This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]