Talk:Infor/Archives/2012

Linkspam
An editor had remove a group of wiki-links, labeling them as "linkspam". I feel that that editor was in error, and have replaced the deleted wiki-links. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Infor make Syteline as well? talk 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

syteline(formerly symix) should be included on the list of acquisitions. Infor's business strategy has been to purchase ERP systems that serving similar industries, with the intention of migrating similar ERPs into a single comprehensive ERP platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinalger (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement on Company Witholding Financials
While I understand the reasoning, the tone of the text regarding Infor witholding financials implies that the company is doing something wrong by not publicly releasing its financials. It is commentary from the editor that is not neutral.

Private companies are not required to disclose their financials. That is implicity understood when stating that a company is privately-held. It is not unique to this company or other private companies of its size. Cargill, for instance, is a much larger privately held company and it's Wikipedia page does not mention this beyond stating that the company is privately-held. It does not mean that the company does not have financial controls or undergo financial audits for the benefits of its shareholders.

W Coleman (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that nothing in the text should suggest that the information communicated by Infor could be untrue: as you said, the company is controlled and audited. If I did, I apologize. But I'm still thinking that it's essential to point out the fact that the company chooses not to communicate the detail of its financial situation, and especially its result. Here are the reasons. We both agree that the company is not required to do so. But it doesn't mean that it's not a very interesting fact to point out. It's not about being "wrong" or "right". It's just that it's a fact which gives some relevant clues about the company.


 * First, not publishing the full detail of financial statements could mean that the company doesn't want its competitors to have access to certain information. It's not bad or good, but it's still a meaningful choice.


 * But Infor doesn't just not communicate the details. It chooses not to communicate a simple and very important information: the result. It's a fact that the result of a company is, with its revenue, a key figure, allowing people to have an idea about the current financial health.


 * If a company makes the choice not to communicate its result, especially when it's a big one, there's only few possible reasons to explain this choice :


 * The result is bad, or not good enough, and the company doesn't want to scare customers.
 * The result is too good, and the company doesn't want to make people think that it could lower its prices.
 * In both cases, it's again a meaningful and very relevant information about the company, especially during current crisis times.


 * In addition, let's add that, if the US law doesn't force Infor to publish its results, some other countries do. In most of European countries, even private companies must publish the details of their financial statements. So, European Infor subsidiaries did publish them. For example, the French subsidiaries of Infor reported cumulated losses of approximately €7 millions (net result sum of the five French Infor subsidiaries, fiscal year 2007 as 2008 is not published yet). These figures are public and anyone can access them on any specialized site (for example www.societe.com). So, it's also a fact that some subsidiaries of Infor are facing financial difficulties (at least, losses). Therefore, it's only natural to wonder what could be the result of the group. But the group makes the choice not to publish it and nobody could believe that it's not a thoughtful choice. How can you pretend that it's not a relevant information?


 * The fact that other wikipedia articles do not mention it on other private companies is not relevant (FYI, Cargill does communicate its net icome). Neither your accusation about not being neutral. Of course, it's very likely that you are employed by Infor and it's only natural that you try to avoid inconvenient information. It's your job to add some positive information about Infor on the article, and you do well. When the facts are objective, can be checked, and are presented in a neutral way, it's all right. It's the way it should be for any facts, positive or negative. It's not because a fact is not very good to your eyes that it's not still a fact. How convenient to say that it's not neutral! In Wikipedia article, the facts don't have to be neutral: when you say "Infor is the 3rd largest business applications provider" it's not neutral either. A fact can't be neutral. In Wikipedia, facts have to be true and relevant. What should be neutral is the way the facts are reported. That's all.


 * And here is a true and relevant fact: Infor makes the choice to communicate its result only to its shareholders, but not to its customers. It can mean only one thing, very logical: Infor thinks that its better that its customers don't know it.. The first part is a fact and has its place in the article as long as it's written in a neutral way. The second part is a non neutral commentary which of course I don't intend to write in the article.


 * --SK8Rider (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)