Talk:Corporation
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Corporation 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Incomprehensible passage
[edit]I'm challenging a series of mostly unsourced edits by User:Danielsltt on 19 April 2023 which added this incomprehensible passage:
A corporation's spatio-temporal positioning is legislatively arbitrary to its formation. Often the market defines these boundaries according to the invisible hand theory. Instead, the two elements of a corporation that define its legislative identity and are therefore nonarbitrary delimitations to its formation and existence are which jurisdiction (or sets of jurisdictions in the case of international corporations) it belongs to, and what subject area or areas it performs activities within.
This is supported at the end by an explanatory footnote which is also equally incomprehensible.
I have litigated several cases involving corporate structure, and I took Business Associations in law school with Lynn M. LoPucki, so I have a fairly solid grasp of corporate law. I have no idea what that passage is trying to say. It reads like a word salad or a parody of legalese, the kind of thing an artificial intelligence would write if asked to "write like a lawyer". Any objections before I take out the garbage? Coolcaesar (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with removal. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Entity or "group of people"?
[edit]The first sentence states that a corporation is both a "group of people" and a "legal entity". But it can't be both. A group of people is a partnership. A corporation is a legal entity. Therefore, "group of people" should be deleted. Also, stating that the corporation is a "company" which if you following the link is a "legal entity" is redundant with defining a corporation as a "legal entity". I would delete "company" and just state that a corporation is a "legal entity." Does this make sense to anyone? 190.14.207.107 (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
This section should state the types of corporations
[edit]The article states: "Corporations come in many different types but are usually divided by the law of the jurisdiction where they are chartered based on two aspects: whether they can issue stock, or whether they are formed to make a profit." What about non-profit corporations or government corporations, like a incorporated township or the post office? Also, you have public and private corporations that are for profit and able to issue stock. 190.14.207.107 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Is the corporation a "group of people" or an "entity"
[edit]The article states: "Depending on the number of owners, a corporation can be classified as aggregate (the subject of this article)" First, everyone knows that shareholders do not own the corporate assets or the corporation. Second, someone needs to decide whether the corporation is defined best as an "aggregate" (i.e., "group of people") or an "entity." It can't be both. 190.14.207.107 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
There a many inaccuracies in this article. Here is yet another.
[edit]"Limited liability separates control of a company from ownership and means that a passive shareholder in a corporation will not be personally liable either for contractually agreed obligations of the corporation," First, limited liability is NOT a defining feature of a corporation. Corporations did not have limited liability for shareholders in the past. Second, shareholders are NOT owners. Third, limited liability is not the reason for the separation of ownership and control--See Berle and Means 1932. Forth, activist shareholders also have limited liability, so they don't need to be passive. 190.14.207.107 (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Shareholders do not appoint boards
[edit]"Shareholders do not typically actively manage a corporation; shareholders instead elect or appoint a board of directors" Shareholders do NOT "appoint" a board. When the founders and state create the corporation, the founders appoint a board, then the board sells stock. Does anyone disagree? Also, in a non-profit corporation, there are no shareholders and boards, like a board of trustees, is appointed by other trustees, the president, and I'm not sure who else.190.14.207.107 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class Finance & Investment articles
- High-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- C-Class law articles
- Top-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles