Talk:Halliburton
|
|
Please do not cut and paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia. That can not be allowed for legal reasons. If there is some other website with a particularly good treatment of the subject, you may add an external link to it. -- Infrogmation 20:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that this comment is under Halliburton...? Do you see the irony...? It's a dark one. Khranus:.
- How is it ironic? What are you talking about? Gest 12:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
more news
[1] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=1&u=/ap/halliburton_nigeria) will give you more to write about here. Kingturtle 06:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well this is a well-balanced NPOV article! LOL. --M4-10 04:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- er....what you're supposed to do is read the article and take from it what is useful. use your brain ;) Kingturtle 10:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cheney balance sheet
"In 2002, Cheney's total asset wealth was valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million." Says who? The IRS? So what are his debts? - Jerryseinfeld 23:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the latest
if anyone has time, there is information in this news item [2] (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_bi_ge/iraq_halliburton_4&printer=1) which could be of use to this article. Kingturtle 10:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article appears to be a slam piece against Cheney and Halliburton, not a fair presentation of Halliburton. NPOV seems to be definitely violated. Johnwhunt 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Changes Made
Please note. Johnwhunt 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted passage
This passage was deleted a couple of weeks ago:
- Influence of the contracts can be seen from company financial reports company posted a second-quarter net loss of $663 million in 2004, revenue rose 38 percent from a year earlier to $5.0 billion. Iraq-related work contributed $1.7 billion in revenue in 2003 and a further $3.8 billion in the first six months of 2004.
Can anyone tell me why? Unless it's specifically inaccurate, this seems to be a very relevant notation. At the very least the fact that they've seen a 38% revenue increase during a merely so-so economic period is significant in and of itself. The fact that government contracts are a factor is also such. If no one has a reason it should be excluded, I think it ought to go back in. Wally 22:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed it, Wally. I'll try to explain why I did.
Inserting quarterly numbers into the article seemed inappropriate because they are quickly dated. And empasizing the impact of one quarter in particular I thought was misleading, particularly since the statement reported revenue. Constuction is so convoluted that revenue in and off itself can be misleading, particularily in an encyclopedia context. Instead, I discussed the fact construction causes fluctuations, showed three years annual profit and loss numbers and current year revenue. The link to the Halliburton website can take the reader who needs to know to their annual reports for indepth discussions. The article states elsewhere the amount of the Iraq conracts and the anticipated profit. Johnwhunt 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Changes
Restored Halliburton's net income figures. Corrected the asbestos loss number which had been incorrectly changed. Restored the sentence concerning the nature of international construction. Removed most of the comments inserted about the $108 million cost question, including Waxman and the UN. $108 million is not significant in relation to contract and the UN is scrambling for anything that takes the focus off their handling of Iraqi oil. Johnwhunt 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added conclusion to SEC investigation. Eliminated two dead links. Johnwhunt 20:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)