Talk:Corporation

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

"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) [reply ]

"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) [reply ]

Yeah I disagree. Shareholders typically elect the board of directors if the company is publicly traded. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The comment above yours states clearly: "shareholders instead elect", so what exactly do you "disagree" with? 38.108.32.107 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you are referring to when the corporation is established, the sequence of events are stated: the state and founders create the corporation, the founders appoint a board, then the board sells stock thus creating shareholders, after which the shareholders elect the board. These are indisputable facts. 38.108.32.107 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The comments above indicate numerous inaccuracies in the article. Since the comments were posted, one editor made one irrelevant reply. Thus, the article stands in all of its non-factual glory. When I read the article, I'm stunned at how many contradictions there are in it. For such and important topic, this seems crazy. I will refrain from mentioning the issues as most are cited in the comments above. But this situation indicates a fundamental failing of Wikipedia, its policies, moderators, and editors, in my opinion. This is likely why university professors don't trust it or allow it in assignments. 38.108.32.107 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]