Talk:Business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Political POV

It seems to me that quite a bit of the text in this article is more a libertarian or "right-wing" critique of business regulations within the United States than a description of the concept of "business" as a whole. I have made two relatively minor changes along these lines tonight, and plan to undertake a more detailed review of the article in the days ahead.

DrDeke (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Business Studies?

Business Studies is defined at the top of the article as "Business Studies, the study of the management of individuals to maintain collective productivity..."

This definition disagrees with both the Business Studies article and my experience, in the fact that Business Studies does not soley study the management of individuals, but also accounting, economics, logistics, marketing, and the management of factors other than people.

The definition in the article could be true for the US, but in the UK at least Business Studies is seen as a broad degree covering all aspects of studying the corporation. Management Studies, a separate institution, fits the definition better, although Management Studies still isn't as specific as the definition, as it also includes management of factors other than managing individuals (e.g. managing resources) AshHartwell (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Business is an empirical study and business theory does not apply in the real world. So I am going to insert some practical perspectives of business rather than textbook contents which is copied to Wikipedia and stop removing them. Please read the "Improvement Announcement" on top of this article, which reads: "It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since August 2008." " It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2009." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.217.23.219 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts to improve the article are appreciated, but please take note of a few things: 1) Despite your reference to the "needs additional citations for verification" banner you provide no reliable sources to substantiate your content; and despite your reference to the "Wikipedia's quality standards" banner, your edits are not in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. 2) Your content takes the form of a long run-on sentence, with almost every word unnecessarily linked to another Wikipedia article--please see Wikipedia's Manual of Style. 3) Your content is confusing and technical, especially for the leading paragraph of an article--which is intended to provide a basic overview and simple information. Your edits have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, and your continued efforts to revert the article back to the form you prefer is a violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. Bearing this in mind, please feel free to integrate the substance of your content into the rest of the article but please do so within the framework of the style manual and the requirements of reliable sources. Please do not simply revert the article back to the version that you prefer (again, see the three revert rule); Wikipedia decision-making is based on consensus. Thank you again for your efforts to improve the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I think it is very dangerous (sunk cost, bankruptcy and renders wasteful greed, such as economic bubble) to think business in a general way but it will mislead viewers of this business article to think that a business is just so easy to thought of and to achieve capital gain without any organs of efforts to work on. Despite of some dogmatic approach to the term business, in fact, as most Master of Business Administration degree does that case studies will be presented to students and this is what I added to this business article. Business is not about theory but business is about "how" and not "what" the term business means (we can all find the dictionary term of business and this is not what Wikipedia is about or just go to dictionary.com instead to save time reading the definition). Business is not in the category of social science and business study is about capital gain only. There are certain elements that will make a business not just seemingly successful (often by economic development with coordinated industrial development to produce sustainable consumerism for the apperance of modern day business) but also feasible and this has to do with the business environment surrounding the particular business (such as perfect competition) and how a business operates in the right way, or we can call this "business science", if you like this way of thinking. Simply put, business is about the analytical science of the capacity between producers and buyers that would manually drive the momentum of business cycle to collectively forming market economy as we see today. Professional Knowledge with a competitive advantage would allow investment to have a right allocation of resource (here we mean capital (money) resource) for an expected return of cash-flow that outweighs operational cost to be able to be qualified as a business provider (Please also see Product and Marketing). In order to reserve the competitive edge to other (existing) competing businesses that share the same market segment that certain amounts of re-investment (from capital gain) on Research and Development is beneficial to the business to outpace other competing business providers and the leading business would enjoy greater share of capital gain from greater number of loyal consumers to the brand which is created by the business. If you do not mind, please refer to http://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/cases. I highly suspect that this article of business needs to be verified and a cleanup is needed as recommended by Wikipedia authority. Alternatively, please add some contents to this article to make the article structurally credible to be opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.217.24.175 (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That is great, you obviously have a wealth of knowledge concerning this subject. As I said, feel free to integrate this substance into the article, so long as what you write has reliable sources and meets the Style Manual requirements. Also, please keep in mind Wikipedia's lay audience; what you have described above is great information, but it is written in such a way to be technical and confusing for average readers who do not have special training in business studies. If you could simplify your explanations of business as practically applied and write in more plain language, I'm sure readers would greatly appreciate your content. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wall Street is a Symbol of Business?

One of the images has the following caption: "Wall Street, Manhattan is the location of the New York Stock Exchange and is often used as a symbol for the world of business."

Isn't Wall Street a symbol of finance, not business?

Wouldn't Main Street be the symbol of business?

Business is selling goods and services. Finance is specifically business between borrowers and lenders.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"gay bashing"

Can someone please that gay bashing textbox they put under "Public Limited Company" I couldn't find a way to get rid of it.

--User: AlphaXIII 09:40, 08 Feb 2007 (UTC)

"business itself is 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 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)

Portal

There is a new portal. See Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Business, Economics, Finance. Maurreen 03:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1.0 core topics COTF

This article was the core topics COTF from 15 May till 1 June 2006. Walkerma 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization

I just made some revisions to the Organization section of this article. Looking at it, that whole section would be better if replaced by (or at least supplemented with) a wire-diagram of a generic organizational structure. Anyone have such an image handy? Rossami (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A different approach

I have been watching the 1.0 collabortions because I think they are importnat topics that really need work, but have yet seen anything I could easily help with. I was wondering if anyone has ever tried to build these sorts of articles backwards. By identifing what should be the daughter articles and intergrating information from them (if they are in any better shape) into the larger one. I really am not sure how this article should be organized or I would try and start this but I imagine the the subsections (and therefore dauther articles) might include Economics, Trade, Industry, Profession, Corporate finance, Accounting, Intellectual property, Marketing and Corporation. I have tried to substitute articles with decent information for ones that might seem beter suited but have little info (Trade for Commerce). What does everyone think of this approach or how it should be organized?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, yes! This is in fact the approach that was used recently with Humanities, another very broad topic (these are the hardest to write!). It was also used in our first collaboration, to take Antarctica from Start-Class up to featured article standard. Business may no longer be officially the COTF, but that doesn't mean we don't want to see the article improve. As you say, you summarize a topic like finance then use the "main" template (as {{Main|Trade}}to link to the main article. If I knew more about business I would help you do this! Thanks, Walkerma 04:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Types of business

This last edit is too UK specific. And factually incorrect. You also have limited partnership etc., in the UK. I suggest we delete or rewrite it. Poweroid 14:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just reverted another UK specific company type list. A discourse on business/corporate entities across all countries would be very, very valuable, but the last attempt had two problems:
  1. It was a word per word cut & paste from a commercial site.
  2. It mixed entities types across the two countries without discerning which was applicable where - making it fairly useless as a reference.
Would be delighted start fashioning such a list; but let's start it on the talk page and dod it with reliable sources. Kuru talk 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Need a link

We really need a link to Business mediator here, but I have absolutely no idea where to put it. Suggestions please? (Note: If this request has been here for more than a day, there is a chance I won't reply unless notified on my talk page.) Yuser31415 04:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go under the section "See Also" -- Zragon 09:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No sources

I noticed this article doesn't have any sources.

  • Definition from Merriam-Webster [1]
  1. archaic : purposeful activity : busyness
  2. a: role or function <how the human mind went about its business of learning — H. A. Overstreet> b: an immediate task or objective : mission <what is your business here> c: a particular field of endeavor <the best in the business>
  3. a: a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : trade or line <in the restaurant business> b: a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise; also : such enterprises <the business district> c: dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature : patronage <took their business elsewhere>
  4. a: affair or matter <the whole business got out of hand> <business as usual>
  5.  : creation or concoction
  6.  : movement or action (as lighting a cigarette) by an actor intended especially to establish atmosphere, reveal character, or explain a situation —called also stage business
  7. a: personal concern <none of your business> b: right <you have no business speaking to me that way>
  8. a: serious activity requiring time and effort and usually the avoidance of distractions <got down to business> b: maximum effort
  9. a: a damaging assault b: rebuke tongue-lashing c: double cross
  10.  : a bowel movement —used especially of pets

synonyms: business, commerce, trade, industry, traffic mean activity concerned with the supplying and distribution of commodities. business may be an inclusive term but specifically designates the activities of those engaged in the purchase or sale of commodities or in related financial transactions. commerce and trade imply the exchange and transportation of commodities. industry applies to the producing of commodities, especially by manufacturing or processing, usually on a large scale. traffic applies to the operation and functioning of public carriers of goods and persons. See in addition work.

  • Etymology "O.E. bisignisse (Northumbrian) "care, anxiety," from bisig "careful, anxious, busy, occupied" (see busy) + -ness. Sense of "work, occupation" is first recorded 1387. Sense of "trade, commercial engagements" is first attested 1727. Modern two-syllable pronunciation is 17c. Business card first attested 1840." [2]

Legal business structure[3] isn't the same as "business". In the US, "a trade or business is generally an activity carried on for a livelihood or in good faith to make a profit." [4] Business can refer to an enterprise such as a specific bakery or oil company -- or to any purposeful (usually commercial) activity of an individual or group. It might be helpful if this article covered the topic in a more general way, since it's an introductory article. --65.78.212.190 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I found that stuff when I wasn't logged in, thus the anon signature. Do you think this article should be more general, or do you agree that it should just be about US legal definition? Comments? --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

'their acceptance of risk' means what?

While trying to find out what the objectives of businesses are, I found "the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for their work and their acceptance of risk" Does "their acceptance of risk" mean "accept the risk that they can deliver said work for a cost that is less than their price" ? 81.6.250.44 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably also plus the risk that the price won't be paid (nonpayment), plus inflationary risk. --65.78.212.113 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus of the article

The focus of this article should not be only economics. Economics is one of a number of subtopics of business listed under Basic business concepts. This article should be more or less reflective of Topical outline of business. Please revise the article accordingly. The rest of the meanings for business can be listed at Business (disambiguation). Bebestbe (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article has been sabotaged

Article has been sabotaged by unknown persons, adding "boogers" to business information. (IrishKisses (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Article seems US biased and not applicable to UK

In the UK most well known businesses are Limited Companies designated 'Bloggs Ltd'. We also have companies limited by guarantee. An important distinction is that a limited company is a 'Persona at Law', in other words it is like a person, and can go bankrupt or enter into legal agreements without claim on the people involved. These are NOT corporations. A corporation in the UK is something else, rare, and usually bigger, possibly municipal, and maybe listed on the stock exchange. A firm is a group of people not necessarily Ltd or partners. We also have the PLC or Public limited company. This should be made clear in the listing, but I have not made the changes because I do not claim to be absolutely sure of the legal distinctions without further research. Lindosland (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Absurdity in Lede

"Business plan and Business model determine the outcome of an active business operation" is grossly inaccurate. Rather, these are at most determinative of initially intended outcome. If the statement were true as phrased, any idiot with a biz plan would be guaranteed of its' realization. There are many factors that determine the business outcome and the stated ones are central in a lot but by no means all cases where there is biz success and their presence on the other hand is, trivially, not a sole, not even the main determinant of a desired outcome. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've removed that sentence. --NeilN talk to me 04:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; thanks for removing the sentence. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)







Creative Commons License