Talk:The Corporation (2003 film)

message: I just read through this wiki and cannot believe the level of advocacy. This is not neutral. The endless belaboring of the Economist vs. Chomsky must be cut. I am going to report this as a non-NPOV article.
Kasyapa
Done. See reasons above. The summary of the film is so detailed it almost approaches transcript level - which raises copyright issues. The writer's apparent intent is to get as much of the film's anti-corporate message on wiki as possible.
Kasyapa
:As is, this article is simply ridiculous. It starts off as a discussion of the movie and trails off into a dissertation on socio-economics. I've moved the entire text of the disputed section here so that people may work on it without a lot of reverting and conflicting edits on the main page. I've also essentially chopped each subsection down a paragraph or so to make the article more readable. Unless a paragraph had a direct mention to the film, I removed it. I also removed the bit about "relevant history" at the very end since it seemed to refer to the article author rather than the film. Kerowyn  Leave a note  07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is horribly off-topic and definitely not NPOV.  The entire section on criticism needs to be removed.  The summary needs to be cut down SIGNIFICANTLY.  The former especially is very unencyclopedic, with obvious spin for whichever side the last editor came from.  I would recommend that the article be written, possibly making it one or two pages long, but I neither have the time nor the inclination.128.54.152.174 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This article is horrendous.  Definitely one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia.  I'm a fan of the film, and I don't see how reading anything on this page would convince a casual movie viewer that the film is worth watching.  Not that it should be convincing people to watch the film, but this article would have the complete opposite effect.  Why does 90% of this article focus on one single review by The Economist???  Who is the brainiac who included all of that?  This thing needs to be rewritten from start to finish. VietGrant 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still POV issues, very obvious ones. Refer to the comment Upset at the bottom of the page for reference. Flying Hamster (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious POV issues 

message: Another blind RV from Mr. Lopez. I sincerely apologize for the POV adjustments in sentence structure. J. Parker Stone 06:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind RV 

message: Can someone who knows this film well help me out? There is a scene (i think it's in the history part) about a new formed corporation polluting a river while the members who made the decision to pollute the river didn't actually want to do it (i think they fished there or something). Does this story have a page on this wiki or can I find it elsewhere? Thanks. TheTyrant 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polluted river 

message: Were they removed on purpose? Why? I can't even find the diff where they were removed in that huge horrible list of changes by 75.42.133.17 --Closedmouth 12:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the anon forgot to put an end tag on a reference. --Bobblehead 12:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, a tiny little mistake like that can really cause a lot of damage to the article. --Closedmouth 12:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the external links? 

message: Why the hell is the MIM even mentioned? The MIM are a tiny and insignificant political group in the United States that is only well known because of its incredibly extreme positions ('all sex is rape under capitalism', 'there is no white working class' etc), its hillarous website (which include movie and game reviews) and its strong internet presence, particularly on various left-wing forums. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that in most likelyhood the paragraph was added by a MIM-er or a MIM sympathiser. Should we list the views of every tiny crackpot organisation? No, no we should not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.114.182.17 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: If this were an article on almost anything else, the NPOV arguement would be warranted. Problem is, this article is about a film which is itself non-NPOV. Thus, the article itself is bound to be non-NPOV. Concerning the Economist v. Chomsky bit, whoever said it is only partially right. Generally in my time on Wikipedia there's always been a criticism section that presents either diametric opposition thought, or mere alternative views. I suppose that rather than lynching The Economist, we ought to diversify the criticism section. Vegasrebel29 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning NPOV 

message: I reverted every section except the detailed plot summary back to June of 2006.  THe criticism section was basically a dialectic between several far left and far right political philosophies.  Several anonymous editors, apparently not farmiliar with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, were able to have ongoing debates between their political philosophies throughout the criticism section especially.  It's kind of strange that it's taken half a year to revert them.  Oh well.--Urthogie 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not debate your opinions in the text of a Wikipedia article 

message: The article describes the Kathie Lee Gifford apparel incident as occurring in Honduras.  However, I'm pretty sure that in the film, Charles Kernaghan visits an El Salvador sweatshop.  Unless anyone knows better, I'm going to switch this. Maxisdetermined 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The related book says Honduras.  I've not seen the film recently.  86.53.37.59 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Histories: Honduras? 

message: I'm currently trying to pare the film summary down substantially; right now I only have the time to make micro-edits (eg; taking out the most ergregious POV issues). Unfortunately, the way in which the film itself jumps around makes things tricky (why the heck couldn't they have put all the Monsanto stuff in one section? Oh well), but I think the article would be best served by very brief descriptions of the segments, with copious internal links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.45.176 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article is in need of any major change.  Your previous mass deletes are unwarranted, and have been reverted by others. Serouj (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all details should be kept, and indeed add value to the article.  If you'd like to write a shorter summary, then create a new section preceding it. Serouj (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Self-reverted. I had forgotten to check the talk page for prior discussion. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing in Process 

message: I propose that we trim the plot summary (currently nearly 4,000 words in length) to just the overview section.  --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no comments on this proposal to date, I propose to go ahead and perform the edit on 7 February if there are no objections or queries. --Tony Sidaway 10:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith, you could have made your point without the accusations of vandalism. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed he was going to trim it down to the size and scope of an article about a Dawson's Creek episode; I didn't assume he didn't think it was the right thing to do. Allow me to reiterate: No! Bad idea! The statements made and documents preserved in the film are easily verifiable and apply to a wide range of topics like George W. Bush, Nike, corporations, capitalism, and even seeds. If you're 100% sure that a verifiable statement from a notable source is cited everywhere else in Wikipedia it would apply then trim or delete--otherwise you're detracting from the overall goal which is to make Wikipedia the sum of notable human knowledge. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, obviously the description of the documentary's content (call it plot summary or whatever) is at 4,000 words in a 4,500 word article, much, much too detailed.  Where is the discussion of the documentary's significance, reception and impact to justify this very large verbatim description of its content? --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: trim the long plot summary to the overview

message: You cant refer to an article as not mentioning something, citing itself as evidence. Come on! The line in question is "The Economist review suggests that the idea for an organization as a psychopathic entity originated with Max Weber, in regards to government bureaucracy. Also, the reviewer remarks that the film weighs heavily in favor of public ownership as a solution to the evils depicted, while failing to acknowledge the magnitude of evils committed by governments in the name of public ownership, such as those of the Communist Party in the former USSR." and I am only not changing it myself to say shame. shame. Flying Hamster (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upset 

message: Synopsis section includes: "we avoided meeting the question". (see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and Corporate personhood debate)</ref>
Should that bit be moved into References section (by adding an open ref <ref>) or do Wikipedia articles not belong in References section?  --EarthFurst (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references on Wikipedia. That's just silly. However, that was not what the material added by Scientus was doing. The entire thing was a footnote not a reference. There was a reference for the footnote (the "118 U.S. 394 (1886) - According to the official court Syllabus in the United States Reports" part) in the footnote which the MediaWiki software can't handle (it's like a ref inside a ref). The "see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and Corporate personhood debate" part was like a See also, not an actual reference. I've fixed all the issues now, so it's all good. --kollision (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article using another wikipedia article as ref? 

message: Is the critique of the Economist" really substantial? The "economist"says:
Although the moviemakers claim ownership of the company-as-psychopath idea, it predates them by a century, and rightfully belongs, in its full form, to Max Weber, the German sociologist. For Weber, the key form of social organisation defining the modern age was bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have flourished because their efficient and rational division and application of labour is powerful. But a cost attends this power. As cogs in a larger, purposeful machine, people become alienated from the traditional morals that guide human relationships as they pursue the goal of the collective organisation. There is, in Weber's famous phrase, a “parcelling-out of the soul”.
For Weber, the greater potential tyranny lay not with the economic bureaucracies of capitalism, but the state bureaucracies of socialism. The psychopathic national socialism of Nazi Germany, communism of Stalinist Soviet rule and fascism of imperial Japan (whose oppressive bureaucratic machinery has survived well into the modern era) surely bear Weber out. http://www.economist.com/node/2647328?story_id=2647328
I take this as the economist saying: the movie gets it not quite right. weber had the idea first. 
However, I am not particular familiar with Weber's thoughts. But taking the communist and facist bureaucracies as an example can't have been Weber's idea. He died in 1920, but the russian revolution just had occured then and the fascist regimes not even began. Any ideas to that? --77.11.52.251 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  weber as originator of the concept 

message: "and the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy"
The DSM-IV does not list 'Psychopathy' as a disorder; it replaces Psychopathy and Sociopathy with the much less-well-defined Antisocial Personality Disorder. So, is it referencing the DSM-IV's guidelines for APD or the Hare Psychopathy Checklist for Psychopathy? 69.14.160.22 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM-IV Psychopathy... 

message: Add * Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work  97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  This is more about psychological warfare, than about psychopaths.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only tangentially related, due to having a couple of words in common in their rhetoric. There's no need to take a word so literally; we might as well add As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly to WikiProject Dogs. bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add * ''[[Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work]]'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Corporation (film). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601232720/http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314 to http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)