Talk:Sarbanes–Oxley Act/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wikify please

The article is quite incomprehensible as it lacks vital inter-linkage. What are: trades, insiders, blackout periods, COSO? Also other things could be wikified, such as: actuarial services, audit, personal loan, risk assesment. I'm unable to do it as I have no economics background. Also please considers non-American reader that is confused terms common for Americans. -- Forseti 16:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many of these terms have to do with investing on the stock market, but for the IT person who needs to know our responsibilities under the landscape of shifting legislation, to the point that sometimes we feel like we are walking on quicksand, here is a quick overview of the alphabet soup of relevant legislation in the USA. No list can be complete with the speed at which new cyberlaws being passed by the federal government, all 50 states, and local governments. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Also SOX Implementation, which is a big issue for IT people seems to fall outside the scope of this article making it much weaker and less useful. --Daedelus 22:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SOX is a huge topic for accountants and corporate executives, irrespective of the SOX implementation challenge, which turns a lot of IT traditions on their head. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Smaller Companies

Hi, this is my first time doing an edit, so please bear with me. I may not be doing this in the right location. But under the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act entry, if you scroll down to debate, there something that looks suspicious. It says " Smaller companies may be affected by Sarbanes-Oxley if trading with a large company subject to it. In addition to this a large number of them are requiring their smaller suppliers to register with the ISN. "

The problem is, I have never heard of the "ISN" and I did a search on it, and could find only one other entry, also there are no entries located in google anywhere else, plus the webpage goes to some other website, plus it looks like a two year old made the "ISN" webpage on his daddys computer. What I am wondering, is, is it possible that whatever the heck the ISN is, is just a way to get people to "register" and pay a $100+ fee, for nothing. I don't want to get sued so, I won't call it a scam---I have no idea, but shouldn't someone look into this? I'm not even sure how to go about handling it, because they will just come back and add it again. Also, it could be dangerous to give private company information to an unknown website. Could someone please tell me what to do or look into it themselves? Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am an IT person working at a smaller company that is privately owned, and thus not directly subject to SOX. However, many of our customers are directly covered, our largest vendors are, we have loans from banks under SOX, and tighter regulations. We have international trade. Thus we do business with many enterprises under SOX. They are much more interested in our ISO status, and whether we are ROHS compliant. I never heard of ISN either. There are a ton of companies out there trying to sell services and products to make a company SOX-compliant. This is buyer beware. If you buy one of these solutions, and it not work, it is your corporate executives who go to jail, not the outfit that said their solution would do the job. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Related Articles Needed

I Wikified a bit, and while doing so, could not find any articles on

There may be other articles with similar meaning that can be linked, in place of the more correct SOX language, such as

Perhaps there should be a separate main article on SOX implementation, that focuses on what IT people need to know about this. User:AlMac|(talk) 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC) OOps, while I was Wikifying, I found someone had already added Information technology controls. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to some folks for resolving some of the above linkage needs, which will help us continue to improve this article. User:AlMac|(talk) 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a mess

I'm British, so feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but this article seems to be a bit muddled in places. The following bits give me the most concern:

  • The introduction paragraph highlights different features to the 'key provisions' section. And I think we're clever enough to determine our own highlights, without KPMG's help.
  • The article is sloppy in how it refers to the Act's provisions. Almost all of the provisions were orders for different federal agencies to take action. So, for example, S302 did not require CEO/CFO to certify internal controls - it required the SEC to introduce rules within 30 days. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's very important. The implementation of various sections wasn't without controversy - for example nothing in S404(b) gave any indication of the level of work that was going to be required.
  • I'd suggest that, in light of the difficulty of the topic, we hive out the more difficult sections to their own articles. For example separate articles on S404, maybe S302/906, etc.
  • The overview of PCAOB Auditing Standard 2 does not really belong here - but would be relevant in a S404 page.
  • The IT stuff, while interesting in itself, is not really relevant. SOX is first and foremost an accountants' problem, not an IT problem

I'm happy to help with a redraft, if others agree. Nairobiny 11:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to see an excellent White Paper on all aspects of Sarbanes, visit this: http://www.sarbanesoxleywhitepaper.com

I am an accounting major in college and am doing a research project about SOX. After reading up on it and viewing the actual act, it seems that SOX is not first and formost an accountants' problem. There are more sections in SOX about corporate accountability than any other topic.

And also, why is there a whole part of the SOX article devoted to SOX 404. There are several sections of equal importance. Will this article eventually become full of explanations of individual sections, or would it be better dedicate a whole other article to a section (or topic that has to do with a section).

Poetry

You can find Poetry on Sarbanes Oxley at

http://manofissaquah.blogspot.com/2006/03/sarbanes-oxley.html

24.17.210.88 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)manofissaquah.blogspot.com

IT absolutely relevant

The IT stuff, while interesting in itself, is not really relevant. SOX is first and foremost an accountants' problem, not an IT problem

AS2 specifically refers to IT controls, it's relevant.

I have to disagree with this statement.

  1. . SOX is Accounting
  2. . Accounting implementation is IT

I work in IT. I have been to seminars where IT people from other companies, have described what they had to do to achieve SOX compliance. It is a MAJOR BIG DEAL. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


I second that.. SOX is massive in corperate programming and IT. The sick/sad part is that in many companies, experience or a background in SOX is now required to as a preresiqute to getting an IT job. --ZacBowling 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I also concur; SOX added quite a lot of overhead to IT in respect to not only what data is retained, such as message and email traffic, but who accesses, reviews, adds, or modifies data and files within the network. --bdelisle 07:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not about the overhead, SOX is about maintaining the financial integrity of large companies. A small part of SOX is about the Information Technology aspects, such as maintaining ACL's, to documenting and proving existance of other controls. One example of how trivial a level this reaches too is where a CTO was taking pictures in order to prove the existance of security controls to an auditor. Sox is Auditing, its about reducing the levels of risk, whether they be control risk or inherent risk in order to allow the auditors to verify financial statements whilst reducing the risk of mis-statement.

Actually, NO! IT is relevant only as a vehicle for implementation. A company may as well have paper processes that give SOX compliance. It wouldn't be IT, per se, but process engineering which decide SOX compliance. Therefore IT implementations for SOX can have a separate article, also because such a text would be large and have many different things to talk about, things that people wouldn't want to read when they are researching SOX here.
Oh, and I am in IT as well, so nothing biased =) Nshuks7 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Both are relevant (Acct & IT)

Accounting and IT must work together to achieve optimal accuracy in the implementation of SOX. I have worked in accounting for 20-years and have also had the opportunity to bring together IT and accounting personnel for optimal efficiency. Everyone has to be willing to contribute and work towards the good of the your company. By the way an AA,BA,MBA and CPA etc.. are also required to study the SOX laws and compliance, prior to acquiring their degree or certification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.195.141 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

material on technical implementation

Should there be material on technical implementation - audits trails etc? Particularly implementation of IV--ENHANCED FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES Sec. 404. Management assessment of internal controls.

( Please sign so we know who you are -- N3X15 ( Scream · Contribs) 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC) )

GAO Report on SOX Challenges for Smaller Companies

The GAO, for anyone unfamiliar with it, is the US Government Accountability Office, typically investigating areas of US government and US industries, on behalf of the US Congress.

They just came out with a Report to the Connuttee on Small Business and Entrepeneurship of the US Senate on challenges for SOX implementation at samll public companies, defined as smaller than $ 700 million.

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-361

I just printed it out and am beginning to digest it.

There have been allegations that implementing SOX is such a huge imposition on small companies that many of them have been going private instead. The report agrees that it is a huge imposition, but the SEC is doing something about it. GAO thinks they should do more. Also, while there has been a rise in public companies going private, the report shows that many of them are for other reasons than SOX.

I work in computing. I know from my prior readings that SOX has a huge impact on a company's accounting, internal auditing (which is practically non-existant in small companies), management, and computing. For example, I do all the computer modifications, texting, analysis, whatever needed. If my employer wanted to be compliant with SOX, they would have to have a bunch of different people doing pieces of my job.

Although we are not public traded company, it is my understanding that if we were to take on an investor from another company, to be added to the company owners, SOX would apply to us, retroactively. Also some lending institutions are asking that companies they loan money to show they are in compliance with SOX, whether or not it applies to them for any other reason.

Some companies that my employer does business with, both customers and vendors, are public and under SOX, which imposes some burdens on us. I think the fact that we have ISO 9000 certification, and have not yet been implicated in any security breach, provides a security blanket against some of those burdens.

User:AlMac|(talk) 06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wall Street Scandal Reminder

For anyone who may have forgotten why this legislation exists, check out this big picture on the Wall Street scandals that precipitated SOX. http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/diagrams.htm (Scroll down to get the full picture.)User:AlMac|(talk) 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A complete mess

This article is still a complete mess. I'll do as much cleanup as I can (there are still many instances of redundant links, poor wikiformatting, etc.) but such a notable topic needs a better article. Paul 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic job, my friends!

Nice overview. Clear. Concise. Helpful. Good insights. Thanks. --Rednblu 18:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Updates to article June 2006

This is in reference to modifications on 22 June 2006 by 24.34.22.119:

  1. is the PCAOB really the most important result of the act?
  2. reference to lobbying, "The auditing industry had lobbied for this requirement [presumably ss302 and 404] for decades; ironically, the collapse of one of its members in the scandals (Arthur Andersen) finally earned the industry this lucrative new line of work" has been removed. I realise that the removed material was very POV, but maybe the background should cover previous attempts to get reporting on controls. m.e. 05:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy in cost of implementation data provided (table)

Hi,

I am hoping someone can provide answers to the following 3 questions:

First, there seems to be a conflict in the trends in the 2nd and 3rd rows of the table showing "Average Additional Audit Hours" and "Average Total Compliance Cost (millions)" versus "Company Revenue"? For example, for increasing company revenues, the hours reported go up from 6,285 to 20,756, then they fall to 11,540 before going up to 19,000 again. If there is an explanation for this would it be possible to include that in the description?

Secondly, the highest cost number provided ($1230.3M) looks like an error (try computing $/unit hour). Also compare it to the data for companies in the $5B-$10B range, which has a similar #hours.

Thirdly, is this data meant to support computation of average $ cost per hour of labor? If so, unit labor costs are in the range of $295/h. Is this a realistic number?

Thanks, AD


"Jerrybuilt" link

I added the link to Jury rig to the word "jerrybuilt" so that readers could discovery that the word has an origin that pre-dates the racially offensive use of the word "Jerry" to refer to Germans during World War II. The link occurs in the sentence, "Improvisational approach: Another symptom of deadline pressure showed up in the jerrybuilt practices that carried many companies through the first year." r3 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

German isn't a Race.

Race is defined as:

Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

Racism is defined as:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=racism

Link to Sarbanes-Oxlay interactive forum

There is a link at the bottom of the article to "An interactive forum dedicated to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act". This page seems to have almost no data pertaining to SOX compliance. The page appears to have been quickly thrown together, with its main purpose being to display ads. I do not believe this link is valuable at all, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Are you serious? Have you looked at their actual forum: http://www.sarbanes-oxley-forum.com/modules.php?name=Forums ?

This is probably the biggest collection of SOX related information on the internet (that I could find anyway). 6,000 articles/posts, covering almost every aspect you can imagine. It was a goldmine to me when I had a project to do, which I didn't enjoy by the way. The chaps who post there were also most helpful.

I can only imagine that somehow you missed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The site in question is amateurish, filled with basic misspellings, and pretty plainly is a commercial site that wouldn't merit its own article and otherwise violates WP:EL. I've deleted it, and warned the anonymous user (posting from a software company IP) who keeps readding it. THF 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest that Ted Frank refrains from taking a hatchet to the links? Seriously, this does not help the quality of this article, suggesting that Mr Franks does not have significant knowledge of the topic. Some of those links are valuable. I cited the forum in the summary as just one example. Have you actually looked at that (7,000 posts)? Have you found anything that approaches depth that in terms of an external resource? I haven't. It is where I learned most of the basics. I still visit there periodically.
The Thomas link is horrible for copy/paste as they always are, which is why the legarchiver has sat there for years. The compliance article is half decent. The surveys pretty interesting and relevant.
Hopefully Mr Frank will be rather more scientific in his future editing, at least of this article, rather than hatchet happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)
Please read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (both of which your comment violates), and then read WP:EL and my explanation above. A 7000-post talk forum is precisely the type of link that does not belong in Wikipedia. THF 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In particular, links to discussion forums are to be avoided. THF 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Big 4 profits as a result of SOX

I think it is important to mention that accounting firms have made huge profits as a result of this legislation. Most CPAs attribute the big bonuses in 04-05, and the continued increased hiring in the field, to the passing of the legislation.Mathacke 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


A Request for Elaboration in the History Section

When the article talks about how SOX was created mostly from Sen. Sarbanes' bill, it mentions that Sen. Sarbanes' bill was mostly just strengthened. Could someone add why Rep. Oxley's bill wasn't much of a contribution? Forst 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Open letter to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Added a link to an open letter to the United States Congress regarding efforts to start an investigation into, and to possibly to repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Open letter to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


On April 14, 2005, Mr. Ron Paul, who was from Texas and a member of the United States of America's House of Representatives, introduced bill H.R.1657. It is a total of eight (8) lines. Here is the bill.

Section 1. Short Title. 

  This Act may be cited as the "Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act".

Sec. 2. Repeal. 

  Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262) is repealed.

In his remarks to his colleagues introducing the legislation -- as presented in the Congressional Record -- Mr. Paul raised the issue of Constitutionality. He suggested that the US Constitution does not grant authority to the federal government to regulate accounting standards of private corporations. Mr. Paul may not have been aware that one of the USA's "Founding Fathers," Thomas Jefferson, died broke because, as brilliant as he was, he did not follow double-entry accounting. Jefferson said that a transaction was either a debit or a credit, but not both. For those unfamiliar with accounting, if I sell a widget for $100.00 cash, I debit cash for $100.00 for the amount of cash I receive, and I credit sales revenue for $100.00. This allows me to know why I received $100.00, and that a debt has been paid.

This bill appears to be alive, albeit not going anywhere at this writing. (February 13, 2007)

141.199.248.2 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Frank G.

Thomas Jefferson's financial position is not relevant to the legality of SOX 404, which is what Mr. Paul is concerned with.

Formatting

This article is poorly formatted, but I am not particularly good at formatting it myself. Perhaps somebody who is more of an expert can help? Why are there no references? Why are all of the citations in the form of external links instead of footnotes to that site? That is pretty lazy and not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. Perhaps someone who is good at adding references could clean this up a bit? Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

  • There is an extensive academic criticism of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that is utterly absent from this article; when it is hinted at, it is improperly belittled with unsourced statements that violate WP:NOR. One estimate is that the legislation has cost the US $1.4 trillion.[1][2]
  • There is no mention of the current lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the PCAOB.
  • There are many examples of improper phrasing: proponents "observe" while opponents "assert." Plain violation of NPOV. -- TedFrank 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the link to Cray, Inc's wikipedia page?

The reason eluded me -- and my text search. Nothing on the two pages seemed to support having the link. Nothing showed on the history page summaries either. Just asking. -- Dale

"Analyzing the Cost-Benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley"

I have deleted the more wild original research and opinion and POV from this section, but some of the cited stuff still violates NPOV:

  • It is plainly the case that John Thain is not representative of all businessmen, and his opinion should neither be represented as such, nor be the only one stated. THF 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Farcaster: I agree with you there. We can probably drop this sentence. I won't mind if you do.

  • While Enron politically led to SOx, there is no academic consensus that SOx could have prevented Enron. The Refco disaster happened after SOx was passed. The $60 billion figure is also POV, as it relates to the most inflated value of Enron. The "$200/person" figure violates WP:SYN without a citation. THF 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Farcaster: Agree on the politics issue/prevention issue. You know how hard fraud/collusion by top management is to detect. The $200/person is simple math and puts that number in layman's language. I think it's helpful. Would you prefer the $500 billion figure, or about $1,600 per person?

I would prefer that WP:NOR and WP:SYN be followed. THF 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the $60 billion figure is simply incorrect. Some people lost money from the Enron overinflation, but other people made money innocently by selling high, and not everyone who owned Enron stock when it was at zero bought that stock at the tippy-top of the market (and many bought it after the facts were out, and were not a victim of fraud at all, just of overspeculation). Only counting the losses is misleading--especially since, as you acknowledge, there's no cause-and-effect relationship between lack of SOX and Enron's bankruptcy. THF 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not just "recent articles" that state SOx is hurting American financial market competitiveness, it's three separate independent reports, including one commissioned by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and independent Michael Bloomberg, and one commissioned by the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. Better sourcing is needed instead of the strawman. THF 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The POV, stated by multiple academics, that SOx cost American investors $1.4 trillion is missing from the section. THF 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Farcaster: We both know this number is a joke, but I won't delete it if you cite it. I've seen that whitepaper. To put that number in perspective, that's about $4,600 per American (using the 300MM number) or about $13,800 per household (100MM). We both know that is a crazy figure, especially considering that the markets recently hit their all-time highs. But include it if you wish. It's by only one academic, from the University of Minnesota, not many.

That markets hit all-time highs is hardly inconsistent with the academics who criticize SOx. None of them claim that SOx is the only factor affecting stock prices. That's why they run regressions. THF 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Separately, WP:MOS isn't being consistently followed in this article, so all the section headings need to be fixed. THF 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Farcaster: OK. I think that is fixed.

"External Links"

Could I suggest that Ted Frank refrains from taking a hatchet to the links? Seriously, this does not help the quality of this article, suggesting that Mr Franks does not have significant knowledge of the topic. Some of those links are valuable. I cited the forum in the summary as just one example. Have you actually looked at that (7,000 posts)? Have you found anything that approaches depth that in terms of an external resource? I haven't. It is where I learned most of the basics. I still visit there periodically.  ::Could I suggest that Ted Frank refrains from taking a hatchet to the links? Seriously, this does not help the quality of this article, suggesting that Mr Franks does not have significant knowledge of the topic. Some of those links are valuable. I cited the forum in the summary as just one example. Have you actually looked at that (7,000 posts)? Have you found anything that approaches depth that in terms of an external resource? I haven't. It is where I learned most of the basics. I still visit there periodically.

- The Thomas link is horrible for copy/paste as they always are, which is why the legarchiver has sat there for years. The compliance article is half decent. The surveys pretty interesting and relevant. + ::The Thomas link is horrible for copy/paste as they always are, which is why the legarchiver has sat there for years. The compliance article is half decent. The surveys pretty interesting and relevant.

- Hopefully Mr Frank will be rather more scientific in his future editing, at least of this article, rather than hatchet happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs) + ::Hopefully Mr Frank will be rather more scientific in his future editing, at least of this article, rather than hatchet happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

Why not discuss it then and see what other people think, before deleting? Your heavy handed bullying approach does no credit at all to Wikipedia. Remind me: how much do you know about SOX?

And please don't call my efforts to protect the article vandalism. I know rather a lot about SOX, wrote much of this article, and have no commercial motive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

Please read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (both of which your comment violates), and then read WP:EL and my explanation above. A 7000-post talk forum is precisely the type of link that does not belong in Wikipedia. THF 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In particular, links to discussion forums are to be avoided. THF 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And maybe you should read the section on "What should be linked". In particular, 'Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail' and 'Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews'.

Some of those links definitely fall into that category. And certainly, they would be invaluable to anyone researching SOX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarygal (talk • contribs)

There is absolutely no excuse for replacing the official government site's text of a statute with a link to an advertising-supported site, as 74.86 did. And random newspaper articles do not belong in the external links section, especially when many of them flunk WP:RS. And one of the links that 74.86 reinserted was an advertisement! THF 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I think you have it wrong Ted.

Why not take each link one by one and discuss? Binarygal

That is kind of happening anyway. He can justify a couple going, but not the rest IMHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)
please read WP:TALK and sign your talk comments, as you're munging up the page. THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would retain the forum and perhaps a couple of articles. Adverts definitely not. Binarygal

RFC on External Links

RFC resolved (consensus to delete links) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


An anonymous single-purpose account repeatedly adds links in violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:3RR. I think the following eight links should be deleted. THF 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Sarbanes-Oxley forum doesn't belong -- explicitly forbidden by WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #10. THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • MP3Newswire story is random and flunks WP:RS and WP:EL THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Compliance Week link is advertising. The URL even puts it in the ad section! Plainly flunks WP:EL and WP:SPAM. THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Sequence Inc link is also advertising. THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Australian link is also advertising. THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The two surveys don't belong per WP:EL; no reason to value that point of view over the several dozen other articles and surveys on the subject, and it's far from clear that those surveys are notable. WP:WEIGHT means we should not single out these two; WP:NOT means we should not include every single survey. If the surveys have a notable point of view, it can be included in the main text and footnoted. THF 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And as I've already noted, there is absolutely no excuse for replacing the official government site's text of a statute with a link to an advertising-supported site of questionable reliability. THF 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)r


The status quo should be that large deletions are justified prior to being executed. He just chopped the whole lot! Maybe a couple should go, but a more detailed assessment that his is required, especially as the links have evolved over years.
He also missed the point on the Thomas v Legalarchiver issue. Thomas doesn't resolve in all browsers, and won't cut and paste well. That is why the latter was there. Many people just want to grab parts of the act. So again it was fulfilling a useful function. Then it was just chopped for an equiv which doesn't work well.
On the forum he just quotes WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, completely ignoring the other points that support it, such as "meaningful, relevant content". Most people can see that judgement should be exercised, not one rule selected and dictated.
The article is made much worse by his edit. Much worse. That is the bottom line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

I am half way between you two here. I do think the forum should stay, and maybe one of the surveys. Binarygal

Discussion forums never stay, unless it's an article about a discussion forum. WP:EL is quite clear about that. The surveys also don't belong. WP:NOT#LINK. THF 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


It isn't clear at all, because other clauses equally apply to that forum. You are simply being selective in what you wish to apply to each link. That is not the way to edit well. The statement "meaningful, relevant content" applies there. That site (forum) also holds papers and other info, which you ignore. And it is not a normal forum.
But it isn't just about the forum, because other links have a case too. But you seem to just find one clause they may breach and chop them for it, regardless of how many other statements in WP:EL support them. Judgement and common sense need to be exercised, but you just seem to have a link chopping mission. That is not good editing.
The discussion forum link shouldn't be here per WP:EL. Many of the others should also go. Wikipedia isn't a directory of "useful" links; if there's information in these links that's encyclopedic, then incorporate it into the article and cite the links as sources. MastCell Talk 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A comprehensive article on SOX on the internet which doesn't reference the biggest source of reference data by far is simply silly. It is meaningful and relevent, and unique. The posters there are amongst the biggest names in the sector. Every question and issue related to the legislation is answered: there and nowhere else. It is JUST the sort of resource that SHOULD be linked to.
Balance should be a pre-requisite to editing. A perspective, and sound judgement. Common sense.
The same argument applies to some of the other links, but not all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)
Take it up on the WP:EL talk page. This page doesn't get to override Wikipedia policy, which is why I won't waste time debating your notion that that amateurish site (which doesn't even spell "its" correctly) is at all useful. And can you please read WP:TALK so you understand how talkpages work? THF 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what problem you really have with that site. Something that drives you to dismiss it for a typo, even though its content is unique and relevant. Your "amateurish" opinion is bizarre, given the names who post there.
And you STILL don't get the idea that when some WP:EL statements support inclusion and others don't, judgement is required. You just want to apply the statement which you like: which chops the link, and ignore the others. Again, why? What is the real reason?
There is something odd here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)
Odd indeed - he's back again under a new alias "THF". He cannot justify this edit at all. Not one jot. The lack of knowledge here of SOX is clear, as is the attempt to bully common sense out of the way by hiding behind terms which can be interpretted in many ways. No wonder others are complaining about him on the admin talk page! Perhaps THF you should edit topics you know something about? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)
Could I suggest THF that you stop this behaviour? Checking other Wikipedia pages, for example Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it appears that you have upset a VERY long list of important contributors with this sort of repeated activity.
You know very little about SOX, yet you dive in her and chop massive parts out of a long evolved article? And you wonder why so many people are upset with you, and believe that something should be done about you? Why do you do this?
If you do have any geneuine interest in SOX, add something positive, rather than chopping out other peoples work, based on your own interpretation of WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

convenience break

And let's clarify the allegations from THF, who we know has upset MANY contributors across many topics, with his 'approach'.

I use various accounts to contribute, depending upon where I am in the world, as I do not need credit for my work. I just do it. Yet immediately he tries to use that fact as a stick to beat me with, rather than just focus on the article. I wonder why?

On his mass deletion approach:

As stated elswhere, I tried the link by link approach. I selected the Sarbanes-Oxley-Forum in particular to debate simply because that has a particularly strong case and is so central to the compliance efforts of so many. So motivated was THF to chop everything, that he cited a 'typo' as evidence that it didn't belong! That level of desperation to get one's way suggests some other mission is at play.
It is pointless debating with him on this, but that particular source is extensive, and the forum section doesn't operate as standard forum, but largely as a Q&A ref some of the biggest names in the SOA arena, thus having become the biggest reference source for information on the topic! Deleting that rather than applying the "meaningful, relevant content" clause, or just plain common sense, is ridiculous. It would be a big loss to the article.
Regardng academic sources, he has argued the line that 'none should appear because there are many', which is like slamming a door on knowledge. Why not research and list the most useful (clearly he has time to spend on that)? Or if too lazy, leave what is there?
Like other contributors on other articles, I seriously question the motives of THF here. This level of commitment to slashing parts of an article which he has not significantly contributed to, is rather odd. It is disturbing.
This is quite a decent article, and many of the sources linked to are reasonable. It doesn't need some zealot with little topic knowledge, reducing its value by slashing useful information.


I have now distilled the links down to the main ones. All those left are unique and useful in some way or another, and do comply with guidelines, in my opinion. Thus, prior to any further deletions, please discuss and reach consensus, and not just amongst two people. Mass deletion again will simply lead to edit wars, as will bullying.
It is much better that previous non-participants take a view on this.


And I have now registered from the hotel (I am working away). So one less stick for THC to hit me with. SoxMan
It's it's a source demonstrate how and why it operates as source - I have removed it from the external links for the present moment. If people are saying it is a source - well please inform the rest of us WHY it is a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs)
Please sign your talk comments, everyone. I had to add an unsigned tag and correct SOXman's spelling of his own name. Four tildes is all it takes -- there's even a link that does it automatically where it says "Sign your username" just a little below the show-changes button. THF 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to delete external links that have been there for years, justify it properly and in detail. Every link left is unique in that they provide significant content that cannot be included in the article itself. That is the purpose of external links. SoxMan
Wrong - you've got that back to front - anyone can delete external links they have a concern with - the onus is on editors who want links or other material to be included to outline why they should be. The fact that they "have been there for years" means nothing - some serious crap has been left on wikipedia for years until people have performed clean-up. So please outline the reasons for inclusion - above, you have suggested that is a source - but what is it a source for? --Fredrick day 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting that every link left there provides significant unique content that cannot be included in the article. Which link do you think that doesn't apply to? And, where else is such content provided? And, why isn;t which link it is a valuable link for readers? SoxMan
Again: four tildes, please. Misspelling your own name makes life difficult for everyone. THF 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The community forum. How about the forum itself, which is more like a Q&A? Where else can you find anything rmotely like that in terms of SOX information? And look at the contributors. So many well known figures. It is unique, substantial and valid. And of course the rest of the portal.
I cannot understand how anyone can wish to chop that at all. If I were new to SOX, that is exactly the sort of external link I would want to find here. In fact, I found it from here myself when I was starting out. SoxMan
This last claim seems implausible, given your repeated claim of offense that the links was removed when you had worked so hard on the article, but, per WP:AGF I will assume it is true. But so what? Discussion forums are discussion forums, and thus not appropriate for the external links section. If you think that discussion forum is notable, please create an article about the discussion forum (making sure it complies with WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV), and if the article survives deletion review (which it surely will not), I will happily add the wikilink to the article about the discussion forum in the "See also" section.
But I have absolutely no evidence that that forum is a reliable source of information. Who writes it? There's no identifying information on the front page, which is filled with misspellings and inaccuracies and advertising. THF 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And for the fourth time, SOXman, please read WP:TALK and learn how to sign your posts. Capitalization counts in Wiki, and you keep misspelling your name. User:SoxMan is a dead link; User:SOXman reveals your edit-warring.

YOU have no evidence that it is 'reliable' because you clearly don't know too much about the SOX arena. If you did, you would know who many of the major contributors are. They name themselves, if you can be bothered to look. And yet again the whole link section is chopped. Why should I be the one to back down here, given your history of causing trouble? Your contributions to this topic are superficial and recent. Your most notable is the havoc you are causing here, which applies to many of the pages you edit, hence the whole section dedicated to you and YOUR 'edit-warring'. I am placing those links back again in the hope that contributors, other than you, will debate. I suggest that the best way forward is for you to restrain yourself and allow debate amongst others. Your track record for trouble suggests that I am being somewhat optimistic. User:SoxMan I think most people can work out that User:SoxMan is User:SOXman. User:SOXMan
It's not a matter of "working out" - if you spell your name incorrectly, it doesn't link to your userpage and other users cannot check your contributions. Please sign your name as explained on your talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite my ignorance about SOX, please comment on edits, and not editors. Why don't you try to create a Sarbanes-Oxley Forum article, like I suggested, and see what happens? If Wikipedia editors agree the website is notable, I'll add the reference to this article myself. Until then, it flunks WP:EL and stays out, as every editor to review the subject agrees. THF 20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 812

How could I doubt the utility of a site that has such a useful FAQ? THF 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very childish indeed by THF, and far from constructive. IMHO the value of that site is the forum, so it is interesting that he did not link to that, but chose a petty dig at one page instead.
This appears to be more meat to the THF conflict of interest argument as discussed here.


No there does not seem to be any meat to any claims of COI in this case. --Fredrick day 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick Day's previous and ongoing support for Ted Franks illustrates why he makes this statement.


I make this statement because that is how I see it, - the link has been removed by three seperate editors, others have agreed the community forum is not suitable for inclusion. Are we all bias? you have not made a case for inclusion of your forum. Make a case for that and please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. --Fredrick day 09:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


I am unable to comment because the various links described are not quickly and easily found in the article and they are not reproduced in this RfC. Without being able to review them, by default I would say that they are valid. Then upon review I could determine how each one is relevant. But I am unable... so I say they all stay --Blue Tie 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest using the article history to review the links. Shell babelfish 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"History & Context: Events Contributing to the Adoption of SOX"

The section as currently reads reflects a single partisan source. I'm alright with that POV being included, but NPOV requires other POVs to be included. Butler/Ribstein's book has a good history and context of events contributing to the adoption of SOX, and their point of view should be included. THF 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted: Please include. See my note on your page. Please contribute rather than criticize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcaster (talk • contribs)

I've asked for permission to contribute, because I don't want to be accused of WP:COI. May I add Butler/Ribstein? If so, I'll take some time to do so. THF 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK by me. If you are uncomfortable, post your draft here and we'll work through it on this space, then I can post it to the main article. As long as we set it up alongside or as counterpoint to Farrell, we should do the readers justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcaster (talk • contribs)

Picture is newspaper-style, unnecessary

Including a picture of an event is newspaper-style, not really appropriate in an article. I think I'll just remove the picture.

Law review commentaries section

According to SSRN, there are 492 law review and other academic papers on Sarbanes-Oxley, and that doesn't include the multiple books and law review articles that are not on SSRN. Per WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT, I am deleting the list of a dozen or so randomly selected (and, judging by edit history, largely COI-infused) articles. There's no reason to think that these dozen are the dozen most important law review articles on the subject. (Maybe the Romano one is, but the others sure aren't.) Per WP:BRD, discuss on the talk page instead of reverting for the sake of reverting. If a law review article says something notable, put it in the Wikipedia article, and cite to the article as a footnote. Otherwise, it doesn't belong. THF 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IT Section

Should we create a separate article for the IT information? It is getting lengthy. Further, it is questionable whether this type of archiving is required under SOX 404 at all or belongs here in this general article. I have placed citation tags to see if the writer can substantiate these statements.Farcaster 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional Articles

As standards related to SOX change, I think it's very important to include more cross refs relating to specifics. As mentioned by someone above, Section 404 could certainly have its own page and, personally, I'd love to see something on the differences between AS2 and AS5. IT controls would be covered within this article, but as of now, without going to the ninety-some-page definition of AS5, there's no good way to see it broken down. Having said that, I am not knowlegeable enough to write it myself and implore one of you to take the initiative and help us "Cliff's Notes" folks get a better understanding of these issues. Amp218 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Guys Lets Have FUN Instead

Folks, let's start getting rid of these banners please. If you have a particular concern, air it out below or in the article and we'll start taking care of it. I've been leading SOX efforts for 4 years for big companies and know the 404 guidance backwards and forwards and am happy to coordinate this. Of course SOX is contentious, but the facts are out there now pro and con and we should be able to document them fairly. Let's shoot for the end of October 2007 to have this thing clear of the disclaimers.Farcaster 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute 1: Neutrality of History and Events

Please include the other points of view necessary to balance this section. These circumstances are fairly well understood and were documented in Farrell, a reporter from USA today in his book, which has been cited. SEC and PCAOB background materials also generally support these topics. While other context and circumstances no doubt existed at the time, these are pretty widely accepted as the majors. Any other circumstances/context should be cited so we can address.

I am not an expert on SOX. I came to this page looking for a general overview of the material covered in SOX, reasons for the changes, disputed issues, etc. I think the page itself is in dispute because the sources and citations are not very professional. In addition, I noticed that the citation for bizzyblog.com was removed, but nothing was added in place of it. This seems like a problem to me. Also, credible people with published material are always, in my opinion, strong support for just about anything you want to say (whether it is considered common opinion or not). Website sources by themselves seem weak, especially if not written by credible people (such as on a blog where anybody can chime in), or by people unknown to the reader. Mrobertson5642 17:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mike RobertsonMrobertson5642 17:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Blogs are not generally credible sources of information for Wikipedia. The cited articles, studies, guidance, legal references, etc. are definitive in most cases. The links allow you to jump right to them, one of the great advantages of Wikipedia. I suggest starting with the Economist article, then reading the SEC guidance regarding section 404.Farcaster 07:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute 2: Rewrite of the Article

This seems unnecessary, as we haven't had a major re-organization of the article for a long time now (since I did it probably 45 days ago with Ted Frank's help). Perhaps someone will create a separate "SOX 404 and IT" article if this section continues to be edited, as it is not necessary to expand beyond what we've got in this main article, in my view. The Information technology controls and SOX top-down risk assessment articles cover the IT items pretty well already, I think.

Dispute 3: Overall Neutrality

Please air out specific concerns (just the important ones please). If the concern is just the history and context part, please remove the overall banner.

Dispute 4: Unverified claims

I don't see anything in here that looks out of whack. Please put "citation needed" next to what you've got a problem with. We should be able to find a specific reference for that statement, as we've got most of the major stuff cited already and can do this in a more finite way if necessary (e.g., page numbers of the guidance, etc.).

We can do this if we work together...let's try to make this thing fair!

Farcaster 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some formatting stuff

Not exactly an expert on this stuff, but does "Ban on personal loans to any Executive Officer and Director" have to be emboldened? Seems to me that it should be left unbolded...
-- N3X15 ( Scream · Contribs) 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Under the section "Analyzing the cost-benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley"[3] the first sentence contains loaded and ambiguous language. How much research is a "significant amount"? And where are the "significant differences" in conclusions that are claimed?--138.26.82.53 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-added Discourse DB external link

I re-added the link to the Discourse DB page; I think it's a valuable resource for the commentary that's been written on the issue. Please let me know if there are any objections. Yaron K. 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This link has been removed by many people in the past, most recently by JoeSmack, who gave a full explanation. I guess it's your site, or your colleague perhaps, as you have link spammed it on so many wiki pages. Don't self-promote on the wiki!

Just to clarify, JoeSmack is the only person who's ever removed the link (a few days ago). Before that it was on the page for about six months, with no complaints. Yaron K. 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent page thanks for the link.. Very helpful resource..Mantion 05:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This comment is so manufactured it is pathetic. JoeSmack and others have deleted this for good reason. Yet you return time and time again to insert your own or your friends link. Please spam elseshere.
Actually, I'm not Mantion, nor have I ever communicated with him/her. Also, once again, it's not "JoeSmack and others", it's just JoeSmack, and now you. And JoeSmack deleted it not because it was spam, but because it's an open wiki. Please stop making allegations you can't support. Yaron K. 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what the debate is about. How is this page different from other external links. I found it a very useful link. oh and no I don't know Yaron, nor did he contact me. I was watching a TV discussion about sox and came on line to actually read the act. I normally start my research with Wikipedia. Every expert in the discussion had a critical view of 404 and wondered why there was no critical section in the article. Most acts and bills have a critical section. So I decided to read the discussion page to see if other felt the same way. I see they did and commented accordingly then saw the link and wondered what it was. As I said before, I found it very useful and valid. I don't understand how it is spam. It is a resource, nothing else. If you don't like it, don't look at it.Mantion 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just passing this page, but there are a few things wrong here. You rcomments DO suggest linkspam. They are not 'natural'. It is just the style of the comments made.

What is with you people? Just to see what all the blather is about, I actually followed the link to the Discourse DB. It's a page of links, mostly to reputable sources (city newspapers, journals, etc.). The articles to which it links represent different viewpoints, which are briefly identified. It is **useful** for someone--like, say, me--who came here to figure out what is Sarbanes-Oxley, and why all the fuss. Why would anyone delete it? What is wrong with you? Amccray 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who has removed the link and how many times they did it is sort of a moot point. The site is in violation of WP:EL, specifically Item number 13 under |Links to be avoided: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. I would suggest that whoever wants this link in the article get Discourse DB on the Meta:Interwiki map. That should prevent any possible edit wars over the link's validity. Undisputedloser (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on article's intro

Hi, folks. This is my first time contributing or commenting on a Wikipedia article, so please forgive my ignorance of rules/conventions. I just wanted to make a comment on something in the introduction to this article, in the event that one or more of you Wikiexperts decide to edit or rewrite it. Namely, the intro states: "These scandals resulted in a decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices." While I wouldn't forcefully argue against it, it seems to me that this statement could be enriched a bit. Specifically, the point - at least IMO - is not that the scandals resulted in some generalized public distrust of "accounting and reporting practices", but rather a specific lack of confidence in the accounting, reporting and audit practices of listed (i.e. on a stock exchange) public companies and the accounting firms that were meant to be auditing them. These scandals created a real threat to the financial markets by calling into question the valuations of all public companies, since no one - from the mom and pop with company shares in their retirement portfolio down to the Wall Street equities analyst - could really be sure of the integrity of the financial information being reported by traded companies. And questionable valuations are obviously a very bad thing for the stock markets. Hence the legislation was initiated to establish and enforce certain standards and controls with the intent to boost the confidence of investors in and to protect the viability our financial markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobezisi (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought...Get a life already people damn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.134.126 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that was uncalled for, especially given the thought and effort that went into the above comment. I would delete your rudeness, or at least edit it for punctuation, but I'm too new to know if that's allowed... 138.26.82.53 (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarbanes–Oxley_Act/Archive_1&oldid=1137173885"