Talk:Corporatocracy
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Corporatocracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | On 24 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Corpocracy. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Neutrality dispute
[edit]@Qutlook: Why is this article's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
More info on Lobbying needed
[edit]There needs to be more information on how Lobbying gives Corporations near total control on policy and enacted laws. Maybe mention the scientific study that found that Corporate Interest Lobbyists get what they want (laws enacted, changed, or removed) at a significantly higher rate than the populace. 108.224.106.197 (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you have reliably sourced content, you're welcome to add it to the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- To address the query about how lobbying gives corporations significant control over policy and enacted laws, we can incorporate some key points:Lobbying by corporations and special interest groups has a disproportionate influence on U.S. policy-making compared to the general public. A Princeton University study found that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.Corporate lobbyists often succeed in shaping legislation and regulations to benefit their interests. For example, the financial industry spent $2 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions between 1999-2008, which helped deregulate Wall Street and set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis.The revolving door between government and lobbying firms further entrenches corporate influence. Many former lawmakers and staffers become lobbyists, using their connections to advocate for corporate clients. This creates a system where policy decisions are often aligned with corporate interests rather than public opinion.While lobbying is constitutionally protected, the current system allows wealthy corporations and individuals to have outsized influence through aggressive lobbying and campaign finance. This contributes to a form of corporatocracy, where corporate and financial interests wield significant control over the political process and policy outcomes. 2601:188:CF80:1D00:4981:5659:E8C4:8C86 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.ncsl.org/ethics/how-states-define-lobbying-and-lobbyist 2601:188:CF80:1D00:4981:5659:E8C4:8C86 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you've provided a link to iterations of laws - legal texts - which are primary sources and not valid as sources. You've not linked to the "scientific study" you mentioned previously (assuming you are the same author as the initial comment). Do you have a link to the Princeton study? There's a lot of specific details in what you wrote, but absent are reliable third-party sources for verification. The article already discusses the influence of lobbyists. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- SCHOENHERR, DAVID. “Political Connections and Allocative Distortions.” The Journal of Finance 74, no. 2 (2019): 543–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45097566.
- Rent Seeking in Elite Networks. Rainer Haselmann, David Schoenherr, and Vikrant Vig. Journal of Political Economy 2018 126:4, 1638-1690.
- Terry Moon, David Schoenherr. The rise of a network: Spillover of political patronage and cronyism to the private sector. Journal of Financial Economics. Volume 145, Issue 3, 2022, Pages 970-1005,ISSN 0304-405X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.014.
- + other references added in the text Teodoro.c (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your contribution doesn't belong in the lede as formed; the lede is a summary of the body of the article. Since three of the five entries you added already have articles, at best a sentence mentioning their relationship to corporatocracy with their wikilinks is adequate in the lede; they don't need to be covered directly in the body nor are citations necessary. The fourth of the five has no cites, and isn't discussed in the body; it's written as narrative - it needs to be removed in its current state. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see now that rather than linking to neoliberalism, you wikilinked to ordoliberalism, a distinctly different philosophy from neo-. This is inappropriate, you should never misrepresent the underlying wikilink. I'm removing the entire addition for the reasons I previously mentioned and for the diversionary wikilink. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are censoring moved by political reasons, this is not fair. The paragraph I added was taken by copying and paste information you can find about the same concept but in different languages in Wikipedia. It seems to me, that the English version of this concept is intentionally deeply censored and left inappropriately empty. I am adding again as it was but correcting ordoliberalism. Teodoro.c (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I pointed out, it does not belong in the lede if it is not detailed in the body of the article. The manual of style is very clear, the lede of a paragraph is a summary of the body of the article. Your additions are not discussed at all with any detail in the body. Just because a different language wiki has an improperly written lede does not mean that it supersedes the standards. Put the information in the body, then summarize in the lede. Or alternatively, simplify what you've added down to single sentences summarizing the destination wikilinked articles. I am again removing. And I'll remind that impugning another editor's motives broadly as you have is a violation of civility standards. I gave a clear and detailed rationale for the removal - and recommendations for how it could be addressed; the claims of 'censorship' and 'bias' are meritless. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- So actually, all I saw was the diff before I came here which appeared at first glance to just be a wholesale restoration into the lede. I see now that you moved it to the body. So I am not removing the material. The only remaining problem, and a glaring one, is ordoliberalism. The description provided doesn't match with what ordoliberalism is; neither does the wikipedia article on ordoliberalism claim what you've claimed. In fact, the citation you provided is specifically "The limits of neoliberalism" - not ordoliberalism. That entry I'm removing, as it's unrelated to the concept described in this article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I pointed out, it does not belong in the lede if it is not detailed in the body of the article. The manual of style is very clear, the lede of a paragraph is a summary of the body of the article. Your additions are not discussed at all with any detail in the body. Just because a different language wiki has an improperly written lede does not mean that it supersedes the standards. Put the information in the body, then summarize in the lede. Or alternatively, simplify what you've added down to single sentences summarizing the destination wikilinked articles. I am again removing. And I'll remind that impugning another editor's motives broadly as you have is a violation of civility standards. I gave a clear and detailed rationale for the removal - and recommendations for how it could be addressed; the claims of 'censorship' and 'bias' are meritless. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are censoring moved by political reasons, this is not fair. The paragraph I added was taken by copying and paste information you can find about the same concept but in different languages in Wikipedia. It seems to me, that the English version of this concept is intentionally deeply censored and left inappropriately empty. I am adding again as it was but correcting ordoliberalism. Teodoro.c (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see now that rather than linking to neoliberalism, you wikilinked to ordoliberalism, a distinctly different philosophy from neo-. This is inappropriate, you should never misrepresent the underlying wikilink. I'm removing the entire addition for the reasons I previously mentioned and for the diversionary wikilink. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your contribution doesn't belong in the lede as formed; the lede is a summary of the body of the article. Since three of the five entries you added already have articles, at best a sentence mentioning their relationship to corporatocracy with their wikilinks is adequate in the lede; they don't need to be covered directly in the body nor are citations necessary. The fourth of the five has no cites, and isn't discussed in the body; it's written as narrative - it needs to be removed in its current state. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you've provided a link to iterations of laws - legal texts - which are primary sources and not valid as sources. You've not linked to the "scientific study" you mentioned previously (assuming you are the same author as the initial comment). Do you have a link to the Princeton study? There's a lot of specific details in what you wrote, but absent are reliable third-party sources for verification. The article already discusses the influence of lobbyists. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.ncsl.org/ethics/how-states-define-lobbying-and-lobbyist 2601:188:CF80:1D00:4981:5659:E8C4:8C86 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- To address the query about how lobbying gives corporations significant control over policy and enacted laws, we can incorporate some key points:Lobbying by corporations and special interest groups has a disproportionate influence on U.S. policy-making compared to the general public. A Princeton University study found that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.Corporate lobbyists often succeed in shaping legislation and regulations to benefit their interests. For example, the financial industry spent $2 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions between 1999-2008, which helped deregulate Wall Street and set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis.The revolving door between government and lobbying firms further entrenches corporate influence. Many former lawmakers and staffers become lobbyists, using their connections to advocate for corporate clients. This creates a system where policy decisions are often aligned with corporate interests rather than public opinion.While lobbying is constitutionally protected, the current system allows wealthy corporations and individuals to have outsized influence through aggressive lobbying and campaign finance. This contributes to a form of corporatocracy, where corporate and financial interests wield significant control over the political process and policy outcomes. 2601:188:CF80:1D00:4981:5659:E8C4:8C86 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Should Zeitgeist be included as a corporatocracy example?
[edit]I feel like it talks more about conspiracy theories than as a proper example of corporatocracies in general. Might want to delete it maybe? As a first step. 152.208.66.57 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, its reliability on the matter this article discusses is wiped out by its focus on conspiracy theories. WP isn't a list of things that might be related. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 24 November 2024
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Corporatocracy → Corpocracy – "Corporatocracy" sounds pretty awkward, thus some people started to use "Corpocracy" instead these days. 67.209.130.137 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose While "corpocracy" does seem to be used, Google Ngrams shows that "corporatocracy" still gets more than twice the usage in books. The nom has not offered evidence why that should be ignored for the lesser-used version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per reasons immediately above per Zxcvbnm. "some people" isn't a metric for making changes. I would have no objection to having a redirect put in place for corpocracy to corporatocracy. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.