This edit removed most of the original sourced material and is not particularly well written, would anyone mind if i reverted this back to the previous edit? Would people prefer if I attempted to include the new info into the (largely deleted) original charecterisitics? Muppet317 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this but edited the first paragraph and intend to edit the rest of the entry, ideally with everybody else's help and agreement to get an entry which we can all accept. At the moment, the entry seems to me to be written from some sort of marxist, companies-are-evil stand-point and so is highly contentious. My own stand-point is that capitalism is not a noble or beautiful system but it's the least bad system on offer - and it does produce growth. I realise others think differently, but the aim of Wikipedia is to provide non-contentious information. For example, the assertion is made that corporations are amoral because they aren't individuals but legal entities - the same could be said about any organisation, including the Anglican Church, Oxfam or the ACLU. Organisations are run by individuals operating in more or less complex structures, and they are run within a framework of law, morality, custom and practice, habit, human psychology etc. It is simply naive marxism to assert that because a company isn't a person it doesn't have a morality. There is this kind of tendentious assertion throughout the entry.
Someone put on an NPOV dispute on the page but didnt say why, although many may not agree with the rules of corporate behaviour as outlined they are are described as 'proposed' not actual, and thus (in my view) does not contravene NPOV. Does anyone have a specific dispute? Muppet317 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Muppet: As the person who put the dispute on this article did not sign in, or give reasons for the NVOP, it is probably right to seek the NVOP removed and revert to your text. Your are right to assert that they are only proposed rules. Perhaps you should capitalize the word proposed. S.J.Davis
A few questions that need resolving regarding this article
1) Why the inclusion of the actions of individuals? Surely the point of corporate behaviour is that it is the action of a corporation in itself, although these actions may not always be the intended ourcome of any individuals involved. Furthermore whilst the effects of corporate behaviour on individuals may be a useful sociological side effect I do not see this as central to the issue of corporate behaviour.
2) I think an explicit division needs to be made between business/capitalist corporations and noncapitalist corporations (NGOs, charities etc) as I think the proposed rules of corporate behaviour can only be seen to apply to capitalist corporations.
If no-one disagrees with this would people like me to attempt these changes (removal of references to indiviudals, creation of distinction between business and non-business coporations)? Muppet317 12/12/05
Muppet317: Go ahead and edit the page. Your points are well made. Divisions make sense and perhaps more divisions than you mentioned are required, for I feel there is are great difference between the circumstances, opportunites and and behaviour of the largest corporations and the smallest. I would, however, like you to please include a paragraph or sentence that indicates that it is possible for an individual or group to exhibit corporate behaviour (captialist form or otherwise), that is, think/behave like a corporation. This is justified under the title of corporate behaviour, but perhaps needs to be placed under a subtitle such as, 'The influence of corporate behaviour on society'. What do you think?
(Other titles also come to mind such as, 'The influence of corporate behaviour on the environment', 'The influence of corporate behaviour on the media' and 'The influence of corporate behaviour on politics and government'.)
By the way, my aim was not to post a anti-corporation or controversial article. I just wanted to start an article about something that is not often written/read about in this format and that people may need more information about. Clearly my first attempt contained information that may have made capitalist corporations seem a negative. This was not my whole intention. I hope the page can be developed in a more even way, but we should not avoid valid and factual information that makes certain corporations, people or groups feel uncomfortable. Regards, Stuart J. Davis 14/12/05
Stuart Cheers, Will do my best! Muppet317 14/12/05
The 81.179.253.7 edit (addition to 11 rules of corporate behaviour) was me, forgot to login Muppet317 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite done, please edit away, i took off the NPOV disputation as the article is now totally different, and I changed the word rules for characteristeritcs as although this word has wekaer connotations it is less likely to offend so hopefully this article can avoid any NPOV problems for a while! Muppet317 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Muppet317 Looks good. I will give it a read and make some notes. If I make anything other than very minor edits, e.g., spelling mistakes or wording, I will not edit the text directly. I will instead place it on this discussion board. I think that will be best. Regards, SJD 15/12/05
