This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Regulatory capture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
As much as I don't like the tone above, I must agree with this anonymous user that this article carries an agenda pretty heavily. Certainly illustrive examples are helpful in encyclopedic articles, but it is not appropriate to go into so much detail on the example. There is more on net neutrality than on regulatory capture. Furthermore, I don't see the need for this specific example, given that there are already good examples above in the Department of Agriculture, etc.
As much as net neutrality seems like a good cause, this is not the proper format for it's promotion and I can't help but see its description here as a POV promotion of net neutrality.
Since I am not the only one who thinks this, I'm going to delete the section and paste it here for someone who can go through and figure out what, if any, of it is necessary for this article, from a neutral point of view.
This article really ought to make a bigger deal of it. Also the CIA is a regulatory agency, as it a has a great deal of autonomy in the subject of foreign policy. -- 85.76.85.231 ( talk) 13:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Collect information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the basis for decision and action.
- Produce timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America’s interests.
- Conduct covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.
This just in from the department of not getting the irony:
The Editing of Wikipedia itself is an example of regulatory capture.
I'm not joking, and I'm not trolling, either.
I've not put this in the article because its original research, but the fundamental problem with examples of regulatory capture is that it is always contentious (unless you can prove actual corruption, such as bribes):
Thus any allegation of "regulatory capture" can be challenged as biased.
Rather than a list of examples, it might be better to have a list of mechanisms of regulatory capture. These can then be illustrated with concrete examples. For example revolving doors might be illustrated with an example of a head of a regulatory agency moving to a highly paid job as a consultant to a big company in the same industry. PaulJohnson ( talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
After reading this fascinating article several times, and looking around, I've been wondering; What if regulatory capture gets even stronger? What if instead of laws being attacked, nations themselves were? ...a full merger between State and Corporations? We'd really be up Shit Creek. Corporatocracy? But what about when even the culture/society is assimilated? What if it becomes Orwellian?
.... State capture is similar to regulatory capture but differs in the scale and variety of influenced areas and, unlike regulatory capture, the private influence is never overt.[5] The private influences cannot be discovered by lawful processes,[citation needed] since the legislative process, judiciary, electoral process, and/or executive powers have been subverted....
Nowhere in the article is State capture mentioned. (But it does have a "See Also.") It should be described, at least to differentiate it from regulatory capture. That would also better define the dividing lines and powers of regulatory capture.
Nobel Prize winning economist
George Stigler suggests capture will become the norm for any regulatory agency. Doesn't that include the Wiki monitors and bots, etc? Should that be in the article? (Who remembers what
Winston Smith's job was?) Cheers!
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (
talk)
15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Two users appear to be edit warring over the inclusion of a list of examples. I personally think it's quite clear that there are too many examples -- they make up over half the length of the article -- and that they are too US-centric are speculative, but I'd prefer to see a consensus form than to just join the edit warring.
I'd like to see it cut down to five examples max. Thoughts? Smithereen ( talk) 05:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello I am not a veteran Wikipedia editor or anything of the sort, but I have been following the developments on this particle article for several years, so I am very sorry if I am not formatting this correctly. I became interested in this article because I read it when it had the examples section and found it very informative, and when I went to find the article years later I not only found the examples section missing, but also found it very difficult to find modern examples of regulatory capture on the internet. To me the examples section is the most valuable section of the article, and it is difficult to find such a concise list of examples of modern regulatory capture on the web. I think that you are making this criticism in good faith. They are very United States centric examples, and they do form a considerable section of the article, however this example section is an invaluable resource for documenting and educating the public on examples of regulatory capture. I do hope that this section stays up and stays attached to this article so that there is an accessible log of examples of regulatory capture for the public.
If it is too wordy for this article then I think it would be better to move "Examples of Regulatory Capture" to it's own article, then to just remove it outright from the internet. I would still prefer it to stay intact with the article. I also believe that the tricky subject of a regulatory body, given that the regulatory body is assumed to be the most credible authority on what they are regulating, being captured and acting outside the regulatory intentions of the body, has inherent difficulties around being able to find official sources. For what it is worth I find the Examples section to be invaluable. I believe that due to the tricky subject matter any attempt to remove significant portions of the Example sections should be received with caution and skepticism, and reverted until it has been thoroughly reviewed that such revisions were put forward in good faith instead of vandalism. It is clear that you have reviewed the edits on this article, so I also hope you understand why I find mostly anonymous IPs and one editor repeatedly removing more than half of this article without proper justification, worthy of suspicion. 205.178.106.97 ( talk) 23:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the second commenter’s view that the list in extremely valuable and shouldn’t be pared down. JustinReilly ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Regulatory capture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
As much as I don't like the tone above, I must agree with this anonymous user that this article carries an agenda pretty heavily. Certainly illustrive examples are helpful in encyclopedic articles, but it is not appropriate to go into so much detail on the example. There is more on net neutrality than on regulatory capture. Furthermore, I don't see the need for this specific example, given that there are already good examples above in the Department of Agriculture, etc.
As much as net neutrality seems like a good cause, this is not the proper format for it's promotion and I can't help but see its description here as a POV promotion of net neutrality.
Since I am not the only one who thinks this, I'm going to delete the section and paste it here for someone who can go through and figure out what, if any, of it is necessary for this article, from a neutral point of view.
This article really ought to make a bigger deal of it. Also the CIA is a regulatory agency, as it a has a great deal of autonomy in the subject of foreign policy. -- 85.76.85.231 ( talk) 13:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Collect information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the basis for decision and action.
- Produce timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America’s interests.
- Conduct covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.
This just in from the department of not getting the irony:
The Editing of Wikipedia itself is an example of regulatory capture.
I'm not joking, and I'm not trolling, either.
I've not put this in the article because its original research, but the fundamental problem with examples of regulatory capture is that it is always contentious (unless you can prove actual corruption, such as bribes):
Thus any allegation of "regulatory capture" can be challenged as biased.
Rather than a list of examples, it might be better to have a list of mechanisms of regulatory capture. These can then be illustrated with concrete examples. For example revolving doors might be illustrated with an example of a head of a regulatory agency moving to a highly paid job as a consultant to a big company in the same industry. PaulJohnson ( talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
After reading this fascinating article several times, and looking around, I've been wondering; What if regulatory capture gets even stronger? What if instead of laws being attacked, nations themselves were? ...a full merger between State and Corporations? We'd really be up Shit Creek. Corporatocracy? But what about when even the culture/society is assimilated? What if it becomes Orwellian?
.... State capture is similar to regulatory capture but differs in the scale and variety of influenced areas and, unlike regulatory capture, the private influence is never overt.[5] The private influences cannot be discovered by lawful processes,[citation needed] since the legislative process, judiciary, electoral process, and/or executive powers have been subverted....
Nowhere in the article is State capture mentioned. (But it does have a "See Also.") It should be described, at least to differentiate it from regulatory capture. That would also better define the dividing lines and powers of regulatory capture.
Nobel Prize winning economist
George Stigler suggests capture will become the norm for any regulatory agency. Doesn't that include the Wiki monitors and bots, etc? Should that be in the article? (Who remembers what
Winston Smith's job was?) Cheers!
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (
talk)
15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Two users appear to be edit warring over the inclusion of a list of examples. I personally think it's quite clear that there are too many examples -- they make up over half the length of the article -- and that they are too US-centric are speculative, but I'd prefer to see a consensus form than to just join the edit warring.
I'd like to see it cut down to five examples max. Thoughts? Smithereen ( talk) 05:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello I am not a veteran Wikipedia editor or anything of the sort, but I have been following the developments on this particle article for several years, so I am very sorry if I am not formatting this correctly. I became interested in this article because I read it when it had the examples section and found it very informative, and when I went to find the article years later I not only found the examples section missing, but also found it very difficult to find modern examples of regulatory capture on the internet. To me the examples section is the most valuable section of the article, and it is difficult to find such a concise list of examples of modern regulatory capture on the web. I think that you are making this criticism in good faith. They are very United States centric examples, and they do form a considerable section of the article, however this example section is an invaluable resource for documenting and educating the public on examples of regulatory capture. I do hope that this section stays up and stays attached to this article so that there is an accessible log of examples of regulatory capture for the public.
If it is too wordy for this article then I think it would be better to move "Examples of Regulatory Capture" to it's own article, then to just remove it outright from the internet. I would still prefer it to stay intact with the article. I also believe that the tricky subject of a regulatory body, given that the regulatory body is assumed to be the most credible authority on what they are regulating, being captured and acting outside the regulatory intentions of the body, has inherent difficulties around being able to find official sources. For what it is worth I find the Examples section to be invaluable. I believe that due to the tricky subject matter any attempt to remove significant portions of the Example sections should be received with caution and skepticism, and reverted until it has been thoroughly reviewed that such revisions were put forward in good faith instead of vandalism. It is clear that you have reviewed the edits on this article, so I also hope you understand why I find mostly anonymous IPs and one editor repeatedly removing more than half of this article without proper justification, worthy of suspicion. 205.178.106.97 ( talk) 23:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the second commenter’s view that the list in extremely valuable and shouldn’t be pared down. JustinReilly ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)