Talk:PwC/Archives/2017

Controversies and Undue Weight

I have looked at a few of the other wiki articles about large accounting firms, and see that several of them do not have separate sub-headings for each topic under controversies, but rather, just bullet-point or just indent each topic. I propose doing the same here. Having each subject a separate sub-heading gives undue weight to the controversies in the table of contents. The article would look much more balanced with bullets rather than sub-heads. Take a look here: KPMG; Deloitte; Grant Thornton; Cork Gully. I was surprised to see that the other large firms in this category have anemic Wiki articles. When I am satisfied that PwC is the best it can be, the other accounting firms are on my to-do list, for sure. Check out: Baker Tilly International; Smith & Williamson; and RSM Tenon. I am especially looking for @Dormskirk:'s thoughts about this. Icanseearainbow (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree - good suggestion. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to navigate around the PwC article if the controversies are not separately referenced in the index at the top. At the moment there's 21 controversies and they do rather stand on their own.

On the other hand the stuff added recently under the headings Sponsorship, Corporate Affairs & Culture and Data Analysis strike me as having undue weight and they don't exactly seem to be neutral in tone.

Swinnow16 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I would also support deletion of the whole sponsorship section which just looks like advertising to me. Dormskirk (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think it would be ideal if there was more consistency between all the Wikipedia articles of the Big Four firms, (as well as the smaller professional services firms, as I have stated above). I welcome the sponsorship section here on the PwC Wiki, since all the other three have such a section. Also, it is pretty standard for large companies to have discussions in their wikis about Corporate Affairs. PwC is highly involved in the analysis of economic trends and many other important issues, which is significant indicator of exactly the types of things this company is involved in, and why it is such a large and well-respected company. However, perhaps it would be a good idea to bullet-point the sponsorhip and Corporate affairs sections as well as the controversy section, if you think there is undue weight otherwise. Keep the feedback coming! Icanseearainbow (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The controversies, affairs and culture items that are described in only one or two sentence could be combined into bullet-point lists. The larger sections should keep their subheadings for ease of navigation.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions to the article

Since May 3 there have been large additions to the article. Much of it does not warrant inclusion. What are your thoughts on what is worth keeping?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes there certainly have been a lot of edits to the page recently. But the question is if the page is improved by the edits. It makes sense that some people who came to the page in the aftermath of the Academy Awards came back to add sorely missing information about the company. I for one welcome all the new information added, which to my mind brings the article in line with the size and the importance of the company. Instead of focusing on the size of the article, or how quickly it grew recently, we should be examining the look and feel of the article to make sure it is a neutral and comprehensive well of facts for the curious and interested. Icanseearainbow (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on PricewaterhouseCoopers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010183230/http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Company-history/Chronology-14.aspx to http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Company-history/Chronology-14.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route/155667/icaew_ga/en/Home/About_us/History_of_accounting/Coopers__Lybrand
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.muzi.com/cc/english/10318%2C19931.shtml?q=1201761
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mydigitalfc.com/companies/third-mess-pwc-after-gtb-dsq-soft-210

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Potential vandalism by anonymous user 216.31.12.4

Worth noting that it appears someone is trying to wipe a sub section of the controversies section related to Australia. Annon user complete visual edits to wipe the section clean. Motivation at this stage is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMason1990 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,@PaulMason1990: I think that it is interesting that you would make two serious accusations based on very little evidence. Removal of the "Australia" section is not vandalism just because you disagree with the edit. The section was poorly written, mentioned several different events in a jumbled, unclear way; mentioned completely irrelevant "controversies" that have nothing to do with the company, or are not even controversies, and are sloppy grammatically speaking. It seems that you and @Burtgumpford: are more likely either SPA's, meat puppets or sock puppets, considering the fact that both of these users have no other edits and are solely dedicated to reporting negative information about PwC. Please examine your addition to the page carefully and only include issues that pertain to the company, and not individuals, and only things that are relevant as controversies. We can discuss the issues here and stop making accusations. I am going to make a few changes to that section right now. I will leave the rest to you, but if you do not make appropriate changes, I will do it myself, or completely remove the section as I did yesterday. Thanks for your understanding. 216.31.12.4 (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources #1 & #2 conflict one another.

Source #1 (Forbes) lists the company as being headquartered in the United States.

Source #2 (PwC's website) lists the company as being headquartered in the United Kingdom.

One assumes PwC's listing is technically correct.

- Piers39293 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly based in the UK (see [1]). Dormskirk (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Australia section

This section, added by User:Burtgumpford which has no edits but this lengthy addition to the article, appears to breach WP:CRITS. I've noted this concern above, and the section appears to merely be a list of articles from critics rather than secondary, reliable sources. The section seems to be grouped into two categories. Firstly, commentary surrounding the firm from outlets, e.g.

• Menzies Research Centre - a partisan think tank
• The Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen

I have concerns re WP:CRITS, and in particular:

"If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism – however within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS."

The second category of information is the addition of content from 2012 and 2015 in relation to Centro and a case concerning bullying. This part appears to be a section falling within the meaning of WP:IINFO, in the sense that it is an indiscriminate list of seemingly unrelated events. I struggle to establish relevance per WP:RELEVANCE. In the context of a large company like PwC, the history of one market, and seemingly dedicated to editorialising one CEO, would breach WP:BALASPS. It appears an undue amount of focus would be devoted to these events. The focus on this, in the context of proportionality for a firm this size, would appear to only be consistent with the presentation of a POV.

The section, even with the recent changes, may also breach WP:BIAS. The original text, albeit amended now, included phrases such as 'This case was not the end of the firm's legal woes under Sayers' and 'Under Sayers' watchful eye'. This is something which appears to, even without the above phrases, advance a particular POV. I don't see any substantial secondary coverage of the criticisms to fall within the meaning of the exception laid out in the WP:CRITS policy above.

As noted above, this article needs to be broadly rewritten to remove the controversies section which covers nearly 50% of the article. It's clearly compromises the encyclopaedic nature of the article and turns it into a list. I do hope to broadly re-write this article, but in the meantime I have reverted to the status quo, pending a consensus for the form of inclusion in this article. MvjsTalking 09:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources have had significant coverage about PwC Australia's actions related to Trump and the gay marriage plebiscite. They belong in the article.

The "... criticized in the media ..." sentence does not satisfy NPOV and should either be balanced with positive reactions, as described in WP:CRITS or removed.

The structure of the article has a variety of problems, but the best way to address them is not to delete this section. The tone of the section should be improved.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

For the same-sex marriage plebiscite-related and Trump election content, this seems to have been inserted occasionally usually citing News Limited journalists Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine)), I still feel this falls into the WP:CRITS policy above: it is the critics making the commentary, rather than reliable sources. This policy is specifically designed to exclude encyclopaedic articles becoming repositories for the views of critics. I don't see sufficient coverage from sources that are other than the critics themselves. I don't believe this is the purpose of Wikipedia.

Moreover, I'm unsure of the reliability of the sources, such as in relation to the Trump content, as there appears to be equally contradictory sources such as this and this. I don't believe the commentary of the critics (or any articles which are associated with these articles) is tantamount to a reliable source.

Finally, I'm still unconvinced that this content belongs in the article at all. WP:BALASPS is applicable here. This article is about a relatively large company operating across different jurisdictions. The section was discussing one individual, in one of these jurisdictions, and I'd regard this as undue weight being placed on a relatively minor, albeit recent, aspect of the subject.

The solution I think is a re-write of this controversies section – a continued aim – but I don't believe that regardless, the content removed, is appropriate for this article. MvjsTalking 01:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PwC's report on the same-sex marriage plebiscite received wide coverage in Australia and even some international coverage (for example: Australia gay marriage vote 'will cost A$0.5bn' - BBC). It should be in the article.

You've convinced me that the material about the Trump memo does not warrant inclusion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor who was not logged in blanked the section with an edit summary saying it was "due to previous editorial findings for similar content. Additionally, these changes mainly consist of non PwC related issues that are personal in nature." What editorial findings are you referring to and what material do you think is not related to PwC?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In response to SaskatchewanSenator, this was not an attempt to blank this section. Instead, and as previously stated above, the edits you have made contains a list of allegations that are personal in nature, which compromises the encyclopedic nature and intent of the article. Written in the manner that it was, it comes across as biased, with a sole intent of damaging the reputation of PwC Australia and the named individuals. The article is about PwC, a global firm, and listing the alleged individual views of one or more persons, and using this article to attack the alleged personal beliefs of individuals is inappropriate. Note: WP:BIASWP:BALASPS See also Wikipedia: Controversial Articles. Tripwirecegin (talk) 23:58, 03 November 2017 (UTC)

The only allegations are those by Ausbil in their lawsuit. When they are reported in a major newspaper like the The Sydney Morning Herald, allegations like this are often deemed appropriate to include, but perhaps we could agree to leave them out until the suit is resolved.

The weight given to all of these issues is consistent with the standards of this article. I don't think the section has been written in a biased manner, but if you would like to rewrite this material without bias, I encourage you to. What, specifically, do you think is an attack on an individual or their beliefs?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to SaskatchewanSenator, in the article, you state that CEO Luke Sayers has publicly supported gay marriage, but do not provide a source. You then imply that this support for gay marriage led to Luke Sayers directing a report to be written about the cost of the Plebiscite, which is also not supported by a source. This connection and the implication of impropriety is not supported by the sources provided. The only thing verifiable is the fact that a report was published. Your proposed language clearly does not satisfy NPOV. In the next item, concerning Centro, there is simply nothing that qualifies as a controversy. Controversy denotes some type of disagreement. If the case settled as alleged, then there is no ongoing controversy regarding Centro.

My proposal, respectfully, is that these two items be simply removed. There is simply not enough there to constitute a controversy, and the connections that you attempt to make are not verifiable, aren't adequately supported by references, and appears to violate NPOV. Tripwirecegin (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Financial Review article supports the material about Mr. Sayers but, if you'd prefer, it's not necessary to mention him. We could simply say that the Australian firm supports gay marriage and prepared the report.

What impropriety do you think is being implied?

Please propose language that presents this material in a more neutral manner.

I think most people would agree that a lawsuit qualifies as a controversy, but it might be better to put material like this in a section of legal and regulatory issues. Most of the material in the Controversies section could be moved there.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)