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The chart and the data are way out of date.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 were first to identify the Modern Corporation. ~Prof. Todd

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)[reply]

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

Todd, sorry, I don't have any further response for you. --Jonovision (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Tell you're mom to put you to bed tonight early and with no supper for being ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the relevant pages from Talbot's book. Todd is correct that Talbot directly attacks and completely repudiates Hansmann & Kraakman's model of the corporation. So I'll leave it to the two of you to resolve this among yourselves. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Every edit in the last couple of days seems to be part of an edit war so I've protected the page for a week. Please take this time to discuss future editing of the page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, why don't you read the last sentence where Coolcaesar agrees I'm right. There is no more to discuss. Soxwon is just a shit starter. He has no argument regarding content. Whatever. Nice job protecting the page for no reason.

My plan for this article is to specify its topic, "The modern anglo-american corporation." I want to discuss how and when it arose. Basically, the modern corp. arose at the turn of the 20th century as a result of NJ state allowing holding companies and the mergers in response to the Sherman Anti-trust act. I then want to trace the modern corporation through the 1929 crash to present.

To define the modern corporation, I will mainly use Berle and Means 1933. I will discuss how people viewed the modern corporation as having a social goal (i.e., organizationalism) to its present goal of "maximizing shareholder value", which arose from the neo-liberal idealism of the 1980s.

I plan to delete sections related to corporate non-profits and corporations outside American and England since they typically have very different goals (e.g., Japan and Germany).

Does this sound okay? I will take silence as consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.187.124 (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, considering you have just quoted the same sources as Professor Todd himself and appear to be yet another sockpuppet, no it isn't alright. Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shove the sockpuppet up your, ass, Soxwon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.96.124 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd, it would be fantastic to have the topics you just suggested on Wikipedia, and I think that this amount of new information deserves its own article. How about we create a new Anglo-American Corporations article dedicated to just this subject? --Jonovision (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Jonovision--The Anglo-American corporation is the "modern corporation". I assume this article is on the modern corporation. If this article is NOT on the modern corporation, what is it about?

It's about corporations, hence the title. Soxwon (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Jonovision says. She says that this article is about the modern corporation. If this article is on "all corporations", where is the article on the modern corporation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.96.124 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put my comment into context, I said that only in response to this edit comment you made: "Deleted because corporate personhood arose in the 1880 and therefore does not apply to ALL corporations listed in this article". Basically I was pointing out that outside of the history section, the article is talking about the current state of corporate law. This sentence, which you deleted, uses the present tense, and is not referring to the state of corporate law prior to 1880: "corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people".

To answer your current question: what is this article about? Fundamentally, it's a collection of different sections written by different editors over many years. I don't think single person had a grand plan for it, and at times this article has been pretty messy. Some other editors and I have tried to clean it up, which is how it got to its current state. Is there room for improvement? Hell yeah there is. I think sections 2 and 3 are particularly weak, especially the section on "Closely held corporations". I flagged it back in November, and nobody has stepped up to add sources. I'm pretty happy with the history section, and I like the concept behind section 4 (Corporations globally), although it could be expanded, with more countries and more sub-articles for individual countries. --Jonovision (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonovision--You don't know what this article is about, but you're happy with section 4. That does not answer the question. What is this article about if it is NOT the modern corporation? If you don't know what the article is about, I suggest delete it and place relevant material in the History of Corporations. Global corporations could fit in there. What do you think?

On another point, should you delete the H&K quote since it's been shown as biased, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.138.68 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over the points here and although Prof. Todd is aggressive, he seems to have some expertise no the subject, unlike Jonovision. I am not an expert, but I am tempted to agree that this article is all over the place and seems to be more of an attempt at explaining the history of all the different types of corporations. The article mentions public, private and even non-profit corps and corporations in different countries. The article is not focused on big corps. like Coke, GE, Microsoft, etc., which is what most people in developed countries think of when they think of corporations. You guys call it the MODERN CORP. If Wikipedia has nothing on the corporation focused on these corporations, there should be an article on it. And as the above person says, "What is this article about if it is NOT the modern corporation?" Jonovision has not responded to this rather crucial question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.218.159 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hansmann & Kraakman a reliable source?

I'm glad that the discussion has returned to this issue, as I'd like to say that yes, I believe Hansmann & Kraakman's The Anatomy of Corporate Law is a reliable source. It's written by two professors at leading universities, is widely cited, and has been called "The most important corporate law book of the decade."

You've pointed out one article that disagrees with some of H&K's deeper conclusions. This is not surprising, as any high-profile work receives some examination and criticism. However, the material that is being cited is from the introductory paragraphs of the H&K book. Your source is not challenging the cited material, so I don't see any problem with using it. --Jonovision (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jonovision: You seem to want your cake and eat it too. If this article is NOT about the modern corp. as you suggest, why on earth do you want rules for only the American corporation in the introduction. Without even going into the credibility of H&K, if this article is NOT about the modern corp., there is no reason for the H&K cite. Also, I believe there were at least a book and an article referenced by Prof. Todd discrediting H&K, not just one article as you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.139.198 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I couldn't have said it better myself. Looks like Jonovision lost that debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

This article seems to want to be about everything, but in doing is about virtually nothing. It's not about the modern corporation, it's not about the history of the corporation, it's not about non-profits, but all of these things are mentioned. Before any other questions are addressed, this question should be answered. I realize the topic has been addressed, but not to a reasonable person's satisfaction. I even believe that Prof. Todd suggested a couple of options. What's the deal with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.182.125 (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back!!!! After being banned by some jackass, today I am back, and I can see that Jonovision hasn't responded to this comment. What is this article about? Is it about the modern corporation? No. Is it about corporations in general? Maybe, but that's a lot like the History of Corporations. If Jonovision doesn't respond, does anyone mind if I re-write this article so that it's about American-Anglo Corporations (i.e., modern corporations)? There would need to be other articles for Japanese and German corporations, but that's okay since they are so different from each other. What do you all say? Professor Todd (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to previous introduction

Hi Todd, I've reverted your edits to the introduction again. You are welcome to work on a rewrite of the article if you think it can use improvement. If you plan to make massive changes, the best place to start would be to create a draft version in your user page, where you can get comments and help with your work in progress.

In the mean time, please stop removing well-sourced material from the article introduction. This article has dozens of other sections which can use improvement. Perhaps you could work on them? Your latest deletions don't contribute anything to the article, and border on vandalism. I've been trying to discuss the changes with you, but your recent discussion comments are nonsense, and you only seem to be concerned with winning the debate, not on actually improving the article. I really have no idea what you are talking about anymore. If you delete the introduction material again, I'm going to ask to have you banned for vandalizing the article. --Jonovision (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted reversion again

I deleted the section by H&K based what I said a couple sections above, where I cited the book that discredited H&K and CoolCeasar agreed. Why don't we start with that for you "vandalism case" against me. In the meantime, why don't you answer the question you've avoided for so long: What is this article about? Is it about the Modern Corporation (aka American/Anglo post 1900)? If not, what?

If the article is not about the Modern Corporation, a lot more needs to be deleted. And just because it is sourced doesn't mean it needs to be there. Peace Professor Todd (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd, I think I explained my point of view on H&K and Talbot pretty well. At this point you only seem to be concerned about who is winning or losing the argument, not about actually building any consensus, so again, this is going nowhere. I also answered your question about what I think this article is about, and I don't understand this binary yes/no question you keep asking about the article being either being about modern corporations or not about modern corporations. --Jonovision (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the argument on H&K again:

Coolcaesar wrote: "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)[reply]

Professor Todd said: "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."

CoolCaesar said: I just reviewed the relevant pages from Talbot's book. Todd is correct that Talbot directly attacks and completely repudiates Hansmann & Kraakman's model of the corporation. So I'll leave it to the two of you to resolve this among yourselves. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jono said " I believe Hansmann & Kraakman's The Anatomy of Corporate Law is a reliable source. It's written by two professors at leading universities, is widely cited, and has been called "The most important corporate law book of the decade."

You've pointed out one article that disagrees with some of H&K's deeper conclusions. This is not surprising, as any high-profile work receives some examination and criticism. However, the material that is being cited is from the introductory paragraphs of the H&K book. Your source is not challenging the cited material, so I don't see any problem with using it. --Jonovision (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Todd gave 2 sources not one (i.e. Ireland and Talbot). How many sources does Jono need before he agrees that H&K is controversial? Jono can pretend this is about arguing, but he's just avoiding the issue.

As for "what's the article about?" why can't Jono tell us? Please tell us clearly Jono, What is the article about? Be specific.

I read these earlier comments that you just cut+pasted, and responded. I'm not going to cut+paste my response, but here's a link, in case you didn't read it: [1] --Jonovision (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jono--Answer the questions: 1) How many sources does for you to agree that H&K is controversial? 2) What specifically is this article about. If not the modern corporation, then what? You have answered NEITHER question before.

Well yeah, I didn't answer question #1 before because you didn't address it to me, you worded it as a rhetorical question to whoever else it reading this.

Answer to 1) We need zero sources, because it's obviously controversial if you are arguing about it. I respect your opinion on that. However, I no longer even understand why you have a problem with it. At first it was to do with shareholder ownership of the corporation, but you don't seem interested in discussing that with me. You've gone into "win the argument" mode, and we're not getting any closer to building consensus.

Answer to 2) I answered you over here [2]. ("it's a collection of different sections written by different editors over many years") --Jonovision (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Answer 1): My problem is that it implies shareholders are "owners" and "investors of capital" neither which are accurate and both which place shareholders on a pedestal where they don't belong.

Response to Answer 2): You answer "it's a collection of different sections written by different editors over many years" is not what the article is supposed to be about. So again, what is the article supposed to be about (i.e., what's its purpose)?Professor Todd (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles

Soxwon keeps reverting the H&K passage, which is discussed ad nauseam above. Soxwon has NOT contributed to any discussions of content and seems to be a trouble maker on other sights. The following quote is from my talk page regarding Soxwon: "Professor Todd, I suggest you report any conflict you are having with Soxwon to an admin and not engage in an edit war with him. He has a habit of instigating and I believe that he has more than one account.Galraedia (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs)

First off, WP:TPG: Never use headings to attack other users. I have stated above that, having read the discussion, I agree with Jonovision. It would also be nice to keep it the way it was BEFORE you tried to delete the material in question so that outside editors can see the edit in question. Finally, the post above came from an editor who was stalking me after he edit warred on Bob McDonnell. As for the charges of troublemaker, I find it laughable that you feel you can pass judgment on me after having observed me for only a handful of my 5000+ edits. Soxwon (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-

Soxwon, I'm not attacking, but I am pointing out you have NOT contributed to the discussion, yet you keep reverting without explanation. You say that you want outside editors to see something, but this has been your excuse from the beginning. This discussion on H&K has been pretty involved. Where are the outside editors? I see one, CoolCaesar who checked my reference and said I was correct.

Soxwon, I'm not basing my comment on you on your other posts. I am basing it on the problems you've caused for me. I was banned fighting you on the reversion, then you got me banned because you said I did something called a sockpuppet. According to your talk page, it looks like you are constantly stirring up sh@t. You have no intellectual interest in this page. Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to my talkpage I edit articles that attract people with strong POVs and the Biographies of polarizing figures. Again, your interactions with me are so limited I sincerely doubt your ability to judge. Soxwon (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soxwon, This is not about you. I want to improve this article so that it is not specific to American corporations in the intro. (when the article is about different corps, including non-profits) and not based on a neo-liberal viewpoint (e.g., H&K's). I've provided many arguments to support these edits, the outside editor CoolCaesar agrees with me, and I believe I can fairly delete the H&K section.

You have said anything about the H&K section in question. You've made no comments, but you've reverted several times. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated above that I agree with Jonovision, I have read the debate and followed it. Soxwon (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you agree about? Jonovision has said a lot of things. Please be specific.

Soxwon, You don't seem to have any interest in this topic except to cause trouble. If you really want to make this article better, please state your reasons. Or re-state the reasons that Jono gave to which you refer. Without this, you're just a trouble-maker. Thanks. Professor Todd (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Todd, who is currently in Detention Hall for a month, has been focused solely on this article from his debut in October. Both the user and his edit pattern might bear watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love how a few morons can control an article without knowing a thing about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.96.124 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsbaseball, Maybe, just maybe, Prof. Todd actually signed up for wikipedia in order to improve the article on the corporation. Perhaps that's his expertise and he just doesn't post stuff he doesn't know well. Do you think that's a possibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EETMEE (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.182.125 (talk) [reply]

Your attempts to own the article will not be permitted, and if you persist, you will have your IP blocked also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment would need to expand on what is meant by "own" for it to make sense. It looks like you're trying to own it by making threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.96.124 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]