental organization...", "Despite seeking governmental recognition, the IEC was founded as and remains a nongovernmental organization...", "... it is a non-governmental organization also headquartered in Geneva...", "It is a non-governmental organization with its Central Office in Geneva...".

Attempting to push through this "quasi-governmental" non-sense is a blatantly transparent move to give some shaky support to your arguments at Talk:NEMA connector#Terminology section. It's patently obvious that the IEC is an NGO. CplDHicks2 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please just stick to the facts, not your interpretation of them. The IEC consists of national committees of the member counties. Of the 60 full member countries of the IEC, at least 26 are represented by government departments or government agencies, so whatever the IEC is, it is clearly not "non-governmental".

It is clearly not valid to argue that the Swiss Government (the host state for the IEC) is irrelevant in determining the status of the IEC.

The IEC identifies itself as a "quasi-governmental organization" on at least three separate pages of its official website. The fact that its Facebook page has an error is hardly significant, especially as that Facebook page also states: "The opinions expressed are those of the individual contributors and do not represent an official statement of the IEC."

You attribute a statement to the "Genevan Government", but the page cited is actually part of a site belonging to an independent operation called GVADATA.

You claim that "IEC Technical Committee 114 calls it a non-governmental organization" but the cited page is actually a website operated by the "US Technical Advisory Group" of TC 114, just a local group of a single Technical Committee who are clearly out of step with the IEC headquarters on the subject of the status of the IEC.

I fail to see the significance of references in assorted books which are clearly in error, as they do not quote the official information. JimmiCheddar (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That you fail to see the significance of everybody else on the planet considering the IEC as an NGO is your problem. The North Korean government calls itself a "Democratic People's Republic". It is in fact an authoritarian communist dictatorship, but by your line of reasoning it's a democracy and a republic. Better go make that change at the North Korea article, Jimbo. See how far you get with that.

The Swiss government can make whatever distinctions between "non-governmental" and "quasi-governmental" it wants for its own internal purposes (taxes, grant monies, whatever). To the rest of us on planet Earth who don't really give a damn if this means the IEC pays a different tax rate than the IOC, or whatever it is that the ordinances of the Swiss Host State Act says: if it looks an NGO, walks like an NGO and quacks like an NGO, it's an NGO. That's why an endless number of people call it an NGO. That's why this article calls it an NGO. Argue ad nauseum all you want: quite simply if you disagree, you're wrong. CplDHicks2 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to claim that the most relevant sources are wrong, and that you are right, is not a constructive way forward. Comparing the Swiss Government and the IEC to North Korea is also not constructive. The simplest solution to this would be to remove mention of any reference to NGO from the article and describe the IEC as a "non-profit international standards organization". JimmiCheddar (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the simplest solution is you accept that the IEC is an NGO and move on. "Non-profit international standards organization" = NGO. Removing any mention to NGO from this article is wrong, because the IEC is an NGO. CplDHicks2 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition of quasi-governmental: supported by the government but managed privately

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quasi-governmental

Definition of nongovernmental: not of or relating to government or a particular government : not governmental

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nongovernmental

Quite clearly, an organization which has significant control from a variety of governments is not an NGO. JimmiCheddar (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

So the Swiss taxpayer pays to run IEC? Whose taxpayers pay to run IEC? "Suppported" is a mealy mouth way of saying "paid". Who pays for IEC? Of course our article doesn't know. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So, IEC gets *no* money from the Swiss government and instead relies on standards sales (as anyone who's ever purchased an IEC standard knows, they are worth their weight in gold, perhaps more if you get the PDF versions), and membership fees. Members are "national committees" - in Canada the member is Standards Council of Canada, a corporation, which gets most of its revenue from non-governmental sources. In the US the member is ANSI, whose annual report shows no taxpayer money going in at all. How is it useful or accurate to describe IEC as "quasi" governmental? Boeing gets more money from the US taxpayer than ANSI does - does that make Boeing quasi=governmental, too? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

From one of the sources I quoted earlier[6]; bold is my emphasis:

"Despite seeking governmental recognition, the IEC was founded as and remains a nongovernmental organization. In order to have no 'bureaucratic influence imported into the Commission', national technical societies, rather than governments, were to constitute each country's 'local [IEC] committee" and appoint representatives to the IEC. These national bodies constitute the IEC's member bodies to this day.

Why did the founders put such emphasis on the IEC being a non-govermental organization? Institutional mimicry may have played some role, as the nongovernmental British Institution of Electrical Engineers served as the explicit inspiration for the IEC. But the commitment to the nongovernmental character of the IEC had broad support from many countries' delegates because it served quite diverse interests. For electrical engineers from Britain and the United States, self-regulation was among the hallmarks of the traditional liberal professions (law and medicine) which they sought to emulate. In continental Europe, with its different political traditions and lack of the liberal Anglo-Saxon notion of the "profession", the explict recognition of autonomy and self-government in professional and industry associations (even if sometimes more apparent than real) compensated for the lack of democracy in political life.

The sometimes adamantly nongovernmental character of the IEC has had three important consequences to this day. First, to underscore the nongovernmental cooperative character of the organization, the founding delegates agreed that "every country joining the Commission [should be placed] on an absolutely equal footing", with one vote per country whenever decisions were to be taken by vote. This system ensures that countries do not have influence in the IEC merely because they are large or possess economic or military power resources.

Second, the nongovernmental character of the IEC has restricted the fungibility of power resources. Economically or militarily powerful states have often been able to use seemingly unrelated power resources to influence outcomes in international governmental organizations, such as ITU and WTO — allowing their economic interests sometimes to dominate the preferences of smaller/weaker states (through issue linkage and other means). In IEC standardization, attempts at direct governmental interference are considered illegitimate and rarely even tried: in the International Standards Project's survey about international product standards among manufacturing firms in five industries, barely 6 percent of those who most frequently use IEC standards said they 'sometimes' or 'often' ask for help from the government."

CplDHicks2 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

CplDHicks2, your quote is full of fine ideas and high principles, but it does not represent reality.

Using the links provided by the IEC we can explore National Committees, and how they are related to Government.

Starting with our neighbors to north and south, both are represented by governmental bodies.

Wtshymanski correctly tells us that the Canadian member of IEC is the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), but fails to mention that SCC is a federal Crown corporation which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Definitely not "non-governmental".

Mexico, the National Committee is part of the General Directorate of Standards within the Ministry of Economy of the Government of Mexico.

Most of western Europe is represented by non-governmental bodies, but three are governmental.

Ireland, the National Committee is part of the National Standards Authority of Ireland and is accountable to the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation within the Irish Government.

Luxembourg, the National Committee is part of ILNAS, a public administration under the authority of the Minister of the Economy.

Portugal, the National Committee is part of IPQ and is accountable to the Secretary of State for Industry within the Portuguese Government.

The National Committees of six eastern European countries are also part of government departments.

Czech Republic, the National Committee is part of Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing (UNMZ), part of the State budgetary organisation of the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Russia, the National Committee is part of The Federal Agency on Technical Regulating and Metrology (GOST) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.

Serbia, the National Committee is part of the Institute for Standardization of Serbia founded by the Government of Serbia.

Slovakia, the National Committee is part of the Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing (SOSMT) a central state administration body.

Slovenia, the National Committee is part of the the Slovenian Institute for Standardization founded by the Government of Slovenia.

Ukraine, the National Committee is part of the State Enterprise "Ukrainian Research and Training Center for Standardization, Certification and Quality".

The National Committees of a seven mideast countries are also part of government departments.

Iran, the National Committee is part of the Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran (ISIRI). According to the ISO, ISIRI is a government body.

Kuwait, the National Committee is part of the Kuwait National Committee for Electrical & Electronics (KNCEE) within the Public Authority for Industry.

Oman, the National Committee is part of the Directorate General of Specifications and Measurements, part of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Qatar, the National Committee is operated by the Laboratories and Standardization Affairs (QS), part of the Ministry of Environment.

Saudi Arabia, the National Committee is part of the Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Organization (SASO), headed by the Minister of Commerce and Industry.

Turkey, the National Committee is part of the Turkish Standards Institution (TSE), a public body attached to the Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology.

United Arab Emirates, the National Committee is part of the [http://www.esma.gov.ae/en-us/ESMA/Pages/About-ESMA.aspx Emirates Authority for Standardization and Metrology}, a department of the government of UAE.

The National Committees of three African countries are also part of government departments.

Algeria, the National Committee is part of the Algerian Institute for Standardization (IANOR) under the supervision of the Algerian Ministry of Industry.

Egypt, the Egyptian National IEC Committee (established by presidential decree) is part of the Ministry of Electricity & Energy.

South Africa, the National Committee is part of the (SABS) which operates under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Industry.

The National Committees of ten Asian countries are also part of government departments.

China, the National Committee is part of the Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China (SAC) authorized by the State Council of China.

India, the National Committee is part of the Bureau of Indian Standards which is under the control of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Indonesia, the National Committee is part of the National Standardization Agency of Indonesia (BSN), a Non Departmental Government Institution.

Japan, the National Committee is part of the Technical Regulation, Standards and Conformity Assessment Policy Division of the Industrial Science and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau, within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Korea, the National Committee is part of the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS) which is within the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE).

Malaysia, the National Committee is part of the Department of Standards Malaysia, within the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI).

Pakistan, the National Committee is part of the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), the National Standard Body of Pakistan under the administrative control of Ministry Of Science & Technology.

Philippines, the National Committee is part of the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) under the Department of Trade and Industry.

Singapore, the National Committee is part of the SPRING Singapore (Standards, Productivity & Innovation Board), an agency under the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Thailand, the National Committee is part of the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI), part of the Ministry of Industry.

The National Committee of New Zealand is also part of a government department. Standards New Zealand is a business unit within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Of the 60 IEC full members, a total of at least 32 of the National Committees are within governmental bodies, more than half! Quite clearly the Swiss Government classification of IEC is correct, it is absolutely NOT "non-govermental".

Wikipedia has a clear obligation to not mislead, it is completely wrong to assert that IEC is a "non-governmental organization". I have to question the motives of those who claim that it is. JimmiCheddar (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"CplDHicks2, your quote is full of fine ideas and high principles, but it does not represent reality." No, it does represent reality; that you've chosen to reject reality and substitute it with your own is your own doing and problem. I will remind you that Wikipedia must not contain original research. I have already provided source upon source upon source that say "the IEC is an NGO," which you have summarily ignored. If an overwhelming majority of indepedent, secondary sources say the IEC is a NGO then the IEC is an NGO. I refuse to argue this ad nauseum any further with you. CplDHicks2 (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

CplDHicks2, providing multiple sources which prove you are wrong is not WP:OR! Your idea of an "overwhelming majority" is yet another refusal to accept facts, all you have presented is an underwhelming minority of sources which are clearly incorrect.JimmiCheddar (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 1 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

---

International Electrotechnical Commission → IEC – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACROTITLE: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support not just by the guides but a confusion of always using WP:MALPLACED as a defense. Same with my request at MSHSL. But let's see. Intrisit (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  0889603385GoogIe 175.100.7.135 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Acronyms should generally be avoided unless they are almost exclusively used. Otherwise we'd be moving Royal Air Force to RAF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what the Wikipedia policy at MOS:ACROTITLE says. PhotographyEdits (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not policy, just a guideline, and this is more like Central Intelligence Agency than NASA. Also note second paragraph about natural disambiguation of acronyms; there are other IECs. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  A guideline indeed, thanks! But there are also other NASAs. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comment. Using the full name, rather than an abbreviation, is more encyclopedic in tone. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Both acronyms and full names are "encylopedic", because Wikipedia guidelines allow it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are quite a few other uses of IEC[7][8] and no evidence of primary use nor commonname. Quite a few other organisations appear when searching IEC than this subject. MOS:ACROTITLE does not advocate to use acronyms whether possible if primarily used, per its later sentences and second paragraph, and stating opposition to using CIA, citing its full name is used in "professional and academic publications", not whether it is personally considered encyclop(a)edic or because Wikipedia makes exceptions for it. DankJae 22:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.