This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PwC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
![]() | On 22 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from PricewaterhouseCoopers to PwC. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I came here to read about the Australian Tax scandal and I had to scroll past a page of 'photos of office buildings' and an entire section of data analysis (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). To avoid the perception that nefarious actors are bloating the article to try to hide the scandals, I propose a two stage approach: 1. Removing all the incredibly obvious padding. 2. Moving the scandals section near the top so that future padding won't have the same effect. 3. Why is the heading called 'issues'? We're not talking about problems with a wikipedia page, we're talking about unethical and (in some cases) criminal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:B184:0:5BFC:2433:4F88:582 ( talk) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The previous version of the article had excessively long controversies, way more than the other big 4 and the rest of the accounting firms. It is not neutral nor fair to put excessively more weight on PwC for controversies. I assumed good faith on the editors but some of the edits could be from competing firms. I want to lay out some guidelines when we include controversies, not just PwC but for all accounting firms: 1. Lawsuits: Accounting firms get sued all the time, you don't just include something in this section when they get sued. You'd have thousands of entries. Only include lawsuits where the firm is ordered by the government or regulators to pay fines, and also include the fines amount. 2. Materiality: for a firm of this size, a few millions of fine is nothing. Negligence happens in accounting firms, not just PwC. If the fine amount is not major, then we should not include it. 3. International: there are many "controversies" entries at the local level, such as Ireland, Italy, Japan...etc, these are too trivial to be included. 4. Alleged Incident: things like "an employee claimed", "PwC allegedly did something", are not sufficient to be controversies.
A general rule on Notability is whether there's another wikipedia page on the incident. For example, the Best Picture Announcement Error was major and notable, hence included in our controversy section. I am not affiliated with PwC so I don't really care if they have a bad rep. But it just seems unproportionable with the other firms and quite an eyesore. I will start cleaning up this article unless someone disagrees. Kazuha1029 ( talk) 16:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The amount of controversies included in this article is a bit excessive, with over 31 (!) different sections. Many of the sections are only one to two sentences long and some sections it is entirely unclear what they referring to. In addition, the sources included in some of these sections are unreliable or no longer exist, like with the "ESNC case" section one of the sources from the ESNC website leads to an error and the other source is from an internet forum. Not really sure that section is entirely notable anyways. I believe there needs to be some cleanup but would like some consensus or input first. Jay Jay What did I do? 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor wants to integrate the controversies section into the remainder of this article: this has been discussed before and this place remains the right place for that discussion. Just tagging the article is not helpful. Please discuss it here. Dormskirk ( talk) 22:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/08/pwc-fined-bt-audit-accounting-frc
John Cummings (
talk)
13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
PricewaterhouseCoopers → PwC – After the merger in 1998, traded as [1] until it was rebranded in 2010 as [2]. Should the article now be renamed along the same lines as other organizations that have rebranded to trade using their initials, BP, IBM, KPMG etc? Twelve years after the rebrand, PwC is the WP:COMMONNAME. Zerlypte ( talk) 20:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Australian tax leak scandal section, the
PwC cite of 3 July states: eight partners have exited or are in the process of being removed from the partnership
. Likewise the
ABC cite from the same day states: given notice of of the findings against him and a process has started to remove him from the partnership
.
That means that the process is underway, not completed. Thus the inclusion of the text they were then removed
is incorrect and has been removed several times. It should not be reinstated until a cite confirming that the process has been completed can be found.
Popsinlist (
talk)
06:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Another issue that's just recently come to light. PwC Aust. was involved in advising the Robodebt scheme. Seems the advice they gave consisted of nothing more than an eight page PowerPoint presentation - for which they charged AUD $853,859. The Guardian The Age They've now agreed to repay that money. Don't know if this deserves a mention in 'Issues'. I'll leave that for someone else. 1.43.41.96 ( talk) 14:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi MIDI
I feel you might have jumped the gun with the edit.
PwC's own website does occasionally use the latter - but only in images - like
this one. Hopefully some WikiWizard with DTP experience can see this and confirm whether it's an italicised 'w' or not.
1.43.41.96 (
talk)
13:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Propose that the controversy section be reduced to a list in bullet points, summarising each controversy in one sentence.
Any longer controversies that would benefit from elaboration can be made into separate articles.
I've just done this for the PwC tax scandal in Australia. I see no reason the bloated content couldn't be moved to separate articles for the others. 20WattSphere ( talk) 08:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Are these awards sections noteworthy? [3] [4] [5]
Does it really inform an encyclopedia reader that one of the largest corporations in the world had a Brazilian subsidiary that was awarded "Most Admired Company" in the "Audit" category of a competition by "CartaCapital magazine"? DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I am in favor of removing them from most corporate articles, unless the awards are notable enough that a reader will be familiar with them, or they have significant independent standing.
Per [6], I am removing all awards that don't have their own article. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The word issues is very bizarre in this case when basically everything listed in the section is a controversy. This change will also bring this page into line with the page for Deloitte and KPMG who use the wording "controversies". This article seems alot better then when I last read it and it came across like it was written by a PwC employee. To me retention of the word issues over controversies seems to be a remnant of this previous non-neutral tone. Aphrodite=Ishtar ( talk) 06:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PwC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
![]() | On 22 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from PricewaterhouseCoopers to PwC. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I came here to read about the Australian Tax scandal and I had to scroll past a page of 'photos of office buildings' and an entire section of data analysis (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). To avoid the perception that nefarious actors are bloating the article to try to hide the scandals, I propose a two stage approach: 1. Removing all the incredibly obvious padding. 2. Moving the scandals section near the top so that future padding won't have the same effect. 3. Why is the heading called 'issues'? We're not talking about problems with a wikipedia page, we're talking about unethical and (in some cases) criminal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:B184:0:5BFC:2433:4F88:582 ( talk) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The previous version of the article had excessively long controversies, way more than the other big 4 and the rest of the accounting firms. It is not neutral nor fair to put excessively more weight on PwC for controversies. I assumed good faith on the editors but some of the edits could be from competing firms. I want to lay out some guidelines when we include controversies, not just PwC but for all accounting firms: 1. Lawsuits: Accounting firms get sued all the time, you don't just include something in this section when they get sued. You'd have thousands of entries. Only include lawsuits where the firm is ordered by the government or regulators to pay fines, and also include the fines amount. 2. Materiality: for a firm of this size, a few millions of fine is nothing. Negligence happens in accounting firms, not just PwC. If the fine amount is not major, then we should not include it. 3. International: there are many "controversies" entries at the local level, such as Ireland, Italy, Japan...etc, these are too trivial to be included. 4. Alleged Incident: things like "an employee claimed", "PwC allegedly did something", are not sufficient to be controversies.
A general rule on Notability is whether there's another wikipedia page on the incident. For example, the Best Picture Announcement Error was major and notable, hence included in our controversy section. I am not affiliated with PwC so I don't really care if they have a bad rep. But it just seems unproportionable with the other firms and quite an eyesore. I will start cleaning up this article unless someone disagrees. Kazuha1029 ( talk) 16:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The amount of controversies included in this article is a bit excessive, with over 31 (!) different sections. Many of the sections are only one to two sentences long and some sections it is entirely unclear what they referring to. In addition, the sources included in some of these sections are unreliable or no longer exist, like with the "ESNC case" section one of the sources from the ESNC website leads to an error and the other source is from an internet forum. Not really sure that section is entirely notable anyways. I believe there needs to be some cleanup but would like some consensus or input first. Jay Jay What did I do? 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor wants to integrate the controversies section into the remainder of this article: this has been discussed before and this place remains the right place for that discussion. Just tagging the article is not helpful. Please discuss it here. Dormskirk ( talk) 22:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/08/pwc-fined-bt-audit-accounting-frc
John Cummings (
talk)
13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
PricewaterhouseCoopers → PwC – After the merger in 1998, traded as [1] until it was rebranded in 2010 as [2]. Should the article now be renamed along the same lines as other organizations that have rebranded to trade using their initials, BP, IBM, KPMG etc? Twelve years after the rebrand, PwC is the WP:COMMONNAME. Zerlypte ( talk) 20:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Australian tax leak scandal section, the
PwC cite of 3 July states: eight partners have exited or are in the process of being removed from the partnership
. Likewise the
ABC cite from the same day states: given notice of of the findings against him and a process has started to remove him from the partnership
.
That means that the process is underway, not completed. Thus the inclusion of the text they were then removed
is incorrect and has been removed several times. It should not be reinstated until a cite confirming that the process has been completed can be found.
Popsinlist (
talk)
06:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Another issue that's just recently come to light. PwC Aust. was involved in advising the Robodebt scheme. Seems the advice they gave consisted of nothing more than an eight page PowerPoint presentation - for which they charged AUD $853,859. The Guardian The Age They've now agreed to repay that money. Don't know if this deserves a mention in 'Issues'. I'll leave that for someone else. 1.43.41.96 ( talk) 14:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi MIDI
I feel you might have jumped the gun with the edit.
PwC's own website does occasionally use the latter - but only in images - like
this one. Hopefully some WikiWizard with DTP experience can see this and confirm whether it's an italicised 'w' or not.
1.43.41.96 (
talk)
13:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Propose that the controversy section be reduced to a list in bullet points, summarising each controversy in one sentence.
Any longer controversies that would benefit from elaboration can be made into separate articles.
I've just done this for the PwC tax scandal in Australia. I see no reason the bloated content couldn't be moved to separate articles for the others. 20WattSphere ( talk) 08:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Are these awards sections noteworthy? [3] [4] [5]
Does it really inform an encyclopedia reader that one of the largest corporations in the world had a Brazilian subsidiary that was awarded "Most Admired Company" in the "Audit" category of a competition by "CartaCapital magazine"? DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I am in favor of removing them from most corporate articles, unless the awards are notable enough that a reader will be familiar with them, or they have significant independent standing.
Per [6], I am removing all awards that don't have their own article. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The word issues is very bizarre in this case when basically everything listed in the section is a controversy. This change will also bring this page into line with the page for Deloitte and KPMG who use the wording "controversies". This article seems alot better then when I last read it and it came across like it was written by a PwC employee. To me retention of the word issues over controversies seems to be a remnant of this previous non-neutral tone. Aphrodite=Ishtar ( talk) 06:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)