Talk:Business

Contents

1 "business is in itself an evil" 2 I have removed: 3 Categories 4 Links

"business is in itself an evil"

I do not understand the purpose of the quote "business is in itself an evil" is included in this article. It appears to be representative of a narrow point of view, one with which many people would disagree, and adds nothing to the readers understanding. Perhaps it should be removed?

--Socs 11:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think its acceptable as a quote. You can feel free to ad a pro-business quote to balance it, since it is obviously an anti-business quote. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 13:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The quote I added is intended to be pro-business, even though it does not explicitly mention business. I thought that it was acceptable since the article gives business a very broad meaning, one containing almost all economic activity. My point is that such activity, or business, is beneficial to all.

--Socs 22:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the quote. I can't think of any encyclopedia article on a topic that then has a quotation saying that the topic is evil. You can create a "criticisms of business" section if you would like, but the quote has no context and no value on uts own. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed:

RECENT EVENTS

Since 2002, the global step of reduction of costs and optimization of resources became a legal constraint, an obligation for all the highly-rated corporations or unquoted in the stock exchange.

Everything began with the law SARBANNES-OXLEY in the United States in 2002 who returned compulsory internal control. From 2003, Canada and European Economic Community took measures aiming at identical objectives.

See :

* Internal control * Integration of the internal control

This looks like it belongs in a different article: Maybe cost management or corporate governance. mydogategodshat 06:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Describing everything in terms of "corporations" rather than companies is very US English. Here corporation tends to be a quasi government body like the BBC (C=corporation), or the local council bin collectors. Does anyone mind if we put in the English English version? Also I think limited liability is a big enough concept to be in this article?(talk)--BozMo 21:14, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The only place I see the word corporation is in the legal paragraph where the three forms of business enterprise are mentioned. I have added "also called limited liability company" beside the word "corporation" to make it clear to Brits. Your comment about adding material on limited liability poses a question that we are always asking when writing umbrella articles like this one. As a general rule we try to keep the material broad in scope but shallow in depth. A person looking for in-depth info would go to more specific articles. An umbrella article like this one would get far too long and unfocused if we dealt with every important topic within its scope. The fact that you ask whether limited liability is "a big enough concept" tells me that you understand what I am saying. We can look at some other articles for comparison. The umbrella articles finance and marketing follow the same format as this one. Economics, on the other hand has evolved into a much longer article that summarizes many of the concepts used in that field. Which is best? I don't know. Should you add limited liability material to this one? I don't know that either. mydogategodshat 05:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Categories

If anyone is interested, I could use some help with the business category. About 150 articles are in the main category. Most of them already have subcategories. I'm working on deleting them from the main category. Maurreen 08:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links

This might be useful: [1] (http://www.ikeepbookmarks.com/editor/business) Maurreen 08:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)