Jump to content

Talk:Corporation/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Changes to the article

This article is so f-ed up, it's hard to know where to begin. I think if BD24 wants to edit, s/he needs to read up on "entity shielding". Please read: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Kraakman_et%20al_546.pdf After that, I will make the edit and then you won't delete it. What do you say BD24? This, too: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2077298

I have made another edit. Please read so we can improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Every time, I make an edit, BD24 reverts it. And the dude won't discuss anything. Is the corporation an artificial joint creation of private parties and the state? Yes! BD24 won't allow the change. ETC. Dibadj 2013 (MIS)CONCEPTIONS OF THE CORPORATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain the exact changes you want to make and why you think they should be made. Just complaining that another editor reverted your edits and/or posting links without explanation doesn't enlighten anyone, or allow them to comment on your suggestion. General Ization Talk 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone is deleting my stuff. Let's start here: I have explained the exact change. I'll do it again: The corporation is an artificial entity. It is a creation of the state and private parties. It is privileged by the state to act as a single contracting entity. (See Dibadj 2013 (MIS)CONCEPTIONS OF THE CORPORATION). The corporation does not need to be an organization. Delete this and just say, "artificial entity".

So can I replace "organization" with "artificial entity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Watch how long this question sits here with zero discussion. The owner of the page refuses to discuss anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Show me, please, mainstream discussions of the corporation as a concept that use the exact term "artificial entity" to define a corporation. We rely on reliable, published sources here, not the ideas or interpretations of our editors (see WP:OR), nor on academic articles that do not reflect the mainstream. Dibadj is offering a novel idea, but that paper itself states that "the artificial entity theory [has] fallen deeply out of favor". We must therefore infer that it is not a widely-held theory. Please see WP:FRINGE amd WP:UNDUE. There is no "owner" of this page, but there are experienced editors here and they can and do revert added content when it is improperly referenced, reflects other than a neutral point of view, and/or otherwise does not conform to Wikipedia policies, or if someone appears to be attempting to hijack a Wikipedia article to promote themselves or their theories. General Ization Talk 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
My plan is to say what the corporation actual is, an artificial entity, and then to discuss the legal conceptualizations. It is obviously not a natural person, which is the current conception. Another approach is to state the various conceptions with the artificial entity theory being the first one. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
First, please always sign your edits on this or any Talk page. If you expect other editors to participate in the discussion, assist them in following who is speaking and when by taking a half-second of your time to sign your edits.
Secondly, I just finished pointing out that the "artificial entity theory" appears to not be widely held and has "fallen deeply out of favor" per one of your sources. Why on earth would any discussion of the corporation lead with that theory? General Ization Talk 19:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thirdly, as I requested above, please identify what published, reliable sources you would use to support the statement that "the corporation actual[ly] is ... an artificial entity ... It is obviously not a natural person, which is the current conception". General Ization Talk 19:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819):
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities that corporations were invented and are in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A lovely quote, one that should be included in the article, but it is not appropriate as a summary of what a corporation is in the lead, and does not contradict the existing definitions of a corporation in the article. Marshall was waxing philosophical in his decision, and addressing the limitations of corporations; he was not attempting to define the term. General Ization Talk 19:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Please explain what you're talking about.
I am not referring to theory, yet. I am simply stating what the corporation is: an artificial entity. It's not natural; it's an entity, so how can this possibly be incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
He is saying the corporation is an artificial entity, which is what I want to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you are the first person to take an interest in this article besides the owner. Thank you. If you really want to do it, please read: Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation by DAVID CIEPLEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't actually need to read any more than the title of that book to know that its purpose is to challenge the mainstream view of the corporation, not to explain it. That is not our purpose here. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal of progressive academic, political or legal thought. If you want to describe alternative views of the corporation here, you are welcome to do so, briefly, in a section so labeled, and with citations of published, reliable sources that support those alternative views; but not to hijack the article to express your opinion that those views should prevail. That means you may not replace the existing definition of a corporation here with the one you prefer based on those opinions. General Ization Talk 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading the article would serve you well. If the article is about theories of the corporations, you're right, but it's not. I asked you to read the article, so you'd be a little more educated. The point of the article, had you taken the time to read it, would show you the importance of entity shielding, which is very mainstream. This is the point that I believe needs to be explained. This article wasn't even related to the other things I was proposing. You seem paranoid. Please read and inform yourself so you can be a good editor.

And, once again, stop referring to BD2412 as the "owner" of this article. They do not own it and have never claimed to own it. See WP:OWN. However, they have the authority, as I already explained and as any editor here does, to revert edits that do not meet our requirements and/or policies, and to discuss them with you here, as they clearly attempted to do months ago. As for signing your edits, see WP:TILDE (which was linked in my comment above requesting that you always sign your edits). General Ization Talk 20:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

BD2412 owns the article, sorry if you don't like me saying it.

It's hard to make edits when you want what is mainstream, but have no clue what mainstream is. Question: Is the corporation and artificial or natural entity?

Artificial, like a coffee sweetener? You are using terms that are not relevant to the lede. A corporation is no more "natural" or "artificial" than a contract, a tort, real property, a will, or a cause of action. However, we don't have language in the lede of any of those articles indicating that they are artificial things. bd2412 T 22:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonable. We don't need to call it an "artificial entity". Why not a "legal entity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's already apparent from the first sentence. bd2412 T 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

First sentence: "A corporation is an organization, usually a group of people or a company, authorized by the state to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes." Better sentence: A corporation is authorized by the state as a contracting entity. I think this is better because a corp does not need to be an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC) I think it would help if you read this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2848833 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So, BD2412 I hear that wikipedia wants the mainstream pov. This article has few cites and those it has are rarely academic. If you think my posts are not mainstream, then what is the mainstream pov? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

1. I think wikipedia defines an LLC as different from a corporation. 2. limited liability is not needed for a corporation to exist and only applies to business corporations (cities, non-profits are corporations) 3. What you cite is jensen and meckling 1976, which is based on Friedman 1970, is not accepted well in Europe and is being ridiculed in the USA--See Denning from Forbes. Remember, Germany has boards with workers on them. 4. this sentence opens the question in, what is sufficient if not simply contracts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir, can we delete organizations from the first sentence, please. Also, can we say that the corporation is a creation of the state with private parties as stated in Ciepley? BD2412: Sir, if you intend to control this page, I think you should read more on the topic. I am not trying to be mean, but this article is important and it's totally wrong. For example, the nexus of contract pov has two big problems: 1. it assumes the corporation is private (See Coase 1937) and 2. it assumes shareholders are the residual claimants (see Jensen and Meckling 1976). These are assumptions and naked assertions of economics who don't know f-all about corporate law and both are factually incorrect. I need you to understand that the government creates the corporation, at the initiative of private parties (although the state creates incorporated cities, so even that statement might not be completely accurate). I have incorporated a business and know that the state is necessary for 2 things: to have the corporation treated as a contracting entity and 2. entity shielding of corporate assets (see Ciepley)

Also, the article should be split: 1. for corporations and 2. for business corporations. A non-profit corporation does not have a stock market.

My suggestion is that we define the corporation for what it is and then discuss the various conceptions of the corporations (see Dibadj) The were first conceived as what they are, a creation of the state. In the late 1800s, they were re-conceived as partnerships, and then as natural ppl. The natural person and aggregate theories were both used, but aggregate theory was promoted by the nexus of contract "theory". Every time the corporation is re-conceived, its capital is re-coded--that is, laws are changed for the residual allocation (see pistor, code of capital) .

Sir, please let me know what you think. Since you are in-charge of this article, my hope is that you respond in a timely fashion. In the past, you've taken so much time to respond that I've gotten frustrated because nothing can happen without your permission. I hope you feel the article is important enough so this doesn't happen once again. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir, when you take so long to respond and refuse to allow edits, anyone who might want to improve this article can get frustrated. Why not give control to someone who can address things on a more timely basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir, you reverted my edit to show that Mcdonalds is a business corporation, rather than another type of corporation. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir, You got this figured out. I went on wikiHelp to ask if I could edit and they banned me. I guess all you guys work together to make this article say what it does. Nice job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In asking for help, Sir Huan or Huon said s/he has found evidence that shareholders own the corporation. S/he couldn't find the evidence because s/he was "too busy". It would be the only law journal article that explicitly argues that shareholders own the corporation. Since bd2412 believes the corporation is a natural person, then slavery still exists in America. I am very excited about Huon's forthcoming edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

Is the 1 picture of mcdonals compatible with the fundamental rules of wikipedia? Is it a bit or even too much Wikipedia:Spam¿ -'178.197.230.175 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Limited liability

I think this article would benefit from an expanded discussion of limited liability in the law & economics literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookish982 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

corporation

Two things need to be handled carefully for the growth of the company one is taxing the other is interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.236 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sussiestbaka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Add a criticisms section

Are we pretending that these ideas areagreed to by everyone everywhere? 70.73.175.85 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections attract nasty hit & run writing, and extreme opinions. It's better incorporated into the article, rather than roped off into a seedy list of unrelated unflatteries. This article already includes some criticism under the Personhood section; however, this needs a bit more clarity, and other concerns should be added. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be several mistakes in this article.

This is my first, and probably last post, so forgive me if I do something wrong. I just couldn't help but notice a lot of mistakes. 1. the business corporation with widely traded stock arose with the VOC. Before that Roman corporation were only member and estate oriented. 2. corporations do not to be an "organization." 3. Corporations did not even have limited liability for centuries after the first on in 1612 (?). (the VoC was not a true corporation when it formed in 1602) 4. Entity shielding is what defines a corporation, not limited liability. 5. shareholders do not "appoint" the board and typically the management team not the shareholders is responsible for who sits on the board. 6. The history of the corporation is more related to the EIC as a Roman member corporation with joint-stock ventures than what is written here. 7. The south sea bubble in practice had little impact on stopping the corporate form. 8. I'm pretty sure that most for-profit companies were "unincorporations" before 1900, which are partnerships with a trust backend. I don't think any of the robber barons had corporations until after 1900. The railroads were corporations. 9. Shareholder are absolutely not members by any definition of which I'm aware. 10. Joint-stock companies can be partnerships. 11. This statement is incorrect "...a person who owns a quarter of the shares of a joint-stock company owns a quarter of the company. 12. This is misleading "...is entitled to a quarter of the profit" Dividents must first be declared. This is wrong because of non-voting and super voting stock: "has a quarter of the votes capable of being cast at general meetings." 13. This statement is wrong because shareholders own shares not the corporation: "Depending on the number of owners, a corporation can be classified as aggregate" There are other issues. The article should start by defining the Roman corporation and move on from there. A coop is a member corporation, for example. Okay, gotta go and I don't intend to return but I hope these comments can help to improve the article. 191.156.154.38 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporation/Archive_5&oldid=1265203979"