Talk:MSCI
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
EM index includes chinese companies - Controversy?[edit]
1. FTSE, Dow Jones, Bloomberg, Solactive all have indices including chinese stocks. do they also under pressure from the chinese government? 2. The argument Chinese Government pressured MSCI to include stocks in their index is not sourced. There is only originally WSJ questioning it without even a reliable source. 3. How is including chinese companies so relevant to msci, that a paragraph in the lead is necessary? --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 20:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1. If there are reliable sources saying so, then yes, such a view should presumably be included in corresponding articles. 2. This is sourced and elaborated in the main text, and the lead is a summary of it. 3. We should simply follow MOS:LEAD and WP:CREATELEAD to create a NPOV lead. Normchou 💬 21:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1+2. Again. there is only a WSJ assumption on the reason that MSCI including China. WSJ mentioned there is no evidence or source but just "according to people familiar with the matter" to push away the responsibility and verifiability of the report. Strangely WSJ didn't assume the other stock index companies include them under pressure. 3. There is no need to include it in the lead because it doesn't reflect the correct importance of this action to the image of whole MSCI. It should be removed from the lead totally, and the "inclusion action" should be written more specifically. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 07:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hello. I trimmed the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:EDITORIAL content you added. Please WP:DISCLOSE if you are subject to WP:COI editing. Normchou 💬 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- 1+2. Again. there is only a WSJ assumption on the reason that MSCI including China. WSJ mentioned there is no evidence or source but just "according to people familiar with the matter" to push away the responsibility and verifiability of the report. Strangely WSJ didn't assume the other stock index companies include them under pressure. 3. There is no need to include it in the lead because it doesn't reflect the correct importance of this action to the image of whole MSCI. It should be removed from the lead totally, and the "inclusion action" should be written more specifically. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 07:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Start-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- Start-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles