From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Taxation (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business / Accounting  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Accounting task force.
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New York City  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scandal section[edit]

The scandal section is not referenced at all the person pushing for the section has to provide references and proper citations. It looks like he/she just works for a competing firm and is trying to push for negative publicity.

The above is not true. The scandals are notable, ongoing, and an example of corporate greed and arrogance. Please see below == Egads! Corporate calumny! == gsotir 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check the new revenue figure? There is no source on that number. Is it true or false?

HI to confirm the new revenue figure is true, check and see the latest report for FY2007 which has just been released today(16/10/2007), which makes D&T #1 globally in terms of revenue and #of staff. So by the usual counts, number 1 of the big 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the other Big 4 firms have lists of some their major clients on their Wiki's, perhaps someone could add a list of Deloitte's major audit clients?


Why is this article written in the first person? It's supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. Whenever I see the word "our", I don't bother to continue reading it. If someone could fix it up it'd be great. Downwards 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The History section of the article seems to be a lightly edited copy-and-paste from the History section of the company's website. (The editing seems to consist of removing first-person pronouns with the company's full name.) I'm going to put a POV-Check on it. Exia 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Deloitte and Company was founded in London in 1849. Please update.

Deloitte started his business in 1845. The history section seems very US-centric - compare to the official website which has much about the activities of the UK firms in the 19th century.

-- Beardo 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The history section of the article is a direct lift by the poster from the firm's US website, so naturally has the US history given. Appears to be both POV and copyright violation. THJames 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Propose merge - Deloitte Haskins & Sells[edit]

Article on DH&S is a stub. The history of DH&S, as one of the predecesors that merged into DTT, is already covered in the DTT article so a separate article on DH&S is not necessary.

THJames 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No comments received so merged page. THJames 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is PR[edit]

We don't need PR on an encyclopedia.

  • Then it can be edited. I dont think anyone can argue that an article on Deloitte, as one of the nations big four accounting firms, isn't warrented in the encyclopedia. Many articles begin with information taken directly from a Company's website or other biographical

Informaiton on an individual as posted by his or her employer. If you disagree with anything in the article, please edit and discuss any changes here.--Fresh 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The significant clients are mentioned for Pricewaterhousecoopers, Ernst & Young and KPMG. Glad if someone can update the page for Deloitte and mention who their significant clients are. Thanks

This is PR. Its scrubbed by the company. Look for any negative news about them on the web - negative comments - anything. Its all scrubbed. Its Orwellian.


I really think we need a section on the Parmalat scandal.

UK Acquisition of Andersen business[edit]

There is a paragraph explaining that original UK business of Deloitte passed to Coopers & Lybrand. Is it worth adding at the end a comment along the lines that "Following the demise of Arthur Andersen in 2002, the UK business of Arthur Andersen was absorbed by Deloitte. This was the optimal result in the UK from a competition perspective, redressing the loss of the original Deloitte business to Coopers & Lybrand."

I would argue that Deloitte was the weakest player in the market prior to the Andersen absorption and in many areas ex-Andersen staff have taken over the business. That's probably to UK-Centric and opinionated though. Crantock 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Is the Clientele section in this article really encyclopedic? First of all what constitutes as a "major" client? Second, Deloitte's clients are so numerous that this list could go on seemingly forever and this section is quickly turning into a "data dump". My suggestion would be to simply state the different sectors that Deloitte clients fall into such as telecomm, commerce, etc. Any thoughts? Suvablee0506 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Egads! Corporate calumny![edit]

The scandal section regarding LAUSD is referenced by newspaper articles from established corporate media. In fact, the company has been, and will continue to be a target of legal protests and perhaps lawsuits by individual teachers and unions until they fix the broken system they sold to LAUSD. I can't believe you people want to steal from school kids. I have re-inserted the entire Scandal section 9/19 after a rip in the net fabric disappeared it. If it needs to go lower down than perhaps it should be done so...and locked...

The vandalism continues on a daily basis, so I will now attempt to expand the Scandals section...obviously someone feels that you should not know this info. gsotir 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Scandals & Rankings[edit]

The sections on scandals and rankings need improvement. This improvement should make them more encyclopedic by providing context.

The existence of rankings are not advertising but rather expresses the standing of a company as compared to other companies. The rankings say more than "this company is great" but rely on specific areas like treatment of minority employees, which evinces notability beyond advertising although further context could be provided. Perhaps the rankings section could instead be merged into sections on history thereby providing context.EECavazos (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The scandals section effectively serves as a soapbox for people airing their grivances. The specific suits themselves are very notable because they provide insight as to the topic's impact. However, more context is needed. Since they were lawsuits, the company has its own view on the matter. Since the articles only discuss grivances as to the specific situations, the content is not neutral. That's not to say that I think the company should be exculpated but rather npov requirements ask for more than what is currently provided.EECavazos (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

-This is what happened in the scandal.

Deloitte Consulting implemented SAP HR for LAUSD. They told LAUSD employees that they have to submit their time online in order to get paid. LAUSD employees did not submit their time online. And then, they got upset. I don't see how this is a scandal. This is LAUSD's fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doclkk (talkcontribs) 06:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The scandal section seems to be really negative. Do we need it at all? GreenDotter (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it can be merged into one of the other sections?EECavazos (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Maybe tuck it away in the history? GreenDotter (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this whole entry is little better than a corporate advertisment. The scandals continue to affect workers on a monthly (in LAUSD's case) basis. Any negativity here stems from selling and promoting shoddy products, not mere reporting on real events. Please, let's keep things in perspective. gsotir (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The scandals and rankings sections take things out of perspective. Both of the sections are mere bullets that list sparse raw facts without context. The rankings section could be incorporated into the larger body of the article to give context to company's placement in the industry. This is what notability (as opposed to advertising) is all about: giving reason as to why the subject should have an article devoted to it. The scandals section could be incorporated into larger body to give perspective on the impact of the company. The scandals add to the subject's notability. The scandals section as it is constitutes mere reporting on current events because the bullet format and associated entries give little to no information on the "why" or "how" or even "what" for most of the scandals. The scandals section demonstrates what results from contributions made with haste and spite. Wikipedia should have an article devoted to each scandal with the summary incorporated into this article. Failing that there could be an article devoted to the scandals of this article's subject with the summary added to this article in appropriate areas. The baseline is that the scandals section should be rewritten to provide more information detailing what happened and why and how. If some of the scandals are older, then they should be put in the history section and under the proper subsection. It's hard to tell where many such individual scandals should go because they were so hastely drafted with no indication of time or the slightest context. Other scandals that are more recent should be a part of a new section that discusses the company's notable presence in the world today. The individual scandals should be kept because they add to the notability of the subject. Again, should the scandals have an adequate amount of attention and information, then they would be expanded to the point where they should have their own articles with summaries incorporated in the article.EECavazos (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Andersen#Involvement in accounting scandals is an example of the proper treatment of a scandal because it goes in depth by providing context and elaborating on what happened and why and how.EECavazos (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Accounting scandals also points to articles that demonstrate proper treatment of scandals.EECavazos (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind spite, I just mind lazy spite.EECavazos (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Scandals section is pertinent to researchers, it is backed up by corporate media sources, it is an example of how this corporation operates, and it is being maintained and updated regularly. There have been numerous attempts to sabotage and delete and vandalize this section culminating in numerous requests to lock the section and stem further vandalism. Please see history background for details.gsotir (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this site! If you would like to add material to create context that is fine, but just making pronouncements and then deleting peoples work is little better than site sabotage. I just talked to a teacher today who was underpaid $5000 and Deloitte's computer says she was overpaid $2000 and she is freaking out. This is an example of the damage this company does. It needs to be publicized. gsotir (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Will you please start reading what editors write in this discussion section and address such content specically? Also, review WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. An example of a scandels section that is not a soapbox can be found in Arthur Andersen#Involvement in accounting scandals and throughoutAccounting scandals. The scandals section in this article has external links that give no information other than the name of a scandal. Some of these links are dead links and provide no other information. ISoft? Others provide no information other than the external link. Parmalat? Quangdong Kelon? Can you imagine an English essay that only says "I didn't like the book"? The scandals section is of such limited quality. It has limited value particularly to researchers because they may use the public library or Lexis-Nexis or even google with a little effort to acquire more information than provided in the scandals section of this article. Just look at Arthur Andersen#Involvement in accounting scandals. This is what each scandal in the scandals section should look like at the very minimum. If someone really cared about the people not getting paid, then they would put a little more effort in providing sufficient content on what was going on in the scandal without falling back on the bad habit of seeing wikipedia as a soapbox per WP:NOT. EECavazos (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will rewrite and expand the LAUSD scandal. I do not have info about the other scandals. I have read WP:NOT numerous times and see no discrepenies between what I have contributed and WP standards. But, please be aware that Deloitte has continously tried to remove the scandals section because it contains info that does not fit their PR matrix...which is what corporate entries at WP stand the danger of degrading to. This danger is prevalent throughout WP and serves no one trying to seek valid information about a corporation.

That said, just removing an entire section because of your perceptions without notable dialogue struck me as more vandalism. While I do not profess to be an editor I do believe that consensus is more than one person making comments in disagreement with other comments made previously, and then acting unilaterally...perhaps you too should review WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

I think the Scandals section should remain until I can get a more full, and I hope, agreeable, entry...perhaps w/in the next week or so? gsotir (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All this talk of what/where/how/when content got posted and will be revised and by who is just another example of Wikipedia's failure as an information source. Wiki is nothing better than group blog. A lot of un-vetted crap gets posted, most of which would never see the light of day in the real publishing word. Pity those who come here for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Dear IP68.42.99.34: Thanks, but what you are describing is pretty much the standard rap on Wikipedia. Nothing new. And this talk page is here to discuss specific ways to improve this particular article. Famspear (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for article[edit]

External link to be added -[edit]

I have an idea about adding as an external link from this page. Actually, this link was here, but it was removed a week ago by OhNoitsJamie. In course of discussion we agreed that this link is relevant for big four auditors page. Although I admit that is based on wordpress engine (so could be named as blog) and the issue of COI could be raised, I strongly believe that it is worth adding the link. Just few points why to add.

1. is a specialized site which aggregates news about big four auditors. So it is definitely relevant for people reading about Deloitte.

2. Even as of now there are 16 posts about Deloitte and more than 70 posts about competitors. So, in this case, the more the better.

3. All the posts are properly referenced to sources and do not express point of view of the blogger. So, to some extent it removes the issue of COI and makes the source reliable.

4. Fresh news regularly appear on the source. So, it gives additional value of dynamic vs. static data to wikipedia users.

5. The site is administered by ex- big four worker. So, active users can ask questions and receive relevant answers. And that's another additional value for wikipedia users.

So, eager to hear your ideas about the idea! :) BIG4PAPA (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I am adding the link and will be glad if any ideas will apear anyway. BIG4PAPA (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflicts of interest[edit]

Note that at least one series of edits [1] has been completed by an IP that is identified as a Deloitte internet address. None of the material in these edits seems particularly biased, but it is something to keep aware of. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Kind of seems like an odd thing to point out. Wouldn't you want people familiar with the company and facts about the company making edits, provided they're sourced and NPOV? I would assume that a lot of the contributors on a page such as, say, Christianity are in fact members of the faith, but I don't know that it would warrant a note on the talk page. Unless there are edits made by the Deloitte IP that have disputed neutrality, it seems kind of finger-pointy to preemptively put a blurb on the talk page about it. (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Chairmen of the Board is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I updated the Chairman of Board and CEO. Though it's my first edit to wikipedia, so might have messed it up. --SamfromMN (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

European Headquarters[edit]

Can anyone confirm Deloitte's 'official' European Headquarters is in London? I found that Deloitte web page only mention its principal office is in NYC.North wiki (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Deloitte as a whole is split up in different regions. For the Americas, the headquarter is New York. For Europe/Africa, the HQ is London. (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable employee[edit]

An editor on Oct 29 add the following under the above heading: 'Yancey Westerfield - King of Windows 7'. I'm not certain if the person named is notable and a quick search with such key words doesn't yield any valid result. Can anyone vouch the validity of the information? In view of it's probably about a living person, I remove the above information from the article pending other editors who can substantiate its validity.---North wiki (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Deloitte edits[edit]

An editor with a Deloitte IP address seems intent on adding Alfonso Moreno - CEO of Cholula Hot Sauce (2008-present) to the list of former staff even though it is unclear whether Alfonso Moreno is notable. Dormskirk (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nortel auditors[edit]

Toronto court report on Monday, Apr. 02, 2012 2:41PM EDT

suggests D & T auditors made the suggestion to release reserves

G. Robert Shiplett 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Formation of FASB Questions[edit]

My Department Chair at Virginia Tech, Dr. Ron Patton left before the date given for "beginning discussions" about the FASB to BE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH for the FASB?? Timing can't be right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Auckland image does not look real[edit]

The image of Deloitte's Auckland building does not look real. To me it looks like a doctored image, partly created with the aid of computer graphics. Underneath the low-rise buildings there are some streaks of light caused by the motion of vehicles combined with a long exposure of the camera. Yet the people who are walking are not blurred. The lighting of the Deloitte building also does not look natural, as if it is intended to make the Deloitte building glow more than its surroundings.-Lester 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


added sueing by Booz Allen Hamilton under criticism section. Rim sim (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


added Deloitte's pledge to add jobs in UK. Rim sim (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mitigating the Insider Threat: Building a Secure Workforce[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Extensive Cleanup[edit]

This article has undergone extensive cleanup to remove much of the irrelevant debris that had piled up, with a formatting closer to that of Accenture which is regarded as a B quality on most project scales. We should start from here to upgrade it any further, as opposed to pushing any further reversions to the previous C quality article. If there are questions or discussion, the talk page is the place to have them, NOT continued reversions of the cleanup. (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a clean up. You have removed some excellent and very important sections on the development of the business, structure, branding, disputes etc. The general principle on Wikipedia is that major revisions should be discussed first and if the material is properly cited then it should remain. So please restore the material that a number of editors have worked so hard to develop over time. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The material had multiple out of date links, out of date information, and many other things that are irrelevant such as a random listing of former employees that was mostly uncited. I know the history of the article. If you have a dispute with the edits, let's talk about them on the Talk page, instead of reverting my edits. The article is much more encyclopedic as it stands, as shown in the difference in quality ratings for both Deloitte and Accenture, your subjective opinion of the material notwithstanding. (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect, as you are using an IP address rather than a proper user address there is no evidence that you have ever edited the article before. On the other hand I have added a lot of material to the article over many years and that is fully documented. As this article has never been independently assessed it is not clear whether it is 'start', 'C' or 'B'. I would again ask you to restore the deleted material. Dormskirk (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
We're going to Third Opinion then as I can't imagine how it makes sense on an objective basis to take an article based on a B class article and argue it should be reverted back to Start or C class with a bunch of irrelevant information that was thrown together and presented in a wildly incoherent manner. It feels as if your beef is less about the cleanup of the article, which was needed, but mostly that I'm an IP address and made big edits without a lengthy discussion (i.e. you appear to be disputing the procedure rather than the changes themselves) but I'll instead assume good faith. I'm filing the request now. (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am disputing the changes themselves (important information has been deleted), the process (no discussion) and your suggestion that the work of a number of editors is "irrelevant debris". In the meantime please can you follow proper process by restoring the deleted material. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I was right on the motivation here. The Third Opinion request has been filed and we can decide on action to take then. For the third party editor, the edits are based on numerous principles... Bold edits to clean up the article to begin with. Verifiability over the extensive list of former employees that aren't even mentioned on any of their pages. Undue weight for the extensive list under the "Criticism" section which had gotten ridiculously long. Reading that, you'd think the firm was full of crooks. Dead links in multiple places, and I didn't even get them all. (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Normally I would decline this 3O post for having no thorough discussion per the instructions. Though it has taken place, it's rather vague as both parties, especially the bold editor has given reasons like "out of date" and linked the usual guidelines. No one has specified or explained which part was removed or why. Till then, I'll have to support the inclusion of all this content (which is sourced) and am against this sudden blanking and bold edit. If you both feel the discussion can continue further (no walls of text please, keep it short), I'll watch this page and can give you an informal second 3O in case it's needed.

The class of an article depends its WikiProject assessment. B class and lower can be given by anybody whose read the instructions and GA class and higher require formal reviews. Though being unfamiliar with this topic, I don't see how the much reduced version is B still looks C to me.

Note: Per BRD, the bold editor who makes the change is required to discuss on the talk page and establish consensus with any opposing editor(s). No way does it say, any side of the party is free to keep reverting while discussing. Best to prevent an edit war. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the criticism section looks valid to me since it's sourced. These sections are usually valid for articles on companies, so I don't see what's wrong. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That's very considered and very helpful. For my part I would be prepared to support the deletion of the list of former employees which is uncited. I hope that helps us reach consensus. Best wishes and thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think things got a little confused here, it's my edit versus the one that was as of my big deletion. I'll explain the changes: 1) there were vast sections in the "Recent history" detailing every single merger the company has engaged in in recent years (Ubermind, etc), and despite links to press releases about the item, aren't encyclopedic in nature and aren't large in scale to warrant notability. 2) I also have rearranged some stuff in the history section that does preserve what was there, just moved around to flow better. I did get rid of stuff about "Under X's leadership" as it didn't seem to flow with the overall story of Deloitte coming together. Basically the modern firm is an accumulation of a bunch of mergers and that's the key thread I was keeping with. 3) Uncited list of former employees, we're in agreement on that so let's let that lie. 4) Scandal section. The use of the word Criticisms or Scandals seemed a bit emotional so I decided to focus on projects and outcomes where the outcome was notable, so renaming it to Notable Projects made sense, as I did in the Accenture article. As auditors, there's always going to be something when a company goes under, so listing every single incident quickly gets out of hand, and the real major ones get buried or are gone (Parmalat). I still think the list is too long and US centric to be honest. 5) Staff section. I wrote this (IP's change but it is the same person behind the keyboard), it was a few titles and where they recruit from which just isn't encyclopedic looking at the articles of other similar companies, nor does it appear in their annual reports, nor did it really add anything to the article, plus they change that stuff internally every it seemed smart to delete it. 6) Sponsorships section. This was moved into a marketing section which covers the items that were there, added bullets for formatting, and adds in some bits about how the firm markets itself - this is modeled after the section on the Accenture article. That seemed to make it comprehensive in terms of the coverage. Thanks 3O for your opinions here. (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I would prefer to see most of the history restored (although I don't mind it being tweaked to flow better and to remove very small acquisitions). As previously indicated I am content for the list of employees to go. The criticisms section should be restored in full (although, again, I don't mind it being tweaked to flow better and to remove excessive detail). I am also OK to delete the out of date staff material. I hope this helps with reaching consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If there are no more interventions in the next couple of days I will re-instate the full version as supported by the 3O (minus the uncited list of employees). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Now a deadline. You know what, do what you want as it's now apparent you never had any intention of doing anything different with this article. So much for bold edits. This whole mess has driven me away from contributing on Wikipedia again. Thanks. (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 172.15.68.XX, don't be discouraged just because your edit is going to get reverted. Remember there is no deadline and this is not the end. Dormskirk is restoring the old version and has agreed with some of your edits. You can continue boldly editing here and of course discussing each change if needed, that's how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works. Make progress, edit by edit, and in your own time. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)