Talk:corporate social responsibility

corporate social responsibility
Given that we have corporate and social responsibility, does this add value to the project? Not that this would necessarily destroy it either, but we seem to be expanding towards defining more and more "soppish" terms. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I didn't actually know there was a term for this, if I had been talking about it in speech I would probably have used some long periphrasis. It does look a bit soppish, but the fact that it is commonly abbreviated to CSR and that there is a Wikipedia article by this name makes me feel it's a specific term for a specific complex of ideas. Ƿidsiþ 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP has entries for, and there are abbreviations of, loads and loads of things we don't want. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Our definition for this is precisely a paraphrase of ours for corportae and ours for social responsibility. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete SOP in classic form; Widsith makes some valid points, but that's simply not we work as of now. Perhaps we need a new way of looking at it (cf. the BP). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since social responsibility exists, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2023–April 2024
Deleted as SOP in 2012, maybe time to re-evaluate. Jberkel 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Tellingly, the only quote we have at social responsibility is "corporate social responsibility", and it seems to be much more common in this combination. – Jberkel 13:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as term of art. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a meaningless corporate buzzword. Corporate PR media is frequently laced with facile, promotional, or vapid jargon in this vein. AP295 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. If it's in use in the language in question, isn't just a transparent combination of other terms, and isn't a term for a specific thing like the name of an individual, we have an entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One can just as easily say it should be deleted as SoP. Descriptivism is all well and fine but if it means wiktionary must include meaningless corporate jargon (if it's not SoP in the first place) then I have to question the value of descriptivism as such a strict, dogmatic approach. AP295 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Naturally I shall follow the rules. I only mean to say that it does not seem ideal to apply absolute prescriptivism or absolute descriptivism. Descriptivism might be easier to justify, but if it's followed strictly and to the point that the language is debased as a result of integrating any sort of nonsense just because people use it, then clearly that's not a responsible approach. In other words I feel it's a bit of a cop out if it's taken to the extreme, because it requires one to enshrine every popular buzzword or stock phrase as long as it's arguably not SoP, regardless of whether such words and phrases are subversive, or politically expedient, or generally a bastardization/distortion of the language at large. It seems like common sense that neither are ideal when they're set in stone.  AP295 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a term of art. We don't delete things because some people can't be bothered to learn what they mean or because they don't like them. We're not a propaganda outlet. Theknightwho (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP (corporate + social responsibility). — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)