Jump to content

Talk:Interlocking directorate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Afalbrig (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 9 March 2015 (POV-check). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POV-check

Phrases line "They help the upper class maintain a class advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers" along with a collection of citations that appear to overrepresent one political philosophy makes me question whether the article has a neutral point of view. Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are factual statements from a social science perspective e.g., critical theory, and should be accepted just like in any other encyclopedia. If someone wishes to include a non-academic or capitalist/opposing perspective, this can be done by adding that to the article.BRodriguez222 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that they are factual or from a single perspective, but I do agree that they are commonly accepted by social theorists, and are coming from high-quality academic sources, so there is no reason that they should not be included. I also agree that perceived problems with NPOV are fixed by presenting and including alternative sources, rather than just complaining about it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag based upon the above. I just wanted another set of eyes to look at it. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way it works is that your buddies sit on your Board of Directors, and you sit on theirs, then you all vote each other sky-high raises. This can happen whether or not the company is doing well, and the ordinary workers - the people who get the job done - might be getting no increase, or a few extra peanuts thrown their way at the very most. So "help the upper class maintain a class advantage" seems like a pretty straightforward statement of fact.
Also, obviously this is detrimental to the shareholders, since the exorbitant CEO salaries could instead be going into dividends. Just wondering - has anyone challenged this arrangement in court on the grounds of conflict of interest? Afalbrig (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]