Talk:Enron/Archives/2013

Head of audit

The Enron head of Audit became the head of audit at another large US corporation.

Is this because there was no measure comparable to disbarment for lawyers in that profession?

Or because journalists failed to report on the role of software in accounting fraud?

The provider of audit software to the auditors for Enron was later acquired by the major worldwide provider of audit and GRC software to the Big Four and governments, banks and international conglomerates globally.

The role of software in governance failures appears to be a neglected topic in WP.

G. Robert Shiplett 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems

This strikes me as one of the worst articles on wikipedia. I'd like to start wholesale revisions and I thought I'd discuss a little first. The most obvious problem is the "insider trading" section. The phrase insider trading has a specific legal meaning that is not the same as "anything bad inside a company," which that section seems to describe. The 1908's oil trading affair, the special purpose entities, and the debt have nothing to do with insider trading. Secondly, there is very little in the article about what specifically was wrong with the company when it collapsed: "...its reported financial condition was sustained mostly by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud" seems a bit of a stretch. It was, after all, the 7th largest US company, legitimately, before it collapsed. Anyone making that claim should be able to name specifically what was wrong. Is anyone going to freak out if I start major edits? 71.106.22.247 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

>This strikes me as one fo the worst articles on wikipedia. Boy, you ain't whistlin' dixie. It's got to be one of the worst for sure. There are only about a few thousand changes to be made. Me personally, I say make all the major edits you like, it can't get worse. Tom NM 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

> LOL I would definitely say that the neutrality of this article should be challenged. There are so many broad, judgmental comments on here. Enron shouldn't be known only for its mistakes. It was one of the most impressive companies for reasons other than fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.229.249 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This article contains a lot of strange assertions that make little sense. The standard is unusually low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.123.141 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bush

I currently watch The Documentation The smartest guys in the room. I'm very impressed that in this wole article is not a single Word about the Bush-connections. Not even the word Bush. This Article sure is a information-blurr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.171.173 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WTC7

What's also interesting, is that much of Enron-case material and proofs were in WTC7, that collapsed without any reason at 17:25 on 9/11. Coincidence? --81.201.48.25 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a coincidence.--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that all those ENRON files burned up in WTC7. There was likely a lot of information on their fraud and abuse of the energy markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.163.192 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda sad that this isn't even mentioned as a foot note. I mean really? Do wikiphiles have no bounds to their pedantry? 76.26.57.69 (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a location to hype your pet conspiracy theories. WTC7 mention isn't related. 67.194.61.49 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)