Talk:Corporate scandal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| B | rated as b-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
Wait... is Parmalat the basis for the mutual fund scandal? Does that scandal have a name? --Erik Garrison 21:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This is an unfolding scandal from 2003 involving 10 or more funds. Not aware of any name yet. I just put it out there; hopefully others know more. You must be referring to the Epicurum fund and it's part in the Parmalat scandal. --Rj 21:40, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
- linked to Mutual fund scandal (2003) by User:Wfeidt
Contents |
[edit] Hoover free flights promotion
I have reverted all the detail about this scandal, which belong on the Hoover free flights promotion page rather than here on this list page.
I would be happy to add Hoover free flights promotion to the list under "corporate scandals" (not mutual fund scandals) once the copyright infringement issue on that page is resolved. Mamawrites 09:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] emotionalism is POV
I think a lot of this needs to be cleaned up to remove emotionalism. There are lots of facts here (but the organization needs some work). a paragraph like
- "Repeatedly over the past twenty five years, signal market participants abandoned ethical principles in the pursuit of material well being. By 2006, marketplace ethics reached a new low. The following are the simple facts:"
is clearly not NPOV. Also in intro, I think it needs to be made clear that people can be ethical or unethical, but a legal fiction such as a corp can be neither. Smallbones 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CEO scandal, not RadioShack scandal
I'm iffy that a CEO lying about his resume is a corporate scandal (at least as defined in the preamble). It didn't affect RadioShack, nor is it a corporate action that affects others. It's more of an internal scandal. If it is classed as a "corporate scandal", the writeup should be updated to include internal scandals as well. 71.58.60.115 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Or
How does a Wikipedian decide whether something does or does not belong on this list. Seems like it would require original research. Is there some independent yard stick that can be used to ferret-out these determinations? Some reliable source to do this for us? MortonDevonshire Yo ยท 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- The definition in this article is very brief, and the list of sandals/crimes seems to be similar to what would come from listing all articles in category:corporate scandals or category:corporate crime. The historical timeline also seems very short. Would it make sense to change this article to define different types of corporate scandals and crimes, then reference the individual companies as expamples. --SueHay 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
