This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
This is my first post to wikipedia, so I apologize if I screw this up. Can someone clarify the statement from the article that "virtually no" resources are spent policing white collar crime? Various federal law enforcement agencies spend enormous resources on investigating white collar cases. Neil the man 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a contentious issue, but I think that in comparison to what we may call (for want of a better term) 'ordinary crime', the resources spent are minimal. Also, while white collar crime is often investigated, it's rarely prosecuted, and it's rarer still that a white collar criminal does time. When he does, it's likely to be in some holiday camp and he's out in a few months. Witness Ernest Saunders, the only man in history to recover naturally from senile dementia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Organi-cultural deviance and white collar crime cover the same ground. While the former article makes the case that the two are separate, this article makes it clear that Sutherland did indeed view corporate/white-collar crime as reflecting systemic socialization of deviance. Having two articles on the same topic is a form of content forkery. Moreover, it's not clear that the organi-cultural deviance model is notable enough one, having only two hits at google scholar and none at JSTOR. — Æµ§œš¹[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - while the two articles mention similar topics, the article on organi-cultural deviance is a philosophical model and a topic of philosophy and the history of philosophical thought on corporate crime. They are not forks since the two address separate topics. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on search results, this term seems uncommon, but search results are not definitive, and this maybe be an issue of obscurity rather than notability. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I see, but just because its obscurity doesn't mean it's not notable doesn't mean it's notable. It seems that this theoretical model is too new and obscure within any field. — Æµ§œš¹[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Support - there seems to be no good reason to maintain this clear content WP:FORK. It's fine there are two names for the same thing - it often happens: we simply redirect the obscure one to the common one, and if there's anything worth merging we merge. There might be a small footnote mentioning that "organi-cultural deviance" is a recent philosophical category on the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Support - I dont see evidence of impact yet. Very low citation count on the PhD paper Systematic differentiation between Dark and Light Leaders; "organi-cultural deviance" has zero hits in Scopus, and the two hits in Google Scholar are both without citations and the AABSS paper hasnt received many web hits yetJohn Vandenberg(chat) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)