Talk:Anti-globalization movement/Archive 2

message: Aren't the MANY predicted effects of invading Iraq one consequence of this highly mobilized net-connected "movement of movements"?  When in history were there so many predictions and warnings and claims made about what would happen if a certain decision were taken?  That should probably be mentioned here too in the "Empire" section.  Also you need to link Oil imperialism I'd think.
----
I'm currently working on material for the history of Seattle. Clearly, in that context the events of N30 (and the local aspects of the growth of the movement against global corporatism) are significant: without them, you can't understand the present-day politics of the city. I get the sense that material has been repeatedly added and deleted; for example, this article has a broken link to what must once have been a first-person account (or accounts) of the events. It seems to me that the first serious confrontation between the forces on both sides of this conflict deserves article-length discussion just as much as does a military battle. Is it hard to get to NPOV on controversial, recent material? As they say in Ballard, "Ja, sure, you betcha." But I get the sense that material keeps being deleted from the wikipedia instead of accumulated and balanced. 
This is the first I've looked at this page, but I assume someone who is monitoring it can help me: Can anyone help me track down (even deleted) material - and not just in this one article - related to the events so I can mine it for the context of Seattle history? -- Jmabel 18:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe, there was a text here earlier this year that was an excerpt from a first-hand report written by Jeffrey St Clair. It was refactored out and later deleted because it was copyrighted source material. The full text of the article is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/seattlediary.html I participated in N30 and this article is the best description I have seen of it. HTH -- Viajero 18:40, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, yes, I am familiar with that article (I was subscribing to Counterpunch at the time, although my subscription has since lapsed). That's useful, but what I'm hoping is that someone can help me track down more than that. I've also left my question at the Reference Desk. -- Jmabel 19:04, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Inquiry

message: At the top of the page globalization is linked to, and then defined.  We can have two edit wars over what globalization means, on the anti-globalization movement page and on the globalization page, I figure it's better to leave that for the latter, so I removed the definition from this page (which I felt was NPOV, and the definition of which should be on the other page anyway).
I also changed it to "[they want to change] perceived negative [aspects of globalization]...".  Anti-globalization makes it sound like people are absolutely against globalization, whatever that means.  Anti-globalization was just a label created in conservative think tanks - no group defines itself as "anti-" something, for example in abortion there is the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies, they both define themselves in positive terms.  In other words, I think the term anti-globalization is loaded to begin with, thus if you use it it has to be qualified.
:I agree it should be qualified - in fact that's what an article is, one big qualifier - but it would be confusing to change the name of this page since most people on both sides of the debate refer to the movement as "anti-globalization" whether they mean it literally or not.
:However by any measure the "anti-globalization" movement does seem to want less globalization than free tradeing liberal internationalists (or however you frame the opposition). Do you have to be completely against comething to be anti- it? -- stewacide 17:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of changes

message: A recent, anonymous edit commented only as "NPOV" removed the phrase "far right" as characterizing the French National Front (Jean Marie Le Pen's party). I do not see how this characterization is POV. In fact, without it the paragraph makes little sense. Merely being nationalist is not why they are not seen as part of this movement: that would apply to plenty of participants in the movement. It is precisely their far right politics that were the point of the sentence. (BTW, I was not the author of the passage in question.) -- Jmabel 06:07, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: This is a pretty good article, but it could be better. I notice that there are a lot of weasel terms in the article. I'm not an expert in anti-globalisation, but I'm certainly open to it. As it currently stands, this article could do with a lot work, I'm afraid. Here are the sections of text I'm concerned with:
* "Many of those involved in the movement regard the term "anti-globalization" as a misnomer..." - can we have some examples?
* "Some factions of the movement reject globalization as such..." - which factions?
* "Some activists in the movement have objected not to capitalism or international markets as such but rather..." - which activists?
* "Activists often also oppose business alliances like..." - which activists?
* "Others argue that, if borders are opened to capital..." - I'm no expert in the anti-globalization movement, so I have no way of knowing who these people are. If I don't know who says these things, then how can I check out this information? I'm sure someone who is involved in this movement could clarify this very easily though.
* "Critics claim this form of publicity is expensive in police time and the public purse" - which critics?
* "Some call this an anti-monoculture movement, and make strong links between ecological, social, and ideological diversity doctrines." - I'm sure there are, but who is saying this exactly?!?
* In "Influence on the developing world", the phrase "Some people claim that the major mobilizations have taken place mainly in the developed world" - which people claim this?
* In the criticism section, we have a whole paragraph like the preceding!
::The anti-globalization movement has been heavily criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of right-wing thinktanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of free trade policies. Participants in the movement dismiss these criticisms as carping from a tiny minority who can express their opinions via what they call the corporate media. They claim that the criticisms themselves are self-serving and unrepresentative of informed popular opinion.
* "A survey that was made recently during such a protest has shown that at least 40% of the people protesting could not define the meaning of the word globalisation nor list actual reasons against what they are protesting." - firstly, don't use the word "recently". This dates very quickly. Secondly, what survey? How do I know that the author just isn't making this up?!? Anyone could write this. Heck, I could write that a survey of recent elephants showed that most didn't actually know what a mouse was, let alone be terrified of it! :P Please cite your source please, otherwise remove it.
* "This contrasts with the 'goals' of those in the movement, in favour of improving the conditions of ordinary farmers and workers everywhere." Why is the word goals in quotation marks?
* "Anti-globalization activists counter" please say who these activists are. I would like to be able to check out this myself!
* "Some have criticized its claim to be non-violent." - who has criticised its claim? Give evidence!
* "Aside from the indisputably violent tactics by a minority of protesters (possibly aggravated by the police), some see a enforced blockade of events and public throughways as a violent action, in and of itself." - double whammy. Firstly, this is the POV of the first author. Remove the term "indisputably" and this might make it better... just. Secondly, it then says "some see a enforced blockage of events..." - who says this?! Give evidence.
* "Some believe that the key organisers are really Trotskyite" - who believes this?! Again, give evidence so I can check out your assertion.
* "The counterargument to this is that the movement has a very horizontal power structure" Give evidence.
So, people, can we please clean up this article. It has the potential to be really effective, it just needs a few modifications and clarifications!
Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have some clarifications in this article?