Talk:Accounting

Invitation to participate in the Accountancy Task Force

If you are interested in working in collaboration with Wikipedia members on improving the article Accountancy, you will be pleased to hear that the Accountancy task force has been set up and is seeking participants who can assist with the article's overhaul. Perhaps you would like to provide verifiable content on this subject matter, in which case your input could be invaluable. Alternatively we are also seeking participants who can help with the systematic sorting of related accountancy articles into meaningful categories, an activity that does not require undertaking research but will nonetheless help improve the quality of the article's links. Either way, the task force would like to hear from you! --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Less common term used?

Why is the less common term 'accountancy' used rather than the more common 'accounting'? Google is usually a suitable metric of common usage and accounting is used twice as often worldwide, than the term accountancy. A simple search shows 11,800,000 hits for accountancy and 23,400,000 for accounting. A British variant that is less common should be noted, but not presumed to be the right way over the more common form.JascalX (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between accounting and accountancy is probably to do with the evolution of the subject. In the same way bookkeeping evolved from record keeping, and accounting evolved from bookkeeping, accountancy as we know it today has evolved from accounting. I can't cite any sources to back this up at the moment, so this is just my view.
As regards the view that accountancy is a British variant of word accounting, I do not have any sources to support or disprove this view, but I can tell you that one of the the first magazines published by a professional accounting organsiation is the Journal of Accountancy which was first published in the US in 1905. This suggests to me that the term accountancy may well of orginated in the US, rather than the UK. If you can cite sources to support or disprove any of these points, your research efforts would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Gavin. I looked around the various dictionaries online and found that 3 of the 5 listed it as a British variant, two did not specify and one of the two non-specific listed the origin year as 1859. Etymology aside, I do not believe the term is very common outside the UK or former UK Commonwealth and appears to not be the more common term worldwide. This is based on simple search engine hits using each term alone or in combination with related termsJascalX (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

Strange, I came to a different conclusion. As you know, the Journal of Accountancy is published by American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and although I am not familiar with how they rank relative in terms of profession associations, their membership seems reasonably large and their history goes back quite a while[1]. I would conclude from this evidence that the term accountancy is used often in the US, even if only amoung memembers of the profession. However, from what little I have read in accademic papers[2][3] and books[4], the term accountancy is used in the US quite often, and even some accademic departments use the term in their name & courses too[5]. You might be right about accountancy being a British origin, but then again you might be wrong, for it is the Merriman-Webster online dictionary that suggests the origin of the word dates back to 1859[6]. It is interesting that an American dictionary should know this. Perhaps the word accountancy is American after all? Only further research will reveal this. Overall, I disagree with your conclusion that it is a term used only in the UK. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of history, it seems clear that "accountancy" is a narrower and less commonly used term than "accounting". "Accountancy" refers much more specifically to the profession, and not to the whole field, which involves economics and statistics as well as accountancy in the professional sense. A change of name would be desirable.JQ (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidence I have cited suggests otherwise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you spell this evidence out? You've shown that the term "accountancy" may not be UK-specific, but your own comments such as "used quite often, and even [by] some academic departments" support the view that "accounting" is more standard. Most of the subcategories of Category:Accountancy use "accounting" in their names, and many would make little sense otherwise.JQ (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence to demonstrate which term is "standard". But if you can come up with a source that says accounting is the standard term, then please let us know. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a few interesting tidbits. The Wikipedia article traffic statistics for April 2009 stated that Accounting was visited 54,746 times during the month (link) while Accountancy had 22,230 visits (link). This would lead me to believe that the majority of readers are typing in accounting, and being redirected to the accountancy page. In addition, a portion of the 22,230 visits could be attributed to links from templates, other articles, etc. (of course the same could be said that some articles are still linking to accounting instead of accountancy). I'm not arguing for either term, but just thought I'd point this out if it assists in the decision of moving back or not. (As a side note, my degree says Accounting on it). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 09:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

More similar evidence. "accounting discipline" gets about 20 000 ghits, "accountancy discipline" <1000. A Google search for dictionary+accountancy produces, as its top hits nearly all refs to "dictionary of accounting" and similar. The first I can find ofr "accountancy" refers to "the art or practice of an accountant" which sounds about right to me. That is, "accountancy" refers very narrowly to the job/profession, and "accounting" covers all aspects of the field.JQ (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Outside the dictionary reference, we don't have very much in the way of sources for this term. Accountancy may be a term that refers to a methodology, a body of learning, profession depending on how it is used. Books such as the History of Accountancy in the USA [7] suggest that it is used in both the US and the UK. However the real question is what is the difference between "Accountancy" and "Accounting"? I still cannot answer this fundamental question but I have found a suitable definition for accountancy:

"Accountancy is the art of communicating financial information about a business entity to users such as shareholders and managers. The communication is generally in the form of financial statements that show in money terms that show the economic reources under the control of management. The art lies in selecting the information that is relevant to the user and is reliable."

Taken from "Financial accounting and reporting" (Elliot, Barry & Elliot, Jamie, FT Prentice Hall, London 2004, p.3), quoted in Corporate Reporting and Company Law By Charlotte Villiers. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, and I don't have any sources to cite, but this is how I've been given to understand it. Accounting is a verb, and Accountancy is a noun. They're effectively different forms of the same word rather than one being a variation of the other. I studied accountancy, so that I could be an accountant and thus engage in accounting. I view accountancy as the noun which describes the concept, whereas accounting describes the act/application of that concept. As a side note, my degree says my major was accountancy with a specialty of public accounting. AaronMP84 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Practioners of Accountancy

I have elimated the paragraph on "Practioners of Accountancy", which seems to be comprised of original research. To replace it[8], I have inserted a paragraph on the origin of the term Accountant (citing Francis William Pixely, admittedly an old source), which I feel provides more encyclopedic coverage of the subject of this article compared with a random selection from the List of accountancy bodies. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Standalone links

I have removed all the random and arbitrary standalone links, both internal and external, that have until now blighted this article. In themeselves, they add nothing of encylopedic value to the article, since they are devoid of the commentary, context, criticism or analysis on their own.

Standalone external links to commercial websites that are not used as the basis for citation should be removed as soon as they are added, as they are likely to in contravention of WP:SPAM.

Standalone internal links should also be removed, as there is an extensive web of links to other topics are already contained in the body of the article itself. Standalone links are not necessary, as this article forms part of an extensive web of categories (see WP:CATEGORY for more information). Stand alone links are not appropriate in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on internal links (see WP:LINKFARM) Such links may be more appropriate in sub-topics of Accountancy. For a list of sub-topics, follow the link to Category:Accountancy at the bottom of this page, or use the search tool by inserting Category:Accountancy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK...but now the article is not an article about accountancy anymore...it's just the history of accountancy with a section on Enron. Surely, at the very least, this article should be a signpost to other related articles? AnthonyUK (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My view is that signposting to other articles does not really add any encyclopedic content per se. If an accounting term is not mentioned in the body of the article, then that may indicate that there is a content gap, and that new content is needed. I agree with you that this article needs new content, but it needs to be sourced; simply adding links is not a substitute for this in my view. However, I think we do not want to go back to having a list of links to other articles just for the sake of it, as we don't want to turn this page into "List of accounting topics" (which is probably redundant given that all the articles listed in it are all categorised) nor a WP:LINKFARM. The other problem related to having lists of links is that it encourages futher but unrelated links to be added, which blights the article by placing undue weight on other topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Accountancy

.,is accountancy a good course!?., is it hard!?., or not?., what are the things involve in accounting!?., —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.67.90 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you like math as a subject, you will like accountancy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GAAP

I updated the discussion on GAAP to be more world viewed. Previously it made it sound as though GAAP was in the US.Jaromhuff21 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

confusing defintion

In the Document's head section

Accounting has also been defined by the AICPA as "The art of recording, classifying, and summarizing in a significant manner and in terms of money, transactions and events which are, in part at least, of financial character, and interpreting the results thereof."[2]

Is the quote badly written or incorrectly quoted?

Slawkenbergius (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, but it maybe possible that you are right and its meaning is not clear because this definiton is used slightly out of context. Which part do you not understand? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Accounting in Ancient India

I have removed the following unsourced content:

Kautilya has detailed on importance of accounting in creation of ethical society in his book arthashastra He viewed philosophy and political science as separate disciplines but considered accounting an integral part of economics. He specified a very broad scope for accounting and considered explanation and prediction as its proper objectives. Kautilya developed bookkeeping rules to record and classify economic data, emphasized the critical role of independent periodic audits and proposed the establishment of two important but separate offices--the Treasurer and Comptroller-Auditor, to increase accountability, specialization, and above all to reduce the scope for conflicts of interest. He also linked the successful enforcement of rules and regulations to their clarity, consistency and completeness. Kautilya believed that such measures were necessary but not sufficient to eliminate fraudulent accounting. He also emphasized the role of ethics, considering ethical values as the glue which binds society and promotes economic development.

If anyone can source these statements, perhaps we can include it within this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Accounting scandals: Lehman Brothers

I have removed the following content on the grounds that it is not sourced:

Another notable scandal involves former global financial services firm Lehman Brothers and its secret usage of controversal Repo 105. Jenner & Block, a court-appointed examiner reported that Lehman never publicly disclosed its use of Repo 105 transactions, its accounting treatment for these transactions, the considerable escalation of its total Repo 105 usage in late 2007 and into 2008, or the material impact these transactions had on the firm’s publicly reported net leverage ratio. According to former Global Financial Controller Martin Kelly, a careful review of Lehman’s Forms 10‐K and 10‐Q would not reveal Lehman’s use of Repo 105 transactions. Lehman failed to disclose its Repo 105 practice even though Kelly believed “that the only purpose or motive for the transactions was reduction in balance sheet”; felt that “there was no substance to the transactions”; and expressed concerns with Lehman’s Repo 105 program to two consecutive Lehman Chief Financial Officers – Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt – advising them that the lack of economic substance to Repo 105 transactions meant “reputational risk” to Lehman if the firm’s use of the transactions became known to the public. In addition to its material omissions, Lehman affirmatively misrepresented in its financial statements that the firm treated all repo transactions as financing transactions – i.e., not sales – for financial reporting purposes.

Although this reads like reasonable summary, the allegations against officers of Lehman Brothers require need to be backed up, as do the "quotations". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys,you'll find a lot of the history section has disappeared. The sources are sound - if anyone wants to rewrite based on sources then the sources are still in the article history. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical Science

I removed the reference to accountancy as a branch of mathematical science because accountancy is primarily concerned with recording already determined numbers in journal entries rather than with arithmetical calculations so I would not consider accoutancy to be part of math. I have read in the history of wikipedia's mathematics article although not in the current version a section titled "what mathematics is not" and it said accountancy is not math using a similiar argument stating accountants are more concerned with journal entries than arithmetical manipulation. --67.52.196.217 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

meh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with your reasons but I agree with your conclusion. AnthonyUK (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. Accounting involves journal entries I agree but it also involves basic mathematics and arithmatic. Accountancy if you are unsure - was defined originally as being a method of counting. Then comes accruals and prepayments whereby a paper based document will state the owing from one human to another. Accounting is merely adding up what is owed to where, and will eventually demonstrate the method of payment. The fact that the final stages of preparing accounts involves journal entries in order to juggle the figures to portray a fair trade system, does not mean accounting is just that. Accounting is an art, such is poetry. Poetry is not just English Language for example but it is the finesse of the words that create power. Merely journaling the poem by rearranging the lines would not state that the poem has been written therefore why is accounting not a branch of scientific mathematics. We are science and maths is maths.

(SAMWAM88 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

Accountancy in a knowledge based economy

I removed the following text:

The development of a knowledge-based economy requires new formulations of accounting, i.e. knowledge accountancy. The accountancy of knowledge is the process of formulating, classifying and communicating data relating to individuals and organizations associated with the knowledge economy. This accountancy of knowledge requires its own conceptual apparatus and array of bookkeeping terms, e.g. personal knowledge balance sheets and knowledge-based balance sheets. Personal knowledge balance sheets track the value of knowledge worker competencies while knowledge-based balance sheets show, in monetary terms, the knowledge resources under the control of a business entity.

Whilst I think that this article could usefully include a section criticising the shortcomings of traditional accounting - I remember there was a paragraph on social accounting that did exactly that. I don't believe that extending accountancy to include "knowledge based balance sheets" is useful, and the idea of valuing knowledge in monetary terms is nonsensical and, indeed, specifically prohibited by accounting standards in all jurisdictions that I am aware of. AnthonyUK (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Caption blunder

Big errors in caption, due to shallowness of multi-copying between sources... The painting has 0.001% chance to be by its traditional attribution, Jacopo de' Barbari, and the open book is by Euclid. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Accounting

ACCOUNTING(ACCOUNTANCY)is the SCIENCE OF 1. COUNTING, 2. MEASURING, AND 3. PRICING GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AT EVERY HUMAN ACTIVITY. FURTHERMORE, ACCOUNTING(ACCOUNTANCY)IS A QUANTITATIVE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE. IMPORTANTANT OBSERVATIONS: 1. DEFINITELY, ACCOUNTING IS NOT AN ART. The art refers to sense of joy. Perhaps the writer/speaker wanted to mean strategy. 2. The work of recording human transactions everywhere and at every time, is BOOKKEEPING. 3. A science involves principles(the first/pristine truths) Zetetics 4. An art involves human invention(Heuristics) and creativity(Sinectics) 5. A principle is the first truth underlying knowledge 6. An invention may involve application of certain principles 7. A principle is an everlasting and universal(ecumenic) truth 8. A human invention is a short-term and local-scope truth 9. Accounting relates to Finance 10. Bookkeeping relates to the job of recording and classifying moneyworth(crematistic-meaning) goods and /or services

For future discussion, a forum and/or symposia might be organized

CPC José Ramírez Carbonel

Buenos Aires, Maarch 18, 2012 10:42am Sunday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.119.145 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The World English Dictionary defines art as "(2) the exercise of human skill, (10) method, facility, or knack, and (11) the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity." Under these definitions, accountancy qualifies as an art. Science is defined as "(1) the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms" and "(4)any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner." Accountancy is not based on immutable physical laws but on tradition, laws, regulatory requirements and culture and thus only qualifies as a science because the knowledge is systematically organized. RM MARTIN (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is Accounting in the internet user account management there?

The RFC 2975 - Internet Engineering Task Force, definitions of accounting is obviously for internal user account use in internet systems like SMTP and POP-servers. see: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2975.txt

I really think it is such a special topic it has nothing to do with the genral subject of accounting to do?