Talk:Company town/Archives/2014
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Possible non-neutral point of view
I'm concerned that there may be a biased POV on this article; it seems to praise company towns, talking about "enlightened industrialists" seeking to "improve the conditions of workers" and not, say, cement control over additional aspects of their lives and prevent them from having any livelihood without the company, and also to ensure that workers' wages went back into the company's pockets. Especially the bit about "model company towns." Company towns and company stores were a big factor in the rise of trade unions and this article doesn't seem to talk about that at all. It touches occasionally on the poor living conditions but only occasionally and rarely on any of the backlash against them. Someone knowledgeable about the Industrial Revolution should look it over and see what isn't being said. Someone should also check to make sure that the sources actually say what they are claimed to say and that they represent both sides of the topic. Until then I am adding an NPOV template to it. Thank you. --71.116.235.10 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The article cites various scholars and does not take any particular viewpoint. What reliable sources are you relying upon for all those claims? Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is that a hint of sarcasm I detect in your tone? To answer your question, I was given a free and upstanding public education by the God-blessed United States of America, and during it I learned about the history of company towns and their significance in the Industrial Revolution. Holt, Rinehart, Winston & McDougal can back me up on this, and if you would like to call upon them yourself personally, I am sure they would be willing to take my side. For instance, I am alarmed that the article bears absolutely no mention of the Waltham-Lowell system, which created collective company housing for textile workers, or the fact that the mills mainly employed women and children and required workers to work long hours in difficult conditions. If I still had my high school textbook I would cite the exact page number that this arrangement is mentioned on, but sadly I am not an academic scholar on the subject of company housing, which is why I asked for someone who is better-equipped with the resources to review this content. Even if what is in this article is well-cited, there is more to be said that is not present, and that is still NPOV. (For that matter, some of what is there could stand to be reworded or expounded on.) --71.116.235.10 (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes old highschool textbooks that were read many years ago and then discarded. Or maybe it's the teacher's lecture that was remembered, or maybe something else. The Wikipedia rules require much stronger evidence. The rules only allow university textbooks. see WP:OR. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is that a hint of sarcasm I detect in your tone? To answer your question, I was given a free and upstanding public education by the God-blessed United States of America, and during it I learned about the history of company towns and their significance in the Industrial Revolution. Holt, Rinehart, Winston & McDougal can back me up on this, and if you would like to call upon them yourself personally, I am sure they would be willing to take my side. For instance, I am alarmed that the article bears absolutely no mention of the Waltham-Lowell system, which created collective company housing for textile workers, or the fact that the mills mainly employed women and children and required workers to work long hours in difficult conditions. If I still had my high school textbook I would cite the exact page number that this arrangement is mentioned on, but sadly I am not an academic scholar on the subject of company housing, which is why I asked for someone who is better-equipped with the resources to review this content. Even if what is in this article is well-cited, there is more to be said that is not present, and that is still NPOV. (For that matter, some of what is there could stand to be reworded or expounded on.) --71.116.235.10 (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The article cites various scholars and does not take any particular viewpoint. What reliable sources are you relying upon for all those claims? Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)