Talk:Multilateral Agreement on Investment/Archives/2014

Undue weight

Having lengthy quotes of protest rhetoric is surely undue weight on those opponents' POV. Can't we have a neutral article? bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. The recently added blockquote from Social Alternatives is undue weight and as such violates NPOV. Also other blockquotes in this article are too excessive. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful for these proposals to be explained with more precision and with reference to precisely what "protest rhetoric" is being objected to. For instance, Beagel, in making this edit, are you requesting proof that Chomsky's reported statement is truly sourced to the cited article? Or are you suggesting that everything published by Z Magazine is unreliable irrespective of the authorship? or do you simply not wish to see Chomsky's arguments published? I would suggest that a cited argument is better dealt with, if you wish to do so, by balancing it with a contrary or refuting argument which is itself cited to a reliable source. It seems to me that the same applies to the (hardly lengthy) content of which Bobrayner disapproves and chose to remove without entering invited discussion. In fact, a valid blockquote was provided in place of content which he had labelled as "unsourced rhetoric". We are, after all, talking about a section headed "Protest movement". It seems obvious that the arguments of the global protest movement prevailed over the OECD, thus giving them more than mere rhetorical force. Bjenks (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern was (and is) that the person's website is a primary source about the person and therefore it is not considered as reliable—notwithstanding that this piece is a reprint, it is still a primary source. I did not considered the reliability of Z Magazine before, but as you raised the issue, I have to agree with you that Z Magazine is not a reliable source. Which raises the next question what makes Chomsky's opinion notable in the context of MAI?

As for neutrality, it is true that all significant views should be presented. However, this does not mean they could or should be presented in a promotional way. Opening the section with a blockquote is not presenting of views in neutral and balanced way. Beagel (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Chomsky article appears (in a less clear format) on the Z Magazine website, having been published in hard copy in May, 1998. It would be a simple matter to change the citation if desirable. I offered no opinion about whether Z Magazine is a reliable source. I see no reason to question it as a reliable vehicle for academic papers, notwithstanding its "left-wing" selectivity. In my experience, Chomsky is a respected if controversial commentator on social theory and trade policy issues. It is open to you or others to challenge the cited proposition in detail without simply dismissing all his writings as POV or non-neutral. The Varney-Martin blockquote was inserted by myself in response to the blanking of the Protest movement section's entire introduction (not without some justification) on the grounds that it was "unsourced rhetoric". You may wish to try improving the intro in another way or, alternatively, be a little more specific about your objection to the citation. Bjenks (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)