Jump to content

Talk:PwC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeoChrono Ryu (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 2 April 2023 (→Controversy section giving undue weight: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Controversies Guidelines - Please Discuss

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)[reply]

It does not matter what other accounting firm articles look like per WP:OTHER. The controversies section is pretty much the only section of this article that is consistently sourced to reliable sources. The rest of the article is primarily WP:COI puffery. I find it problematic that the only section targeted for cleanup is the sole section which actually adheres to RS guidelines and NPOV guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been discussion below that this article has an unnecessarily long controversy section. Wikipedia must remain neutral and we are not here to promote nor target a specific company. Like I said, big 4 gets sued all the time. Alleged incident with no clear results also shouldn't be included. The "puffery" you stated can be deleted or revised but they seemed consistent with the other Wikipedia pages. The section here that needs clean up is controversies because most of these are not even notable.Kazuha1029 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you an example: "Lezo Case". First of all, the source is in Spanish, also implying this is limited to a local level. Secondly, it's an investigation that is ongoing or possibly closed. Thirdly, it's unsure what PwC Spain's involvement is. For example, how much money did they profited off? $100, $1000, $1,000,000? Fourthly, is there evidence? What makes it controversial? This is an example of entry that needs to be deleted.Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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) 13:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section giving undue weight

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. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - The KPMG article also has nearly 30 different controversies but the sections are in bullet form rather than in section form so the list appears less exhaustive. For this reason, I would be content if you want to change the format of the PwC list to that used in the KPMG article. As regards the content itself, I agree that the ESNC controversy looks pretty trivial and would be content to see it deleted. If there are other sections that you want to propose for deletion, we really need to consider them on a case by case basis. Dormskirk (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to look more in-depth to each of the controversies and see if they are notable for inclusion. The only other section right now I would remove is "PCAOB report on audit inspections" just because there was no fine or any action really taken on the matter. Also moving "Best Picture announcement error" section to Controversies section seems most logical. I will work on some general cleanup over the next few days. JayJayWhat did I do? 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about deleting "PCAOB report on audit inspections". Also fine with me to move "Best Picture announcement error". Dormskirk (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - and to be fair, I'm pretty sure some of these are added by competitors. Materiality is important, only include ones with material impact. Thank you for your contributionsJjj84206 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any objections I have implemented the proposals i.e. I have deleted "PCAOB report on audit inspections" and I have moved the "Best Picture announcement error" section to controversies. Dormskirk (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dormskirk, I apologize as I never got around to making the changes. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a company is embroiled in scandal after scandal, of course that'll be what reliable sources cover. The content in question all appears to be reliably sourced. In fact, it's one of very few sections in this article that actually appear well-sourced. Most of the non-controversies content is brazen WP:COI puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you propose that we have a higher bar for including controversies, so that more minor controversies are left out of the article? NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)[reply]

Controversies / litigation, again

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)[reply]

PwC fined nearly £1.8m over BT fraud audit failures

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/08/pwc-fined-bt-audit-accounting-frc


John Cummings (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PwC&oldid=1147875670"