Talk:PwC tax scandal

	Australia portal PwC tax scandal is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Business

	Business portal 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The title

Should this be named PwC Australia tax scandal - or just PwC tax scandal?

Also - how do you get around any confusion of people wanting to contribute - whether to post to the PwC main page (where there's still a big slab on this topic) - or here - or both? 1.43.41.96 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

For now I don't think the title needs more clarity, but open to other opinions
I think the subject calls for more detail and structure than is possible in the PwC main page, especially given the complaints from other editors about the bloated "Issues" section there. I think it's ok to have both pages, with more detailed information here, and a more basic description on PwC

20WattSphere (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however, we may need to include the name in the year. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup: indirect language

The language is very verbose, in a way that misses the core of what's being said. For example, these two sentences mean the same thing:

"the investigation identified a number of specific examples where professional standards were breached with respect to misuse of confidential information"

"the investigation revealed multiple abuses of confidential information"

But the first is much longer and seems to lose the point in word salad. I'm trying to clean up the article. Help if you can! DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Committee Report

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has just handed down this report. The Guardian has done this article. Deborah O’Neill - committee chair - makes this lovely statement: “We have documented a broad and relentless pursuit of profit at any price, with the revelation of practices that jettisoned even the most basic principles of ethics and professional accountability”.

I will try to spend a few hours over the next day or two distilling this into a few paragraphs and slot that into "Other consulting firms"? - just because it's more generic than PwC alone. BTW - I was 1.43.41.96 in a former life. 58.110.44.246 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]