Talk:Accounting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accounting Equation

shouldnt the basic accounting formula ASSETS=LIABILITY+OWNERS EQUITY be included?--Enrichyourmind 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is already included under financial accounting — Kortaggio ^{Proclamations} _Declarations 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition

accounting is the process of manage the data of the business.Which includes the preparation of income sattement, Balance sheet, Ladger and so on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.246.40 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the definition at the beginning of this article be reduced to a single paragraph. I think it unwise to allow the opening definition to be greater than a single paragraph, as the larger the defintion, the more disagreement will arise as to what should or should not be included. One benefit of this proposal is that a one paragraph definition will be immediately followed by the table of contents, which is currently a quarter way down the page. An illustration of this proposed improvement to the layout is the article Physics, which in my view is neater in appearance.--Gavin Collins 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, I propose that the new heading "Introduction" be created to accommodate the orphaned paragraphs that follow the definition so that readers and contributors can understand what the purpose of these paragraphs are as well as to give them some structure. At the time of writing, the definition section is too long and out of control. Its long length is a temptation for people to add more content to it. The place for content that aims to expand the defintion is in an Introductory section rather than extending the definition.--Gavin Collins 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly I propose creating an entirely new section "Principals of Accounting" to assist readers understand why accounting is classed as a methodology. I do so with the knowledge that this is a topic of wideranging debate about what are accountancy principals, a debate that has gone on within the profession for more than a hundred years . Despite the heated debate this may give rise too, I think this would be an interesting addition to the article, which in my view is incomplete without it.--Gavin Collins 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To accomodate comments relvant to each section, I have rearranged the headings of this discussion page to bring it more in line with sections 1-10 used in the article. Note to past contributors: I have not deleted any content, nor have I made changes with the intention of promoting/demoting the importance any particular section. However, I think all of this discussion should be rearranged in line with the article itself, so that its subject matter remains focused on improving the article's content. --Gavin Collins 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Phases

Is here some one explain me the recording, classifying, summarizing and presenting phases of accounting with comprehensive example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.201.36.155 (talk) 06:28, July 29, 2007

Have a look at the article Bookkeeping, which I think is what you are looking for. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage

I'm not pleased with the redirecting of accounting, accountant and bookkeeping all to accountancy. First, accountancy is a kind of $20 word not in general use in English. Second, bookkeeping is a discrete occupation carried on by thousands of people who are not professional accountants. Third, accountants are a profession, and suitable for a professional topic of their own. As it is the article promises to become quite unwieldy and ultimately useless for providing simple information about bookkeeping, accounting and the profession of accounting. user:Fredbauder

Well Fred, it seems you are all wet. "Accountancy" is just British English, while "accounting" is merely American English. It would seem the British get to title at least one article their way. User:Fredbauder PS. We still need a bookkeeping article.

My Masters Degree from Stetson University in DeLand, Florida, USA says that I received a Masters in Accountancy. As such, I'm willing to go along with Accountancy, as long as any questions about Accounting get redirected to the proper page. I am far more concerned about the separate but related topics of auditing and accountancy being combined into one. Most accountants do not audit. --Fcoulter 19:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that there is a significant number of people (American, British, etc.) who use "accountancy" instead of "accounting". Is the former word really so common? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about British English, but the word "accountancy" is pretty much nonexistent in the US. Rhobite 00:09, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm from the U.S., and I've never heard of the word "accountancy" until I saw this article. Also: "accountancy" gets 1,720,000 hits [1] on Google, while "accounting" gets 22,700,000 [2], about 13 times as many as the former. Please note, however, that it is our house style to generally not change between American and British English, but to rather to use the dialect in which the individual articles were written in. • Benc • 05:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having lived in Ireland and England, I can confirm that "accountancy" is in widespread and accepted use in the UK and Éire. I thus think this RfC is another incarnation of ye ole "Britspeak vs. Yankspeak" issue. I would personally MUCH prefer "accountancy", because to a British English speaker it carries a more professional connotation. However, I am biased pro-Britspeak and there is little merit in perpetuating this never-ending war of the words. I say either let's go with whatever notation the article first was written in, as Benc noted, or write separate but linked accountancy/accounting articles about the respective British/US practices/professions. Ropers 00:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ropers. Maurreen 15:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term accountancy in my life, except for now, and I live in Canada. All the university courses here are called 'accounting'. --ShaunMacPherson 02:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australians also use "accounting". It seems the UK is alone on this one, which is strange, since usually the US is the one out on a limb. Shane King 03:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Various countries also use different words for terms in accounting. I just saw Profit and loss account (British) which I know is called Income statement in US. I think we should distinguish those in future articles. --voidvector

My Masters Degree from Stetson University in DeLand, Florida, USA says that I received a Masters in Accountancy. As such, I'm willing to go along with Accountancy, as long as any questions about Accounting get redirected to the proper page. I am far more concerned about the separate but related topics of auditing and accountancy being combined into one. Most accountants do not audit. --Fcoulter 19:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Michigan the licensing entity is the "Board of Accountancy" --EMU CPA 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Accountancy is the underlying theory, while accounting is the practice. I graduated from the Department of Accountancy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, nationally recognized as top tier school. However, I took many courses in accounting. These were courses in practical application, while courses in accountancy were in theory. This is the generally agreed upon distinction within academia. However, there remains a debate over the issue of accountancy vs. accounting. I doubt we can settle it on this talk page. Please refer to the bottom of page nine within this book [3].--H.al-shawaf 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is here some one explain me recording, classifying, summarizing, and presenting phases of accounting with comprehensive example? Adil pakistan

After all this discussion, should I go ahead and do the needfull in terms of having independent articles ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that theory and practice can remain on the same page, especially since the terms accounting and accountancy aren't clearly defined. I'm up for a vote though.H.al-shawaf (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Accountancy → Accounting

A proposal to move Accountancy → Accounting was placed on wikipedia:requested moves and failed. The discussion follows:

This may well fail, and I apologize in advance if this move turns out to be ill-founded, but as I recall, the word "accounting" is many times more common than "accountancy". I want to know the usage of these two words. Peter O. (Talk) 22:30, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. This seems to be a case of British English vs American English. I haven't heard of the term "Accountancy" but if I'm to assume the page is correct, accountancy is the british word, learn something new everyday! In that case, I'm leaning toward oppose, but I'll wait to see any other comments before I decide for sure. For a lot these of cases it'd be nice if articles could actually exist at two names instead of having a redirect (but look and be functionally identical, when editing it would note that you're editing all the articles under that title.) --Sketchee 22:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral They're synonyms, however the difference is nuanced. Accountancy: the occupation of maintaining and auditing records and preparing financial reports for a business. Accounting: The bookkeeping methods involved in making a financial record of business transactions and in the preparation of statements concerning the assets, liabilities, and operating results of a business. (i.e. a "method of accounting" or an "accounting system") It isn't a matter of British English vs. American English as was erroneously assumed by the author of the article, because accountancy appears in both British and American speech. It is just that accountancy is more archaic as the vogue of modern speech is using the gerund form to discuss activities or occupations i.e. accounting, or knitting (which used to be knittery until it was dropped out of the dictionary). As such, "accounting" has become used more and more as the name of the profession. Traditionally, professions ending in -ant like accountant (or an adjective like bouyant) were connected with disciplines ending in -ancy like accountancy (or bouyancy) chiefly because the suffix -ant meaning One that performs, promotes, or causes a specified action (as a noun) or Performing, promoting, or causing a specified action (as an adjective) because it derives from the Middle English (particularly the French influence) present participle forms of the verb are. —ExplorerCDT 00:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. IMO Accountancy is the profession and Accounting is the methodology. Rd232 00:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 06:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 08:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm married to an accountant. RD232 is right and I see no reason to move the article. Jooler 10:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. First, the distinction does not exist in US English, as far as I have ever observed. The trade and the practice are both called ‘accounting’. (ExplorerCDT is arguing that we should put an article under an archaic term?) Second, the article is more about the practice than the trade, so even under the British/archaic distinction, this is an article about accounting, with accountancy as a subtopic. That is the way it should be: the practice is the primary topic. If we were starting from scratch, we would not define ‘accounting’ as “what accountants do” and then refer readers to ‘accountancy’. We would define ‘accountant’ as “practitioner of accounting” and then refer readers to ‘accounting’. Cooking is not “what cooks do”, and sewing is not “what tailors do”. Cooks and tailors are doing professionally something that the rest of us can do in small ways all the time. Accounting is the more general topic and this article is general, so the redirect is absolutely going the wrong way. — Ford 11:49, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • • I'm so far neutral (though leaning to oppose the proposed move), because it's either we use a correct term (accountancy) of increasingly archaic usage, or an incorrect term (accounting) just because it's popular and increasingly prevalent. What's the old phrase of Woodrow Wilson? Something paraphrased about how what's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right. There should—rather than redirect either to the other—be two separate articles.—ExplorerCDT 03:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah... I didn't realise this was a 'pondinan' thing. If that's the case then the choice of BE rather than AE of the original author should be preserved. That is Wikipedia policy. Jooler 11:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But it is simply not another matter of BE vs. AE. —ExplorerCDT 03:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The convention to which you refer is an editing convention, not a naming convention. Where article titles are concerned, generic topics (that is, not specific to either Britain or America) should be hosted under neutral terms, when possible. This was never more clear than in the fiasco over gramophone record (né analogue disc record, a.k.a. LP a.k.a. vinyl record a.k.a. record (audio) a.k.a. ...). ADH (t&m) 13:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), specifically the part that says "As a reminder, all national standards of English spelling are acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia, both for titles and content. American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa; for example, either Aeroplane or Airplane is acceptable." Proteus (Talk) 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling, specifically "If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Aeroplane and Airplane, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses"; also Talk:Gramophone record/Archive2 for the specific example I cited. ADH (t&m) 13:45, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• comment - some people have commented that they have never heard the term "Accountancy". If you check ".gov" sites using Google ([4]), thus restricting hits to the USA you get 28,000 hits mainly related to state regulators of the industry. Jooler
• Strongly oppose As an accountant my work involves accountancy, but not much, if any, accounting. Indeed, I would be insulted if someone did say I just did accounting! It's like calling a mathematician an arithmetician. To those in the know there is a world of difference, jguk 12:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• ... if you're English, which jguk has equated with "in the know" a great many times in the past. I know several well-paid Washington accountants, and if you ask them what business they were in they invariably say "accounting." This is largely a pondian issue, as the article notes in its introductory paragraph, but the -ing usage is becoming more and more prevalent in even the most conservative British strongholds. More to the point, the more vulgar usage is far more likely to be searched for by the average reader, and more likely to be linked to by the average editor. Support. ADH (t&m) 12:57, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Would those well-paid accountants be the ones regulated by the District of Columbia Board of Accountancy? Jooler 13:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't a British versus American, thing, and there is a concrete difference between the terms. Wiktionary might not be good enough to know the difference between the two, and instead think that this is an American/British thing. But the AHD is, and does. (I'm deliberately citing an American dictionary, to make the point more forcefully.) "accountancy" is an occupation; "accounting" is a method. The two are not even synonymous. An "account" can be a narrative or a record of events, and "accounting", as in "making an account of", can have nothing to do with "accountancy". Uncle G 13:30, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
• Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 13:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guettarda 17:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Estel (talk) 17:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Accountancy is noun (concise); Accounting is ambiguous (either noun or verb. And as noted only one function of Accountancy). Daeron 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Berek 10:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accountancy, accountant, accounting

This article mixes the processes and methods of accountancy (or accounting) with the profession or occupation of accountant and with the typical terms for businesses that do accountancy (or accounting). In the U.S., an accountant works for an accounting firm and does accounting. In the U.K., an accountant works for an accountancy (or accountancy firm) and does accountancy. Some U.S. schools award degrees for accounting, some award degrees for accountancy. U.K. schools award degrees for accountancy. The person doing this sort of work is always called an accountant, never an accountancy. I think the uses of the terms should be made explicit in the article, because the way the article reads, it's extremely confusing and mixes topics. --SueHay 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If this differnce in meanings isn't sorted out soon and reflected in this article, you're doing harm to Wikipedia readers. PLEASE CLARIFY. --SueHay 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

according to me it will not be so easy to give a clear concise definition of accounting since the relating word has many application with business and accounts.......Anoopnair2050 (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

in simple words Accountancy is the process by which financial information about a business is recorded, classified, summarized, interpreted, and communicated. Anoopnair2050 (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern accounting/accountancy

According to critics ...

I don't see how the paragraph beginning "According to critics of standard accounting practices ..." follows from the previous paragraph. The criticism I've heard about accounting is whether financial measures are enough, historical cost, etc. I haven't seen any serious criticism of the double entry bookkeeping system which is what the placement of this paragraph implies.--Fredrik Coulter 00:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, that sentence baffles me to. How any one can say that the records they kept in Vienna hundreds of years ago aren't much to the life long learning needed in todays field is beyond me. --lincs_geezer 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Managerial and Financial Accounting

It would seem alright to include a short comparison of Managerial and Financial accounting here. However, these 2 subjects are very broad and many accountants practice either Managerial or Financial and seldom is the case when both are given the task to practice both.

With more than 2 years experience working for PWC, in the field of audit and later under management consultancy, I cannot emphasize how different both of these accounting fields are.

I'm trying to compose a detailed comparison and hopefully would post them later. Modelwatcher 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a comparison is not needed in the main article. Managerial accounting is already listed in the short list of topics in accounting. It has no more relevance than the rest of the topics in the list. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Accounts Organisation

Accounts

Finance/ Accounts are a very important department in every organisation. Every business needs to look after their financial side. The accounts function deals with financial operations such as paying bills, taxes, information of accounts and salaries etc. The accounts department is to maintain a steady cash flow to support day-to-day transactions. The functions of accounts department includes:

Investments , Payments, Budgets, Transactions, Accounts Procedure, End of Year Accounts.

accounts represent amounts of money owed. These amounts are usually the result of the sale of assets or services provided.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Materiality?

What isn't materiality included as one of the accounting concepts?

Rex 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) rexislexis

Materiality isn't an accounting concept. It's an accounting convention, and an auditing and financial analysis concept. - Mtmelendez 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2 issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board states: "All of the qualities of information shown [in financial reports] are subject to a materiality threshold." It also lists materiality under its list of "Primary Decision-Specific Qualities":

Materiality is a pervasive concept that relates to the qualitative characteristics, especially relevance and reliability. [...] Quantitative materiality criteria may be given by the Board in specific standards in the future, as in the past, as appropriate.

--Dpr 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're partly right. "All of the qualities of information shown [in financial reports] are subject to a materiality threshold." However, the FASB establishes GAAP on external financial statements. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Materiality is a threshold quality of useful informatioN.it means for business and outline.The relevance and usefulness of ‘materiality’ is only for campaigners and corporates.so its not an accounting subject.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

History of accounting

History and Luca Pacioli and the birth of modern accountancy

These two sections need to be merged and there needs to be citations backing up the presented information.

Art of Science

The first paragraph of the history section (which I really like and know little about) starts off with "The art of accountancy on a scientific principle ..." This really bothers me. Art and science tend (for me) to not work well together. Is there any way of rewriting this so that it works better?--Fredrik Coulter 00:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that accounting is a science at all, better to stick with calling it an art. The technology associated with book keeping has not changed since Pacioli. Accounting is an assemblage of rules to deal with modern complexities (and is a compromise to keep the tax man mostly happy and to keep CEO's mostly out of jail).

I changed this wording before discovering these comments. I agree art and science do not mesh well; my objection related to the use of "science," which indicates an empirical basis versus a logical basis (thus mathematics). --EMU CPA 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

During a review of the edit history (see Revision as of 21:56, 25 November 2001 by Paul Drye), I found that much of the History section was quoted from the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia, but the citation information has been deleted. See entry under "Accountants" at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/pge0112.txt. --EMU CPA 08:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it an art. I have a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Accountancy. However other universities offer B.A.'s. I think there is significant debate as to its inclusion as a science or an art.--H.al-shawaf 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i disagree calling it an science.it could be told as a art.science means the knowledge gained by systematic experimentation and analysis and art means human creativity.so art suits the best for accountancy.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Accountancy qualifications and regulation

Is this an article about accountancy or accountancy bodies?

Do we need to have so much detail about each accounting organsiations and their history. Would they be better served with their own article. Can we not write about accountancy and finance. I don't want to know about accountancy organisations, who are now taking up a large part of this article. --NilssonDenver 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have gone ahead and moved the long section to a separate article. THJames 08:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bean Counter or Professional

The general tone of the above suggests that most of the contributors, whether they be participating in whatever it is or be looking at it from a distance seem to see some level of 'bean counting'. I would like to suggest that a real Accountant sees himself as something much more.

Reminds me of the story about the company needing an accountant. The three finalists were given the same question: What is 2 + 2. The first said "eveyone knows that it is 4" and was dismissed. The second said "I think it is 4, but I would like to use a calculator to make sure" and he also was dismissed. The third responded "You would be amazed at how many think it is 4. Tell me, What did you have in mind?". He was hired on the spot.

This story will be thought of as a joke by those who have not looked at the purpose for hiring an accountant. To believe that everyone who looks at the same thing will see and understand it the same way, is to believe something other than the truth. It is this writers current belief that accountants, whether they are on a company payroll or hold themselves out as consultants are basically advocates for those who pay them, possibly even more so than are attorneys. I am an accountant who does mostly tax work. When a client asks me to prepare a financial statement, the first thing I ask them is "what are you going to use it for". IMO an accountant that would not ask that question is not going to be delivering what is being ordered. To allow this to happen IMO would constitute malpractice, especially since at least some of the clients are not aware of what can be done with a set of numbers and are therefore can be misrepresented without their knowledge. While it is true that some people who hold themselves out as accountants do not realize this, it is my belief that those who are experienced and have considered their real responsibility will be aware of this.

I would appreciate other thoughts on this. Thank You!Ken 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statements. In the U.S. a simple compilation that you refered to above would require an accountant to adhere to SSARS set forth by the AICPA. You don't go to school for 5 years and take 14 hours of professional tests to count, you go to school for five years and become a CPA to become a professional.--H.al-shawaf 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actual experience really makes a big difference. After working for PWC and doing audits of multinationals and then later on doing some management consultancy for the same firm, it provides a newly graduate a more 'matured' perspective of the profession. You are right in your observation that

"While it is true that some people who hold themselves out as accountants do not realize this, it is my belief that those who are experienced and have considered their real responsibility will be aware of this."

There is so much diversity in the practice of the profession, as I have come to understand. Now that I am in the private sector and working exclusively for a group of companies, I now have the chance to view Accounting in another perspective, with the issue of financial statement reporting and confidentiality. While tax reports and its practice is a separate and distinct part of being an Accountant, the issue of "what are you going to use it for" also applies to what I am doing right now.

Some may only be 'counting the beans' and may consider it as a 'job', but its like saying there is nothing beneath the tip of an iceberg. As a profession, there is a variety of specialization for Accountants to get involved with. Many have come to realize this issue and is now taking advantage of what they can offer in terms of services to various parties. Modelwatcher 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accounting as a profession

Is "accounting" a profession? To "profess" a thought is to go out into the world as an individual and express your own ideas and opinions - you are then open to scrutiny as an individual in the world based on the results of the implementation your own ideas and opinions. Firstly, perhaps only 5% of accountants actually have this luxury in the real world of corporations and large practices; current organisational hierarchies simply do not accomodate professional behaviour in its true aspect. Secondly, the societal view of those few accountants that actually personally and individually profess, is seriously degraded due to recent ineptitudes such as Enron's balance sheet. Thirdly, the majority of the work done by the majority of "accountants" requires less skill than a mediocre high school student. In a real, today's world, modern office, practical look at the "profession" of accounting, they seem to have very little to "profess". Simply knowing how to set up a link on an Excel spreadsheet seems an especially cheap definition of a modern professional. The pretense of simply accepting accounting as a profession because of the historic analogy has to be dropped until we can accomodate its actual influence, and moreover those of its individual members as individuals, in a true objective professional light.

Whoever wrote this either thinks the entire world has an IQ > 150 or has obviously never taken any professional accounting exams, at least not in the UK anyway. I agree it may not really be a profession except for those are practically law experts (tax gods etc) but I wouldnt hardly say "the majority of the work done by the majority of "accountants" requires less skill than a mediocre high school student". As regards to the depth of the work involved thats why theres different job titles i.e. accounts clerk/accounts assistant/accounting technican/assistant accountant/accountant/financial controller etc etc at least in the UK anyway.--lincs_geezer 03:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a profession. Picking apart the word "profession" is not a good way of determining what is and isn't one. Word meanings change over time.. I hope you are never in a situation where you have to take apart "inflammable" to figure out what it means. I don't know how it is in the UK, but CPA's in America do not spend their time dicking around in Excel (they bill far too much per hour to be doing routine work). Rhobite 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Accounting is a Profession

The argument is falacious from the beginning. Accounting is a profession for two reasons:

1. It has its own body of specialized knowledge and standards (GAAP, GAAS, etc.). 2. Accountants are recognized as such not only by themselves, but by outside authorities, like governments and legal authorities.

Accountants as a group practice many forms of the profession:

1. Certified Public or Chartered Accountants (CPS's) are accountants who audit, review or compile financial statements and profess an opinion on their fairness. This is considered the purest and highest form of the profession by many and is universally recognized as a position of trust (not withstanding Enron and Wroldcom). 2. Managerial Accounants (Certified Managerial Accountants or CMA's) practice accounting within organizations for the most part and provide decision support and analysis to management. They also prepare the statements audited by the CPA's. These are members of the management team and spend a lot of their time managing not only numbers, but people and resources as well. Other forms of this include Internal Auditors. 3. Forensic Accountants (often also CPA's and/or CMA'Sas well) do internal auditing inside companies or other organizations (usually large ones). 4. Academic Accountants are instructors at colleges and universities and form and ivory tower of the profession.

I have been and am three of these at one time, a CPA, CMA and I teach accounting and management part time. Accounting is certainly a profession; I have been doing it for 23 years and I do a little more than set up links in spreadsheets. Knowing where, how and why do put the numbers in the spreadsheets, develop complex models of cost behavior, make judgements about materiality, relevance and other issues are all part of the job, not to mention managing a department, advising the governing body and management and interfacing with banks, governmental agencies and other organization make up my day. No, beginning accountants mostly do not do these things, as they are learning the basics, but once you have been doing this as long as I have you are a professional.

The "Big Four" accountancy firms

While it is true (as stated) that the big four trace their history back to Europe (especially since Arthur Andersen is no longer with us), I think that overstates the case.

Pricewaterhouse and Coopers are two firms which merged just recently, so stating that it was formed in England is incorrect. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu also traces its history to Japan. I don't know if both Touche Ross and Deloitte came from England. Ernst & Young wasn't founded by a Scottish accountant since this firm was also the result of a merger of two well established firms.

I think this section, assuming we want to keep it here and not on a separate page, should indicate where all of the multi-national firms came from, and how they all grew through international mergers. A nice flow chart history of the mergers would be pretty.

The other option would be to pull this section and just refer to a seperate page on the Big Four.--Fredrik Coulter 00:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the following section as I dispute its accuracy:

"The Big 4 accountancy firms can all trace their history back to firms in Europe, from which they have descended through a long line of mergers. Many of the originating firms were from the United Kingdom. As British trade interests expanded, correspondent firms were established throughout the world by the organisations."

The Big 4 are a mixture of international merged firms. Of those whose names remain in the firms, Ernst, Young and Marshall (M in KPMG) set up practices in USA and Tohmatsu was Japanese. Only PwC's main constituents were entirely founded in the UK.

THJames

There was a mystery character in UK accounting history - someone by the last name of Edwards (partnered with Price, Coopers Brothers articled with him, Touche was the exception who has done work on his own. Forerunners of Ernst and Whinny have changed their names since very early on but Waterhouse appeared to have articled under them for a few years, then the Arthur Andersen himself also work briefly under Price Waterhouse and Company US office. virtually all forerunners of big 4 today are more or less were related in the same circle.

The modern accounting / accountancy history was so colourful it may worth a page of its own.

Tsang 20060704(+8) 16:17

Size of market

I have added references showing this is just about the UK.

However, it seems this is largely lifted from the referenced article (including references to "Chart 1" which does not appear here). That article is copyrighted, so how can we reproduce it here ?

-- Beardo 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Accounting services

The source material[5] lists the range of accounting services offered by the major firms of accountants:

"Accounting firms supply a range of services, including audit and assurance, tax, corporate finance, wealth management and insolvency and business recovery."

I see a pattern emerging: that Accountancy has developed from relative humble beginnings in ancient Mesopotamia, and has grown in the range and sophistication in tandem with economic development. What is not apparent from this entire article is that it has become a jumbled list of accounting activities without the common thread of how it has developed --Gavin Collins 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Topics in accounting

Accounting Standards vs. Auditing Standards

I noticed (again) the PCASB on the list of accounting standard setting organizations. It isn't. It sets auditing standards for public companies. So I broke out the auditing standards setting organizations that I know about (in the US). Hopefully someone with some international expertise will add to the list. On the other hand, it's likely that this should be in the auditing article, not the accounting one.--Fredrik Coulter 02:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

International Accounting Standards

The last paragraph implies that the United States is being forced by the good people of Europe into International Accounting Standards. This is incorrect. The SEC and FASB are heavily involved in setting these standards. This paragraph appears to be a POV violation.--Fredrik Coulter 00:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

See also

Editing this article

Two questions relevant to the quality/standard of this article: (1) Is it a problem that "accountant" is not mentioned until several paragraphs down from the top of the article? (2) can some articles be removed from the See also list since they are already in the body of the text? --57.68.49.4 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section may have duplicate mentions. This section serves an independent purpose. It ideally should be alphabetical Sanjiv swarup 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to sign my last minor edit concerning NL notification on the main article, sorry! wannesQ (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of related topics

Merger with Accounting scholarship

Merge - the Accounting scholarship article is not required and can be merged here. What123 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OpposeThe fact that discussion of accounting (a subdiscipline or cognate discipline of economics) is regularly merged into an article almost exclusively devoted to the profession of accountancy is a real problem. Lots of issues relating to accounting are not properly covered in Wikipedia. JQ 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OpposeThis article is far too long as it is. Accountancy is a very broad discipline and can't be fully covered in one article.

OpposeHopefully as more and more practicing Accountants get to see the benefits of wikipedia in making sure Accountancy is a profession with broad, diverse specialization, the better. This topic is just one of the many which need to be updated and edited. Modelwatcher 11:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems unanimously opposed. Seeing as I discovered this in the backlog, I'm going to remove the merger tag. Cheers, -- THLR^CCD 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Accounting Articles

When I tried to wikify the SOX article, I found an enormous volume of accounting concepts seemed to lack Wiki articles, so I listed those omissions at Talk:Sarbanes-Oxley_Act#Related_Articles_Needed but I am not an accountant ... I think there ought to be a Wiki project group to review Wiki articles relevant to accounting, relevant to accounting standards, comparable to what other professions are doing here, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

Does anyone else think the external links section is getting out of control? A dozen links, and only one of them makes even some attempt to explain why it should be there in the first place!? The latest addition links to a Belgian forum or something. Has anyone some sort of plan or policy for this article? Rl 10:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LINKSPAM EVENT HORIZON

The number of links in this article is completely out of control. Request all editors to take a few moments and remove those that are not absolutely necessary. There is no reason that approximately half of a good-length article should be made up of links. (It also tends to encourage the addition of even more extraneous links).--Gregalton 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of these links belong in sub-topic articles, such as Certified Public Accountant. I'm going to create a notice in the edit page so that users are aware of this spam issue. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! I removed a ton of links from the Accountancy page. When I was moving them to sub-topics, I noticed that most of these links were already there. There's no need to include them in this core-topic, its basically redundant. The only links I didn't remove were those I could not access and therefore couldn't verify. So please, check them out and evaluate them.

Remember, this is a broad core topic representing a worldwide view. Therefore, links to a specific country's Institute of CPAs, or Chartered Accountants, or even the country's GAAP-setting authoritative body are more appropriate in specific articles, such as Certified Public Accountant, Chartered Accountant, or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, there are many articles about accounting institutes in different countries, so there's no need to duplicate links across all related accounting articles. Editors, please consider this when including external links in this or other related core-topics. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd and Ends

Those don't fit in the article so let me put them here until we find appropriate places.

Bookkeeping and Accountancy

Accounting Education and Training See http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/000aaa/0000start.htm

Accountancy and the Law

Accountancy vs. Fraud See http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud.htm

Creative accounting is a phrase sometimes used as a joke, but basically it means the questionable use of clever innovations. Sometimes this simply produces results which are difficult to understand; sometimes it results in out and out fraud. Some consider the phrase "Accountancy as Fraud" more appropriate, and argue for more comprehensive accounting reform or the abolishment of the profession.

Accountancy and Taxation

Accounting complexity arises in part, perhaps in most part, from tax rules. Tax, tariff and trade laws typically imply changes also to accounting practices, to mirror capital asset value gains and losses.

---

I have removed:

RECENT EVENTS

Since 2002, the global step of reduction of costs and optimization of resources became a legal constraint, an obligation for all the highly-rated corporations or unquoted in the stock exchange.

Everything began with the law SARBANNES-OXLEY in the United States in 2002 who returned compulsory internal control. From 2003, Canada and European Economic Community took measures aiming at identical objectives:

1- The realization and optimization of the operations of reduction of costs and management of the performance;

2- The reliability of the financial information of costs and performances;

3- Correspondence to laws and to current regulations, notably standards of management of the quality;

4- The implementation of the rules of good governance “to play collective” :

-Every individual member of the company contributes to his level of responsibility in the internal control;

-The responsibilities of the staff of frame vary according to hierarchical levels;

- The general manager assures ultimate responsibility; he is responsible for the system of internal control;

-The directors of the various units are responsible for the internal control bound to the objectives of this one;

-The financial executives and their teams play a role of dominating piloting: they follow and analyze performances, by report not only in objectives bound to financial information, but also to those bound to the operations of the company and to the legal obligations.

These measures which impose the internal coherence as base of the management put company in front of a major technological challenge: the integration of their system of internal control.

Internal control directed towards “realization and optimization of the operations of reduction of costs and management of the performance" gets organized indeed around the notion of inductors of costs, the unforeseen phenomenon, the abnormality or the dysfunction which provokes an increase of costs. By opposition the inductor of activity is the event which activates the activity of the company.

To understand difficulty recovering, it is necessary remember yourself that the most known methods of management arise from the cost accounting which depends on the financial accounting itself. So very wide-spread methods such as the ABC (ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING), the ABM (ACTIVITY-BASED MANAGEMENT), “Cost killer””, etc., rest on the inductor of activity and not on the inductor of costs.

It is only very recently that multi-field searches in management drove to the normalization of the inductor of costs and to its standardization through the new technologies of information and the communication.

See :

• Internal control
• Integration of the internal control

It seems off-topic. Maybe it should go to cost management or corporate governance. mydogategodshat 06:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Other

A resource to help find online accounting degrees

I have removed the following addition to the external links section:

• Accounting Degree - A resource to help find online accounting degrees.

I have done so in accordance with the guidline that states "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". --Gavin Collins 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPROJECT

Why doesn't accounting have a wikiproject? I mean, it's a large study field, it has numerous articles and categories, and most articles NEED A LOT OF WORK. Maybe we can improve them by inviting all wikipedians who are accountants, auditors, or any other related profession into an organized project. This isn't necessarily a recruitment effort, just a simple post to test the waters. Post what you think. - Mtmelendez 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is currently part of Business and Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics

I agree accountancy/accounting is a HUGE area and there is an index of articles for the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accountancy and within that is accounting systems category which is where many of the articles I have contributed are found.

A sub section of the Business and Economics, set aside for accountancy, could be setup and we could take the articles one by one and contribute to them. NilssonDenver 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(I still think the accounting template is inappropriate as it will never be able to handle all related articles)

I agree that Accounting needs its own project, as the ongoing discussions are only the tip of iceberg compared with what is to come. The article needs a lot of work, and our objective should be to ensure the article status is improved so that is no longer part of the group of "All articles with unsourced statements". Amazingly for a topic with such a rich selection of academic material, there is no heading at the end of the article for references - very few contributors have citied their sources! Even as I write, people are adding to the article and are not citing their sources, and as long as this continues, this article will fail to meet Wikipedia content criteria.--Gavin Collins 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Accounting (term used for simplicity, and not to endorse either side of the accounting/accountancy debate) should have it's own project. For one, finance and economics both have their own projects within Business and Economics, and I contend that accounting is at least as distinct and substantial as those two areas. If there is a consensus here (as this seems to be the closest thing to a coordinating point for accounting), I would be willing to draft a WikiProject proprosal for review here prior to being submitted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Post up the draft, and lets see if others will join in. --Gavin

Collins 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

i too agree with the idea as it would be time saving and people can access whatever topic needed for them.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: Accoutancy

Description: A project to organize the contributions to articles (and supporting media) dealing with accountancy. In particular, a major goal will be to improve those articles which are particularly relevant to the general population beyond just accountants (such as the main accountancy article itself), many of which are in fairly bad shape right now. If established, the project would work together with the Business and Economics project in a child-parent type of relationship.

Comment at will

User: Lordthees 04:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a lot of takers so I suggest we start as a Taskforce to start with. --Gavin Collins 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not, however, a process I am familiar with. While I would be glad to help with organizing to do lists, etc...I think the actual initial creation of the task force page would probably be best left to someone more knowledgable than myself. Lordthees 02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have set up the template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Accountancy task force. Please feel free to amend. I have put the task force page on my watch list. --Gavin Collins 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup may be necessary

I believe that, by comparing this page to the finance section, a cleanup is necessary. This seem even more necessary given the growing transparency of accounting and its far reaching implications. IAS to GAAP anyone?

(65.60.219.197 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

We have just today set up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Accountancy task force with cleanup in mind. Please feel free to join.--Gavin Collins 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The historical cost principle as applied in historical cost accounting never destroys real value

Wikipedia editor Gregalton states clearly in the Historical Cost discussion page that HCA does not destroy real value. I agree with him. It is a fact.

It is absurd to suggest that the global Historical Cost Accounting model destroys real value. It is impossible. I agree with Gregalton: historical cost accounting does not destroy value.

There is no dispute. All accountants in the world will agree with me and Gregalton that HCA does not destroy value.

It is absurd to suggest that the global Historical Cost Accounting model destroys real value. How can that be? It is impossible to suggest that all accountants are destroying real value in the way they do accounting and that this has been carrying on for ages. Absolutely impossible. What patent nonsense.

But you have added a paragraph about this with absolutely no sources to support the statement, and you have added it as the first paragraph of the article, when it does not belong there. If this is indeed incontrovertable fact, then you'll need to agree with other editors here on the talk page about where it belongs in the article, and identify the reliable sources you can use to verify it. No more edit-warring, please- we don't just revert each other's changes; we talk to each other and achieve consensus. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What source do you need when the world´s accountants have been applying the Historical Cost Accouting model for more than 700 years? Some things are just too basic to reinvent now, isn´t it? Do you want me to give you a verifiable reference in science that 1+1=2? I do not need a source to add in any Wikipedia article that 1+1=2. In the same way I do not need to prove that HCA does not destroy value when we as human beings have been applying the HCA model for 700 years. It is incontrovertable fact. See Wikipedia editor Gregalton´s statement in the Historical Cost discussion page that" historical cost accounting does not destroy value". That is incontrovertable fact. Go and ask him to prove that. He stated that first.

I have absolutel full consensus with Gregalton. You say we talk to each other. That is exactly what is happening. Go and verify this for yourself on the Historical Cost discussion page. Gregalton said: historical cost accounting does not destroy value. I agree with him. What is wrong with that? We are doing what you say we have to do. Please explain yourself.

Economy speak 16:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything at all about economics. So, since I'm a layman and it isn't at all obvious to me, why don't you indulge me and provide a reliable source anyway? In any case, this should not be the first paragraph of the article- it isn't a basic definition of the term 'accountancy.' You should probably read WP:3RR before you make any more reverts on this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you are asking me to provide a reliable source that 1+1=2. It is the same as asking to provide a reliable source that historical cost accounting does not destroy value. The world has been implementing the historical cost accounting model for 700 years. What more do you want? Gregalton stated that first. I will refer your request verbatim to him. Maybe he can indulge you with a reliable sourece. I will do that now on the Historical Cost page.

Economy speak 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source verifying that 1+1=2. Here is another source to confirm the fact. Now, will you provide a source for your assertion? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This would appear to simply be another SPA spilling over from the Historical cost article. I'm not sure I'd waste much time with him. Kuru ^talk 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be better to let sleeping dogs lie but, being rather green to both accounting (whoops, I mean, 'accountancy') and Wikipedia, I am very interested in this little tussle over the concept of historical accounting. Rather than continually re-affirming that the historical cost principal does or does not destroy real value, could we have some concrete and practical examples please?

It would seem to me that items that tend to appreciate over time will not show their true value on the books unless regular adjustments are made to reflect increases in value over time. But then, in the same way that depreciable items are put down as expenses to offset against taxation, should these increases necessarily go down as income?

I suppose normal practice would have it that assets would be held at their historical value until such time as those assets are realised. Tax may or may not be payable on the difference between the cost to procure to asset and the revenue generated from the sale of it. I suppose that would depend on the applicable taxation laws.

Would it be correct to say that whatever principles apply to depreciable items would necessarily apply in reverse to appreciable items? --GaryB84 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Attestation Standards

This article could use the influence of an expert who can provide appropriate citations. 24.4.253.249 02:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you contact Michael Hardy. He wrote it. -- • • • Blue Pixel 02:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Really long - is this a problem? Auroranorth 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a big problem, but we are having difficulty replacing it with sourced material. The problem is there are a lot of editors adding unreferenced material to each section, so this article is not the subject of creeping original research. If you have access to a definition of accounting that is better, but has verificable sources, please let me know. --Gavin Collins 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is "accountancy" coming from?

I've got a few books on accounting, and none of them mention the word "accountancy". Where is this word coming from? Why does "accounting" redirect to "accountancy"? --Foggy Morning (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The word comes from English...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accountancy

As I understand it, this conversation has already been had elsewhere. AnthonyUK (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Split off Professional Organisations section?

At the moment the professional organisations section seems to be a place that isn't relevant to the article on Accountancy. I understand that some editors want to put 'their' Institute or organisation in the list, and that is fine. But if we want to have an exhaustive list of accountancy bodies, it would be better to have a separate article, in my opinion. AnthonyUK (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an article about the occupation or profession in accountant. Maybe these organisations should go there. --Foggy Morning (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just going to move the problem elsewhere, rather than solve it. I think I would prefer having a much more general paragraph in this article describing how accounting is largely self-regulating and have a link to an article called, say, List of Accountancy bodies, where editors who have an urge to add the accounting institute they are a member of can do so. AnthonyUK (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A list might work. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, WP:LISTV#INC and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria to help you define the scope of this list and monitor additions and deletions. --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

in favor . Sanjiv swarup (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

in favor H.al-shawaf (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to doing this. I'd appreciate it if people can take a look at the new article List of accountancy bodies to check that I've done it right... AnthonyUK (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From a cursory review, it looks pretty good. I noticed a few things that I will add to my to-do list. However, it's a good start.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical redirects of wiki article "accounting" to "accountancy"

We have a problem here. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accounting&action=history. The term "accounting" has been redirected to "accountancy" without clear justification. I'll be happy enough to try to develop an article on accounting, but I can't work on an article about "accountancy" because none of the books I have even mention the word. I understand that "accountancy" is used as a word, but it's not used in any books I have, so I can't add information to this article based on the word "accountancy". I don't have published sources that use the word "accountancy." I'm not saying it isn't used, I'm just saying that I can't use my books for this article. I'm in the USA. It might be an international terminology difference, and that's okay by me, but we need to confirm the terminology usage if different in different countries, okay? --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above about the interchangable use of the terms "accounting" and "accountancy", I think you will find that this is a non-issue; both terms are used in the US (for instance see the Department of Accountancy at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [6]). Unless you have specific sources which go into the origins and useage of the two terms, I think the concensus is that we use both, depending on what you are comfortable with. In my view there is no ideological reason for differentiating between the two terms. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide verifiable sources for the use of the term "accountancy" nor develop this article based on that terminology. I'd like to help, but my texts can't help here. You're using a term that isn't used in standard English as used in the United States. I'm open to discussion about international usage of "accountancy", but I have no texts to support this -- also you need to provide citiations. I can't help -- sorry. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a problem at all. This issue has ben discussed at length before, and the fact that you can't find any American books with "Accountancy" doesn't mean the term is invalid. A quick search on Google will show that the term does exist. Further, the monthly magazine I get from the ICAEW (called "Accountancy" - http://www.accountancymagazine.com) has numerous references each month to accountancy. An American user of Wikipedia can type in "Accounting" and will automatically be redirected here so there is no potential for confusion. AnthonyUK (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's confusing. ICAEW[7] is a UK professional association of chartered accountants. With all due respect for the organization and its members -- and all others who have contributed to the development of accounting since Luca Pacioli published Summa de arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et proportionalita describing double-entry accounting in 1494 -- the term accounting has been in general use for hundreds of years to refer to the process of recording and summarizing financial information. I have a book called Accounting Theory, another called Inflation Accounting, and another called Financial and Managerial Accounting. In the US we have the Financial Accounting Standards Board. International Accounting Standards are developed by the International Financial Accounting Standards Board. I'd like to see a Wiki article about accountancy as a profession or academic specialty if it can be well-sourced. This article is not well-sourced. As I said before, my sources do not mention the term accountancy, so I can't help with sourcing this article. Most of the content seems to have been contributed based on the term "accounting". I suggest this article be copied to the title "Accounting" for development under that title. This leaves you free to develop this article on "Accountancy" as an article about the profession in the UK. Does that work for you? --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They're different words for the same thing. As I already said, the fact that in the USA the term "Accounting" is used instead is irrelevant. An American user searching for Accounting will end up at this article, so there is no problem.

In my personal opinion, many of the business and economics articles on wikipedia are heavily biased in favour of the Amercian viewpoint, which harms their usefulness to readers in other jurisdictions. If we start from the common point that having an article that is too specific to one county is bad (which is, after all, why there are globalize tags) then your solution is going to make things worse. A UK-centric article is no better than a US-centric one. Creating one of each is even worse.

If you have sources that use Accounting as the term for the profession, then feel free to cite them in this article, since this article covers both Accountancy and Accounting as the two words mean the same thing. Although a quick search of Google shows that the term Accountancy is indeed used in the USA, which makes much of the argument pointless anyway. AnthonyUK (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

With citations for this article on "accountancy" and we don't have any conflict, do we? Contribute all you can, and it's much appreciated! --Foggy Morning (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this debate has occured and I am not sure why we are revisiting it. Accountancy is often refered to as the underlying theory, while accounting is the practice. I graduated from the Department of Accountancy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, nationally recognized as top tier school. The term is used in the US and is not restricted to the UK. There is significant debate over the usage of the two words. Please refer to the bottom of page nine within this book [8]. If you need a citation, feel free to use the link I provided within the main article.H.al-shawaf (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Realization Concept

Inspired by the list of concepts in this article, I've just had my first go at creating a Wikipedia page, on the realization concept listed there. I was wondering if it would be alright to edit this topic to replace the black text with a link to the article? I would also love any feedback on the article itself! Thanks! Mreinkin (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyUK (talk • contribs)

Double-entry bookkeeping system

The article Double-entry bookkeeping system badly needs your expertise. Please help cleanup and add inline citations as soon as possible. Many thanks for your help! --Foggy Morning (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Does anyone else feel that the page could use a few less self-referencial categories for navigation purposes? accountancy is practically redundant and finance is somewhat a separate disipline. For starters it might be nice to be a main path off of business. Any thoughts?Mreinkin (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit unclear as to what you are suggesting.. Can you clarify?H.al-shawaf (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just talking about the categories section at the bottom of the page. Right now, this page is a sub-page of finance on the category tree, and I feel that it ought to be directly under business just like finance is now. Accounting and finance are both majors at my university and I don't see why accountancy should be subordinate. Accountancy is also not a very useful category navigationally, since anyone who finds that category would also find the page, since this article is one of only 2 in that category. The occupations category is a good one, but it would be nice if we had a few more that would intuitively lead to this page.Mreinkin (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am with you on breaking this off from the finance category. While finance has lent accountancy some ideas over the years, I think the two are distinct. The accountancy category can stay. If anything, it helps people who have found this page to find similar pages.H.al-shawaf (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't have a problem with the accountancy category because all the subcategories are useful, I just want some categories that help people browsing around to find the page.Mreinkin (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Were you thinking of placing accountancy under a larger business category? That might work.H.al-shawaf (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis for Writing

I think there might be some validity to the accounting as the "synthesis for writing" entry. If so, it would relate to Cuneiform script. I remember something along these lines from a history class I took, but it needs verification.H.al-shawaf (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Have a look at page 8 of "Accounting And Forms Of Accountability In Ancient Civilizations: Mesopotamia And Ancient Egypt" by Salvador Carmona and Mahmoud Ezzamel [9], which states that during the Mesopotamian civilization which emerged between 3700-2900 BC...

"...clay tablets with pictographic characters appeared in this period to record commercial transactions performed by the temples. Such records preceded the earliest found examples of cuneiform writing in the form of abstract signs incised in clay tablets which were written in Sumerian by 2900 BC in Djemdet-Nasr. Therefore “token envelop accounting” not only preceded the written word but constituted the major impetus in the creation of writing and abstract counting. "

This could make an interesting start to writing a proper history section for the accounancy article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Excellent find. I think you should include that in the history section. It looks like you have a proper source.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dsecond paragraph deletion propsoal

Suggest deletion of this second para. Does not make any sense Sanjiv swarup (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

what are the advantages of accountancy to the other courses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.22.138 (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Which paragraph are you referring to?H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2