Talk:Anti-globalization movement/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

The term "anti-globalization"

This term is rejected by almost every person who involved in the movement. I suggest moving all this content to a new article called "anti-neoliberalism"--a neutral term--and creating a new anti-globalization article that basically explains that the term "anti-globalization" is a perjorative term for the anti-neoliberal movement.

I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for the claim that the term "anti-globalization" is rejected by "almost every person who is involved in the movement." Even if that's true, I don't think it's a reason for renaming the article, as "anti-globalization" is the most common term used to refer to the movement (so, the term which most Wikipedia readers are likely to be looking for), and I don't think there is another term around which the movements could find consensus on using (for instance, some anti-capitalists oppose "anti-neoliberalism" because they believe it implies that non-neoliberal capitalism would be preferable; I imagine some NGOs might think that there specific issue is not included in the term "anti-neoloberalism"). -- VoluntarySlave 02:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
well, the term anti-globalization is seen as implying isolationism or even opposition to mutliculturalism. the "anti-globalization" movement is emphatically in favor of multicultural exchange and discourse...

---Because globalization has meanings which are cultural, technical, and economic, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find many people who call themselves "anti-globalization". My perception is that "anti-globalization" folks such as labor unionists, ecologists, farmers, sweatshop workers, people whose governments have undergone IMF structural adjustments, etc. -- are mostly not against globalizations like the Kyoto treaty, watching Bollywood movies outside of India, a certain amount of immigration, the spread of some technology, and international solidarity movements.

As far as evidence that the term "anti-globalization" is unpopular within the movement: in her book Another World Is Possible If..., the ATTAC-affiliated writer Susan George says the first thing she says to reporters who ask her about the "anti-globalization" movement is to not call it that, because she is for fair globalization; in Noam Chomsky's Wikipedia article, they discuss how Chomsky doesn't like the term because he feels it is misleading; Naomi Klein, who is like the poster-girl for the English-language "anti-globalization" movement, discusses in this article 

-- http://www.alternet.org/story/14175/ --

how she wishes people would quit calling it the "anti-globalization" movement; when talking to the writer George Monbiot, one journalist 

--http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0714-05.htm --

said that "...Anti-globalization Movement' turns out to be a name invented by journalists that has stuck. All the activists reject it, not least because it offers ammunition to opponents ('How can you be against Globalization? Are you against air travel? The internet? Cheap international phone calls?')" "Anti-neoliberalism" is too narrow, but "anti-globalization" is downright misleading. I would support the redirect of the article to another name, like the Global Justice Movement or Movement of Movements: if Wikipedia readers are looking for "anti-globalization", they'll just get redirected...Katsam

I think this is absolutely right. This is definitely a perjorative term used by detractors to discredit the movement. It's hopelessly pov, as if the "women's rights movement" article was under the heading "antimotherhood movement." I suggest it be moved to "Global Justice Movement," the preferred name for members of the movement in question (121,000) hits in Google. Sylvain1972 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said below, I don't think we can fairly use any label. We should take the most NPOV approach and put information about the movement at "Movement against neoliberal globalization". Then, anti-globalization, alter-globalization, Global Justice Movement, Movement of Movements, etc. can exist as separate pages. The anti-globalization article can focus on the usage of the label anti-globalization by the media, and on how activists have responded to that term. That's the only option I see as truly fair. Sarge Baldy 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better to move everything to "Movement against neoliberal globalization", rather than fracture the article into a million pieces for every obscure sub label. Sylvain1972 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I think all the movement elements should all be in the same place, and that place should be neutral (hence why we should use a descriptory title rather than an imprecise label). If after cutting those parts out of the articles enough remains to be worthy of a separate article (I think there would be in the case of anti-globalization, if not for any of the other terms) then that's OK. But actually you're right. We'd be able to use a single article to cover the movement instead of the 5 we have right now. It's superfluous, but as long as we're sticking to using labels we're going to have repeated content. There seemed to be support for the suggested change below. Even if not everyone thought it was a necessary, I haven't heard any specific complaints about the idea. If there aren't any, it might be a good idea to go ahead and make it happen. Sarge Baldy 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though the term "anti-globalization" is more known than others (Alter-globalization for example) I don't think that's reason enough to chose that term. I find the term Anti-globalization incorrect and misleading and very political. As said, many who's against the current form of economic globalization objects to the term, and is wholeheartedly for other forms of globalization, especially when it's globalization in both ways (leading to enrichment of culture in societies) instead of one way globalization ("americanization"). If the name of the article is misleading and objected to by it's proponents, then I think the number of "google hits" or such comparements doesn't matter. Because otherwise we could just as well rename the "Orange" article to "Apple" because "Apple" gets more hits on google. I know I'm making an absurd comparement now, but consider this: if a democratic political movement in a dictature would be called The party of Pedophile Alcoholics (or something like that...) by it's goverment, and would thus also be known by the large majority of it's population by that name, then what would wikipedia name it? --Merat 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How many people considered part of this movement would actually call themselves "anti-globalization"? First, let's take the word from its actual root. "Globalization" comes from root the word "globe", so it is a noun meaning "the state of becoming globalized." And the closest meaning of "globalization", I think, would be the world, and individual parts of the world, becoming closer and more united, more "one globe", than before. And I believe that most so-called "anti-globalizers" would not object to that idea. What I think most other "anti-globalizers" are against is such worldwide consequences of capitalism and free trade as destruction of the environment, growing inequality, and of course, the commercialization of anything and everything. In other words, they're not against globalization, but against certain groups' interpretation of it. I think that "anti-globalization" to describe this movement, was used mainly by the movement's opponents, such as neo-liberal economists, conservative think tanks, etc., which just became mainstream usage because of their use of the term. In fact, it would seem as though the neo-liberals have hijacked the word "globalization" to spread their own agenda. Where in the world "globalization" do you see anything about capitalism? Since when was it proven that capitalism was the only way to achieve globalization? The Communists wanted to form a world union of communist states as well (that's what the Comintern and Cominform were for) - does that mean communism should be associated with globalization too? Just some observations.

I agree. "Anti globalization" is not a self chosen term for this movement. These talk entries are several years old, without any opposing opinion presented since so it should be changed now.Morphriz (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Anti-globalization" is a POV term rejected by most members of the movement itself. Most "anti-globalization" activists are for the globalization of human rights, environmental protection and fair trade. Alter-globalization is much better. WP:RM describes the procedure for renaming an article. 94.222.118.188 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We faced the same semantic dilemma over a decade ago at the N25 community conference in Perth, at which speakers from left, right and centre were equally welcome. The ethos of the day can be judged from this relevant paper by Walden Bello. As a pragmatic solution (since most intelligent people accept the positive potential of 'globalisation') we agreed to use the term globalism for the destructive, human-negative version being promoted by the transnational corporations and neoliberals. It worked with all the speakers (though we had no-one representing the 'globalists'). Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-winged anti-globalisation

All the root causes over here are mentioned only from the view of left-winged anti-globalisation. What about the various right-winged nationalist anti-globalisation such as the euro-skeptics and other such parties?(Lihaas (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)).

I think it may be unhelpful to categorise globalisation and its discontents in simplistic boolean terms derived from French party politics in 1789.
However, if there are anti-globalisation groups or positions that this article currently neglects, it would be good to explore that. What sources have you got? bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ross Perot running in 1992 was specifically Anti-Globalization, and anti-Nafta. Pat Buchanan, and other members of the reform party. Ron Paul is currently an anti-globalist. Anyone who wants to end Foreign end, remove our relationship to the UN significantly is anti-globalists whether its through xenophobic populism or anti-immigration rhetoric towerofrebel 11:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towerofrebel (talk • contribs)

There is no anti-globalization movement

According to wikipedia rules the articles about ideas and movements, religions etc. etc. should be presented as its representators view it. also criticism is part of the article, but the self-identification of representators is the starting point. Thus the name of the article should be "globalization criticism" or "globalization critical movement" or something like that --128.214.205.5 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The term "alter-globalization" is better. In France the term altermondialisation is used quite commonly by the mainstream press. 94.222.118.188 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Or even "global social movement", as it is seen in the world social forum as a counter forum to the world economic forum, the neoliberal project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.4.33 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The peaceful 10,000 are unchanged. The ten non-conforming rioters would represent a separate minority impulse to be dealt with by the demonstrators and/or the civil authorities (cops)-- which would be a relatively small and swift matter. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the fact that a few violent elements in an otherwise peaceful protest can color the entire demonstration. Those few make it much more difficult for the law-abiding majority to assemble peacefully without continuous searches and shakedowns by the local authorities who have to assume and prepare for the worst. URBINA, IAN, "Getting Out the Anti-Globalization Message", The New York Times, September 24, 2009, 10:33 AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.58.37 (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject Globalization

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge with "global justice movement" and "alterglobalization movement"

Hi I don't edit Wikipedia, but I am a specialist in this area and strongly suggest that this article be merged with the articles "global justice movement" and "alterglobalization movement," these terms are often used interchangeably and refer to the same phenomenon. Thanks and keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.72.101 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2013

Please edit the first paragraph of the "Opposition to international financial institutions and transnational corporations" section. The wording was confusing, therefore, this new wording should make more since to readers.

The anti-globalization movement believes that global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization, undermine local decision-making methods and open local economies to multinational rule. Multinational corporations, using these economic institutions, and free trade agreements, are able to exercise privileges that human 1.citizens and small businesses cannot,[10] including the ability to: 2. move freely across borders to find new markets and exploit cheap labor, 3. extract desired [resources] from a variety of locations, and choose regions of operations based on convenient laws and policies. The movement strives for an end to the legal status of "[personhood],” the dissolution of [market fundamentalism,] and the radical economic privatization measures of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization.


Please put these edits in the second paragraph of the "Opposition to international financial institutions and transnational corporations...the "In light of..." already exits, however, please at the sentences that follows.

In light of the economic gap between rich and poor countries, movement adherents claim “free trade” without measures in place to protect the environment and the health and well being of workers will contribute only to strengthening the power of industrialized nations (often termed the "North" in opposition to the developing world's "South"). Proponents of this realm of thought refer to the process as polarization, arguing that the current, neo-liberal economic policies have given wealthier states an advantage over developing nations leading their exploitation and a widening of the global wealth gap.[1] EvaWestheimer (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

These are very specific claims to generalize to a very broad social movement with differing camps within that movement. Does the [10] notation in the 1st paragraph indicate these are claims made by Stiglitz in reference list #10? Regards, Meclee (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Partly done: Thank you, EvaWestheimer, for pointing out the lack of clarity in these paragraphs and for contributing this text and source. I have copy edited the section using much of the material you provided. I have noted the comment by User:Meclee and have taken care to avoid expanding the claims beyond those already made in the article, but have included the last part, for which you provided a citation. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Byrne, Hensby, Darren J., Alexander (2011). Theorizing Global Studies. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 57.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Early incorrect reference

Reference 2 leads to page 146 of Girardet's book, which talks about a particular clothing manufacturer's design methodology.

This reference should be changed to page 185, where the membership of the MST is actually stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.139.50 (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Universal suffrage

This statement from Freedom house is incorrect. The increase in universal suffrage, from no nations in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.[68]

New Zealand had universal suffrage in 1893.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anti-globalization movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on Anti-globalization movement. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong anti-extradition protest

Extradition bill is a kind of legal-cooperation between countries or legal entity. It is a part of international legal-cooperation and should be consider as a part of globalisation movement.

So, should the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests consider a part of anti-globalization movement? It is one of the largest protest in the city since 1967. 

Joeccho (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Joeccho: The anti-globalization movement does not comprise any and all protests against international cooperation. It should not be included unless there are reliable sources that consistently label these protests as part of the anti-globalization movement. --MarioGom (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-globalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anti-globalism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to individuals here

Two discussion have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

  1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
  2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-globalization_movement/Archive_4&oldid=1224268595"