Talk:Accounting scandals
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Accounting scandals Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell
Bush speech
Source of Bush speech info: National Public Radio, "All Things Considered", July 9, 2002
Naming convention
I'm moving this from Accountancy scandals to Accounting scandals, the much more common term.
Does this violate the naming convention about plurals? --Ellmist Thursday, August 22nd, 2002.
Dual purpose
In a way. The article needs to be broken up into accounting scandal and something else which describes the specific current situation, perhaps 2000s accounting scandals. The naming convention violation is indicative of a deeper problem with the article, namely its dual purpose. --The Cunctator
- I agree that the dual purpose is a problem. For the title of the article about the current situation, how about "Accounting scandals in the United States in 2002", or "Contemporary accounting scandals in the United States"? Or, if the problem is truly worldwide, just "Contemporary accounting scandals"? --Ryguasu
- not all entries are for 2002; mostly in US, but multi-nationals involved. so maybe your last suggestion. --Rj 20:53, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Corporate vs. Accounting
Is there a distiction to be made between corporate and accounting scandal? --Rj 18:46, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Move
Since it's about more than 2002, I moved it to accounting scandals.--Jerryseinfeld 06:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Lack of historical perspective
Since the title has changed to Accounting scandals, rather than the old title of Accounting scandals of 2002, it is implied that the article is a broad based survey of accounting scandals. But the oldest one listed is in 2000. At a minimum, the article needs an opening paragraph stating the long history of accounting scandals, or you need to change it to Recent accounting scandals.
'I completely agree with this view that, this article needs a broader discussion including corporate failures before 2000. -- Muntasir Khaliek, Portobello College, '
The development of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States, as well as the development of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), and the increased role of government regulation is directly tracable to various "accounting scandals."
Leaving it the way it is, it looks like once Bush took office, corporations ran wild. Instead, this is merely the latest wave of scandals with a long history, stretching back far before there was a United States to mess up accounting. For example, take a look at the South Sea Bubble. I don't think you can blame Bush, or even the Republicans, for that one.--Fredrik Coulter 04:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Should Nortel be on the list of accounting frauds?
While there were allegations of fraud(The allegations alleged moving of revenue from different quarters to make a profit triggering executive bonuses) Nortels' executives were found not guilty and I have my doubts that anything illegal took place. The case against nortel was shaky at best. So should Nortel be on the list if there were no convictions and it's in doubt if fraud ever happened? 2601:144:100:4CC0:12C1:9769:29BD:DB21 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)