Talk:Corporation

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)

Incomprehensible passage

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)