Talk:Legal person

message: I expanded a little the section about Brazilian law, and corrected the term from Legal Person to Juridical Person as per the article's definition. But as a whole, the article severely lacks in considerations from legal theory around the world and examples from outside the United States.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monteparnas (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion on POV from other countries 

message: There was a suggested merge, but no discussion on talk. Cleaned up tags and archived old talk in prep for cleanup. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to say, I find the Not to be confused with Corporate personhood sign on top is rather confusing... and not only because of the section called Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States. Littledogboy (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was confusing. Rather than remove it completely, I moved it to the "See also" section. There is already a section "Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States" so having a link in the "See also" section is redundant. Sparkie82 (t•c)  05:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggested on corporate personhood debate 

message: The section on corporate personhood in the U.S. sounds like the Supreme Court's decision is an unquestionably good idea, with only a few people in opposition to it.  Only one "social commenter" is named as being against the ruling.  There are many other people in media, government, and just plain folks who also think it's a bad idea, and so the section is very one-sided.  I don't have time to beef it up, but someone who does have the time may want to look it over and edit for POV.  Textorus (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. section - POV questionable 

message: The article says Temples in some legal systems have separate legal personality and cites Williams v The Shipping Corporation of India (US District Court, Eastern District Virginia), 10 March 1980, 63 ILR 363 which doesn't include the word "temple." In the Indian legal system, a temple Deity is a juristic person and the property of the temple held in its name. See http://tamilbrahmins.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/do-the-treasures-belong-to-the-temple/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arumugaswami (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. section - POV questionable 

message: The hyperlink in this page for Corporate Aggregate is redirected to this page. It would be helpful if that legal term had its own page.ClassicalScholar 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Aggregate loops 

message: The history section is missing many details. It would benefit the article if an expert could write more extensively about when and how exactly the legal personality came to be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.169.21.62 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A legal personality is not always necessairy to sell items.
For example, many of the companies supplying shopiing cart systems allow users to sell items, even if they don't have a legal personality themselves. This is possible as they themselves have a legal personality and allow the users to use this legal personality to sell their products.
Mention in article, it's quite important info.
81.242.230.241 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Not always necessairy to sell products

message: In Canada, in the province of Quebec, their "Charter of Human Right and Freedoms" CHAPTER I ARTICLE 1 states the following:
1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses JURIDICAL personality.
1975, c. 6, s. 1; 1982, c. 61, s. 1.
Are we to assume from this Charter Document that Human Beings "possess" a JURIDICAL PERSONALITY (aka an "artificial person")?
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_12/C12_A.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.113.146 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec's Charter of Human Right and Freedoms 

message: Please clarify distinctions. --109.53.199.221 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Legal personality]] and [[Separate legal entity]] 

message: I added a tag to the sentence regarding Thom Hartmann in the Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States section. I was not clear how this information is relevant to the topic. After looking at this revision, it looks like the information was added by someone trying to give examples of opposing viewpoints. I have left the sentence for now, since I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, and there may be a valid reason for the information to be included here.
The main reason I tagged it was because it seems like an advertisement to me. Perhaps someone with more knowledge will be able to better connect this fact with the rest of the article or section and create some relevance, but my opinion is that it does not contribute much to the article at this point. — OranL (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thom Hartmann 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Legal personality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203195016/http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/Frisch_18-2_2011.pdf to http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/Frisch_18-2_2011.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal personality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152449/http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf to http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal person. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720151018/http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/binder/index.html to http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/binder/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi! Just a random internet-denizen stumbling past. 
The "adoption" section strikes me as being horribly problematic. Apart from it not being clear to which jurisdiction it purports to refer, I highly doubt any legal system actually functions in the way described. It might be best to remove it entirely - I'm quite sure a discussion on adoption has little to no bearing on legal personhood in any case.
I'm not a regular editor, so I thought I'd better leave it to you guys! 105.227.50.34 (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption section problematic