Talk:Corporation

Archives: /Archive1; /Archive2; /Archive3

The Six Largest Corporations chart

The chart and the data are way out of date. Does someone have current data that could be used to update the chart?67.174.48.68 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This article should be rewritten ...

This article should be rewritten to represent the basic definition of the word "corporation" and a new page should be established for corporations in business. This article currently does not have a worldwide view of the definition of corporation. It is entirely focused on the use of the term corporation to refer to business corporations. It completely ignores other corporations such as brotherhoods, sisterhoods, municipal corporations, corporations in the corporatist economic context, and other organized bodies that are considered corporations outside of the business corporation definition. I suggest that the article focus on the definition of a corporation as a legally-organized body ("corpus" meaning "body" in Latin is the basis of the term "corporation"), then mention that in contemporary times it is commonly used to describe business corporations, and go at length to describe the various kinds of corporations that exist. I also suggest that a new article be created for the use of the term "corporation" as referenced to business corporations - this article could be titled "Corporation (business)".--R-41 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to re-write this article in the way you suggest, because Corporation (disambiguation) lists the different meanings you've mentioned. --Jonovision (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. (With Jonovision) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Jonovision. The article should focus on the basic definition of a "corporation" in the broadest sense. The article is currently focused on a single form of a corporation. This is inadequate because it causes confusion as to non-business applications of the term "corporation", and creates the assumption that the definition of a business corporation is a universal definition of the word "corporation" itself. I have been trying to improve information on the corporatism article where non-business corporations are used in corporatist economies, but the sole definition of a corporation on this article as a "business corporation" causes confusion on the matter. I understand the impulse to use the term corporation to define its common presence as a business corporation, but this would fall upon the same grounds as the desire to refer to the "People's Republic of China" as "China", in spite of the fact that there are contending uses of the term. Wikipedia currently uses the term "China" to define material regarding the territories of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China to address concerns about a one-sided or unbalanced application of the term. To summarize this and apply it to this context: although the term "corporation" is commonly used to refer to a business corporation, the fact that a wide variety of other uses of the term "corporation" are excluded should be considered. To me it seems reasonable to reorganize this article to be based upon the basic definition of a corporation to create a concrete definition applicable to all forms of corporations that would reduce the potential for confusion on the usage of the term. The disambiguation page should be directed to the specific types of corporations, including the business corporation. I appreciate the concern that such changes would result in a major shift in the content of the article which some may be uncomfortable with. I would also appreciate the serious consideration of the concerns and recommendations I have made here.--R-41 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Jonovision and Pdfpdf, and I specifically concur with Jonovision's position that the disambiguation page is the best place to address the ambiguity in the word "corporation." The corporation is a sophisticated legal concept, one which takes weeks of concentrated study to fully understand in all its complexity (I still vividly remember reading United States v. Bestfoods the first time in law school and that's only one facet of the corporation). Corporatism is an economic structure that only partially overlaps with the legal concept; some of the entities discussed in the corportism article are not actually corporations in the legal sense. As the legal sense is by far the more common definition intended by English language speakers (see WP:COMMONNAME), it makes sense to concentrate on it here. The article currently achieves an awkward but satisfactory compromise as a summary of the key components of the corporation that are common to most legal systems.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mention other forms of corporation?

I thank Coolcaesar for pointing out Wikipedia's "common name" policy, that appears to legitimate this article's title. Also, as there is no outstanding competition for the use of the title between two articles, this common name convention appears reasonable. I concede on the basis of the common name policy to be satisfied with the current content of the article under the present title. However, I think it would be useful to briefly mention in the introduction that other forms of corporations are used in economics, such as economic corporatism's use of corporations (that is legally-sanctioned corporate groups representing professions in the economy), that should not be confused with business corporations. This would acknowledge that there are other types of corporations in economics and would reduce the chance for confusion that some have had in the assumption that economic corporatism is related to business corporations.--R-41 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm not sure. The lead is already a lengthy summary.

Perhaps a new-and-additional-first-section-after-the-lead which mentions these things? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I think I see that it has been added now, as there is a description of the meaning of the term corporation and the history of the use of corporations, that is useful. Still, I would like the intro to have a more precise statement about non-private enterprise corporations being used in the economy, such as corporatist professional corporations as exist in Europe. Perhaps it should say "Aside from private enterprise corporations, there are other types of corporations used within the economy such as professional corporations in corporatist economic systems which are bodies mutually composed of licensed capital and labour organizations."--R-41 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the disambiguation page is the best place to deal with other meanings, but because of your comments, it's become clear that the link to disambiguation page at the top of this article isn't well written. It says this article is about the "legal entity", but it should say that this article is about business corporations. I've changed that. --Jonovision (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

The intro. sucked some serious ass. If this is about the "modern corporation", you need to define it first and say when the sob arose. I've been through this before with Jono., but this time, I have the time to fight for my beliefs. So bring that dumb shit on, son. I'm ready.

Hi Todd, there are several problems with your edits. You've modified the introduction in such a way that it no longer reflects the content of the article. The bulk of the article is written about modern corporations, and the only part dealing with historical corporations is the clearly labeled "History" section. That's why I disagree when you removed material by claiming that it doesn't apply both to historical and modern corporations. Also, you removed some material by saying it's speculative, but really it was just lacking sources, which I added.

Note that I didn't just revert all of your edits for the hell of it. There are some that were fine.

A couple of other notes: I didn't decide that the article was going to be this way, as you said. I've only done minor edits to maintain a clean and readable article. The content and topic is totally the work of many other hard-working editors. If you think that the basic subject of the article should be modified, perhaps we could discuss it here. Also, please have a look at Wikipedia:NPA if you're not familiar with it. --Jonovision (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jono--Presently, the article is NOT about the "modern corporation". If it is, you need to delete the section on Mercantilism, which is just after History. There is a very short section on the "Modern Corporation", which doesn't even define what it is. Then the articles discusses "Types" of corporation (e.g., not for profit) none of which are "modern corporations". Then the section on "Corporations globally" include corporation which are governed by very different laws, not those of Anglo-American corporations (i.e., modern corporations)

You're way off on this, Jono. This is either an article on the "Modern Corporation" or it's on corporations in general which needs to be rewritten in the fashion I suggest. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 06:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Todd, I'm not dictating what this article is about. I didn't write it. I am summarizing the content that other editors have created. This article has a history section, which includes Mercantilism. The following sections, which are the bulk of the article, discuss corporations as they are today, which is what I mean by "modern corporations".

If you would like to help improve this article or restructure it into multiple articles, I am all for that. Restructuring it is a pretty big undertaking, though, so the best way to start that is by creating a temporary article under your user page, which you can edit until it's ready to be made public. It's also a good idea to discuss your restructuring plans rather than running ahead with them, because once you make the changes, a lot of other editors might object.

I am not happy with what you are doing right now, however, which is editing the introduction in a way that doesn't reflect the content of the rest of the article. --Jonovision (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As an outside obvserver I like Jonovision's version better. Soxwon (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Todd, we had a pretty in-depth discussion about Hansmann & Kraakman's five characteristics of a corporation, in which I explained my point of view.

I'm still open to discuss that further, if you'd like. I'm also trying my best to explain myself now, and I'm sorry if I'm coming across as if I'm out to get you. I'm really not. You've made some worthy contributions to this article, and I'm not simply deleting all of your edits. However, your latest comment is not helping the situation. You're just attacking me personally, with no explanation of what your vision for the article is, and that's not giving us common ground to work from.

I've been keeping an eye on this article for several years, mostly to keep it tidy and prevent vandalism, and I think that right now it's in pretty good shape compared to some previous versions. If you look through the revision history, you'll see times when new editors came in and made haphazard attempts to improve the article, but instead just left a mess. I'd like to avoid that.

I don't agree with all of your edits, but overall I think that the article has improved since you started editing it, and I hope that continue to contribute. --Jonovision (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My vision--Write the article about the modern corporation only. That means deleted sections 3 and 4.

Your vision to improve the article is to delete half of it? Are you serious? --Jonovision (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jono--I like the intro. up to footnote 4. After that, it's bad. But what is horrible is the Hansmann & and Kraakman's stuff. I believe it should all be changed, particularly the part, "shared ownership by contributors of capital." But when I suggested changing this particular part you argued against it. Do you want to start from there? Read over my previous stuff and tell me why I can't change that part to replace H and K? What do I need to do to convince you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.96.124 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I already made my point in the previous discussion, now in Archive 2: H&K's five characteristics don't need to be removed, because they are a very reliable source (you didn't respond to me on that, because you went into a pointless side arguments about the relative economic power of public vs. private corporations). Anyways, this isn't just about the H&K material. You've removed other material in your latest edits, and refuse to discuss it, so this just devolving into an edit war. --Jonovision (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jono--You have no idea what you're talking about when you say they are "reliable". And you don't even remember the discussion. I have a problem calling shareholders owners or "investors of capital". They are neither. This page has been shit since you've been editing it, so it's hardly "devolving" now. So address the point again, Jono, you uneducated #$%#$. Tell me how shareholders are owners and investors.

Up until now, I was having difficulty figuring out which of you is in the right, but after that rather unpleasant remark, I am definitely siding with Jonovision. Any trained lawyer (or holder of a MBA degree from a reputable business school) understands that by definition a shareholder is an owner and an investor in a corporation. If they weren't, then securities class action litigation would not exist because of lack of standing (because normally strangers can't go around suing on behalf of things which they don't hold any direct interest in). There are hundreds of plaintiff-side law firms which exist purely to sign up shareholders to sue corporations to enforce shareholders' rights.

Dude, I am a PhD, tenured professor, and a CPA and I've published on this exact subject. Shareholders of the modern corporation are NOT owners and this was all discussed before. Neither are shareholders investors because 99 percent are in the secondary market. They are not the original investors of capital. Read the archives and tell me where I'm wrong.

Also, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jonovision is correct that on Wikipedia it is sufficient to provide a reliable source (in the sense of a widely-available third-party published source). If you believe that source is wrong despite its superficial markers of reliability, the burden is on you to find a source that disproves it or establishes that there is an actual debate about its quality. For example, an article from a law review attacking Kraakman & Hansmann's book as wrong would suffice. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I'll do that. Here is one from Critical Company Law by LE Talbot 2008: "...Kraakman and Hansmann have developed a more sophisticated and arguably more insidious form of contractarianism, which draws in the comparative analysis of all business corporations internationally which exhibit 'five core structural characteristics'." (p.69) These are the 5 quoted in the article. The author rips apart K and H's form of contractarianism: "Again Kraakman and Hansmann engage in distortions which attempt to construe separate corporate personality as a business choice, not a legal expression of an economic reality." {P.71) "In short, the law indicates that the contractual model has no place...the company is understood to be a creature of statute and regulation, not of contract. Thus, given both the content of contractarianism and the social and political context in which it emerged as a theory, and its lack of validity in company law, it is difficult not to conclude, as Ireland does, that it is a highly ideological doctrine, encompassing and promoting the neo-liberal values which emerged in the 1980s England and America." The reference to Ireland is Law Professor Paddy Ireland.

Todd, I don't agree with you on the H&K source, but you are also removing 4 other first-rate sources without discussion.

I don't want to get back into the H&K issue, because we discussed it in depth in Archive 2, but here it is for newcomers. Todd's basic argument was that there have been legal decisions in which shareholders of corporations have not been given rights as owners of corporations, because they only purchased shares on the secondary market.

---

This is NOT my argument. My argument is the same as Berle and Means 1933, who first identified the Modern Corporation.

My response was that this does not make the sentence "shared ownership by contributors of capital" incorrect, because:

• the word "ownership" is not necessarily being used in a strictly legal sense, but a general one.

---

So you agree that they are NOT owners. If you think you can NOT be an owner legally, but still be an owner, you're wrong. Jeremy Bentham said that ownership is created by law and dies with it (something like that). NO educated person would agree with you.

• "contributer of captital" implies that the individual put money into the company, rather than trading a share on a secondary market.
• these court cases apply only to public corporations, and this article also discusses privately held ones\

---

And this article is on the shlucking MODERN CORPORATION, not privately held ones. Are you really this shlucking stupid, mother shluck!!!! This is exactly why I'm pissed at you, mother shlucker. Buck you!!!

• even if a particular corporation's shares have been entirely sold to secondary shareholders, that doesn't mean the corporation has never had an owner at some time in its history

---

So shlucking what? We're talking about the Modern Corporation that was already gotten big with dispersed shareholder ownership.

• these five characteristics are features of corporate law throughout the world, not descriptions of every particular corporation in existence (for example, not every single corporation has a board of directors, yet that is a characteristic of corporate law)

---

Bullsheet. I'm not going to address this dumb mother schucker anymore. Like he knows all the corporate law in the world. Shluck you, dude, Shluck you.

As a compromise, I suggested that we could add a note clarifying that this characteristic might not apply to secondary shareholders, but Todd rejected this idea. --Jonovision (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because that would be the rare exception. I get the feeling that you're about 14 years old. Am I right?