Talk:Anti-corporate activism/Archives/2012

Unverified claims
Yeah, except that the article makes several unverified claims and does not make any reference to source material or research that has been done on the topic. It mainly references other WP articles. Writing a good WP article is not about "writing whater [comes] to mind on the topic." It's just like writing an encyclopedia entry, except the "encyclopedia" readers here are allowed to review what you've done, and the original writer should come back to this and improve it. Print encyclopedia writers must do research and make citations, and just because WP is a new type of sources does not mean article writers can get away with "winging" it. Because so many WP article writers do "wing" it, and get away with it, WP gets no respect from libraries and scholars.Azlib77 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Corporations often do NOT answer to shareholders. In recent years there have even been cases in which the corporate board has tried their darndest to not only keep shareholders in the dark but also out of meetings and refuse questions at annual shareholder meetings. Corporations answer to the bottom line. And that is the bottom line. -Sanjay Schmitt


 * Actually you are wrong. While you are right CEO's dont directly answer to shareholders - the danger is far greater. CEO's main job priority it to increase the value of the stock. Hence they are "answering" to share holders means it is completely rational for them to only pursue increasing profits despite the human or enviromental damage. It is impossible to miss if you are well read on history since this has been the trend since the industrial revolution.

This article leaves anarchists completely out of the anti-corporate movement.

Can people please sign with four tildes so we can know who's talking?. Julia Rossi 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"By anti-religious propagandizing in the corporate-managed American media, "religious fundamentalists", "radical Islamic" "terrorists", and any other organization that opposes the conversion to corporate materialism, people who wish not to engage corporate America and participate in materialistic consumerism, are condemned, outcast, criminalized, and forced to the margins of society. Their culture and their way of life destroyed, they cannot live devoted to the religious ideologies that bring them peace, relaxation, and well-being, or to the culture they create, but can only submit to the corporate culture, a culture that has yet to prove it is in any way more worthy of leadership."

Is this for real? I propose either scrapping this page or inserting some serious NPOV tags. This is ridiculous. 83.226.206.82 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This article could have been useful but there are no references to any of the assertions made. 76.90.197.222 (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article is just a propaganda piece for the ideas and activities it attempts to describe. The introduction sounds like a pamphlet written by a paranoid schizophrenic. I'm not a fan of the corporation by any means. In fact, I agree with much of this article. However, this article has obviously been filled with attempts to persuade readers to one side of the debate through sensational claims, exaggerated language, and arguments which have no sources. I have found a couple sources which back up a few of these radical claims, but they are mostly from various anti-corporate websites (obviously POV to suit our needs.) Wikipedia would be even closer toward total rubbish if every article were this POV and sensationalized. The first couple of paragraphs are actually well written, informative, and generalized. Blanket-statements like "corporations, in the ongoing pursuit of material production and devotion to material ends, neglect the soul of humankind, intentionally forcing not only Americans, but the rest of the world to abandon their religious convictions and their religious practices," really make me think scrapping is the only way to go. Please save the sensational preaching for your own website, and let Wikipedia maintain some sense of credibility. 173.21.142.84 (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The token paragraph regarding any opposition to the claims presented made the article seem even less informative and more biased than it had to that point. I am currently researching corporations for a writing project and will be putting together a better opposition section to make this article more neutral. Litterarum (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs
There were a couple of refs that didn't show up in the way they were placed in the text so I fixed them and removed the tag since there are sources and now refs though there could be more. Over to you, Julia Rossi 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very bad entry
This article needs a really serious editing. Too many claims without proof and a general tone way too far from the kind of neutral and balanced description you would expect from a serious encyclopaedia.

The first section is especially preposterous. What the hell is that disturbing religious overtone ??. 147.188.104.182 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)