Talk:Enten controversy

Currency

As this is an article about Japan I think that all the amounts quoted ought to be in Yen. Dancarney (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote

Not to draw away from the more serious discussion of improving this article, but the line from when the guy was arrested -- "I'm leading 50,000 people. Can they charge a company this big with fraud?" -- is absolutely priceless. Just had to point that out. 24.174.68.191 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not to mention the one in the top corner. I'd say he'd be great for Wikiquote. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

It's premature and a WP:BLP violation to term this a fraud, rather than a scandal. No fraud has been proven. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No scandal has been proven either. In fact that's a much worse word to use and one I've been told to avoid in the past. "Scandal" seems to suggest a swing in the other direction, i.e. that the scandal is the arrest of this nice and perfectly decent businessman who must be innocent because he says so... which isn't exactly neutral either... how many old women will it take for it to become a fraud? Or would a young woman be more likely to not be accused of having taken leave of her senses? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything it is now worse so I'd suggest changing it back... it now seems to be suggesting that members of the general public are lying so as to bring down one individual who quite clearly isn't the full shilling... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Has Enten been used to refer to anything else? No fraud has been clearly established, and "scandal" is innapropriate, as discussed above. Would suggest a move to Enten or (2009) Enten investment scheme. I don't quite understand why the year needs to be labelled (was/will this happen in another year?).--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Enten investor fraud. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Until someone is found guilty of a crime in a criminal court, it should be referred to as an alleged fraud. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is a term to describe such examples of ingenuity - where it is clear something not quite above board has taken place but where the precise nature of the non-legality has yet to be determined. Wilhelm Voigt might be another example - and the Frenchwoman of the late 19th century with her "mysterious bos" who talked up a monetary construct (name anyone?) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to "Enten currency investigation" - npov title. Exxolon (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hate the overuse of the word 'controversy', as used in the tile currently, I don't think it's even necessary here. This article could simply be titled Enten and the article already at that page moved to Enten (deity). Dancarney (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Math Error

I fixed the currency exchange LOL. Previous text said USD 1.4 billion was equal to 1.2 YEN. Hahaha wow, I think we need to work a little bit on sourcing. It gave the false impression that the one lady who was quoted lost 30 million dollars, when in fact it would be somewhere around USD 300,000. Let's make sure this doesn't happen again! Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Yes, it is billion and not trillion. Conversion calculator error. At least I found the error. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness mathematically inclined minds are on hand to resolve such situations. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 04:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigation start?

The article opening line currently states that the "The Enten currency investigation began on 5 February 2009...". However, this is the date on which 22 executives were arrested, and, as mentioned further down in the article, the investigation began in 2007. --DAJF (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How about rephrasing it to the investigation "was publicized" on 5 February 2009? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And we could rename the article to "Enten currency controversy"; "investigation" sounds rather awkward. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article and re-wrote the lead paragraph. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it much clearer now. --DAJF (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

References

The references in this article are very confusing. The numbers should be consecutive with some sort of op cit reference. Can someone fix this? Ksnow (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Ksnow

Per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations: "Do not use ibid., op. cit. or similar abbreviations in footnotes." --BorgQueen (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nami's Inspiration

It would be interesting to put that Nami derives inspiration from a 16 th century Japanese Warlord...Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enten controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206082502/http://mdn.mainichi.jp:80/mdnnews/news/20090205p2a00m0na014000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20090205p2a00m0na014000c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)