Talk:PwC

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2016 2017

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Good lord, is this article bloated

I came here to read about the Australian Tax scandal and I had to scroll past a page of 'photos of office buildings' and an entire section of data analysis (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). To avoid the perception that nefarious actors are bloating the article to try to hide the scandals, I propose a two stage approach: 1. Removing all the incredibly obvious padding. 2. Moving the scandals section near the top so that future padding won't have the same effect. 3. Why is the heading called 'issues'? We're not talking about problems with a wikipedia page, we're talking about unethical and (in some cases) criminal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:B184:0:5BFC:2433:4F88:582 (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I just created an article for the PwC tax scandal in Australia. Have a look and try editing that one instead. I agree this page is super bloated - maybe the controversies section could be made into list form? 20WattSphere (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Re bloat, I was mostly referring to the (at the time) multiple page long collection of photos of PWC buildings in each country. But that tax scandal article looks great! 2403:5808:B184:0:CD4B:C31B:C3BB:289C (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why would you remove corrupt conduct just because it was confined to one country only?

Corruption is corruption and is far more meaningful content than the photos of PwC offices that totally weren't taken by PwC staff to bloat out the article and make it harder to get to useful information.

Also trying to claim that an Oscars screwup (which I understand to just be human error) is more significant than corrupt or unlawful conduct from one of the largest auditing firms in the world suggests that you've got a conflict of interest because no reasonable person would hold that belief.

On the other hand, I'd support splitting the section up into "corrupt and criminal conduct" and "issues" so that civil lawsuits don't detract from the broader reporting on law breaking and corrupt conduct though. 2403:5808:B184:0:3749:F85:AFE4:5ACF (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about a controversies section being too big or 'bloated'. I feel this section reflects the level of concern in the general public about the behaviour of these large corporations - especially those in the financial sector. Look at the occupy movement. More recently there was a royal commission into this sector in Australia. As well - there's greater public scrutiny with government spending post pandemic. PwC has been in the Australian news pretty much on a daily basis since May - people contributing to that section have actually shown a lot of restraint.

The controversies section is really big and by all means move it to a separate page - but for the reasons above I wouldn't like to see it reduced in size without really good reasons. 20WattSphere (talk) has done a great job moving the Aust. scandal. But - I don't think it's best to split the controversies into a lot of different articles so that they're scattered like leaves in the wind. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you Dormskirk, I apologize as I never got around to making the changes. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Controversies, namely, news about the firm, is worth including—in fact, if you want to find out about the firm, other than just that its business is divided into X geographic divisions and it has won Y awards, the controversies section is the most helpful. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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:

• Torre PwC.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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:

• PWC Tower South Africa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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:

• PricewaterhouseCoopers and Eni Buildings (Accra, Ghana).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Australian tax leak scandal

Regarding the Australian tax leak scandal section, the PwC cite of 3 July states: eight partners have exited or are in the process of being removed from the partnership. Likewise the ABC cite from the same day states: given notice of of the findings against him and a process has started to remove him from the partnership.

That means that the process is underway, not completed. Thus the inclusion of the text they were then removed is incorrect and has been removed several times. It should not be reinstated until a cite confirming that the process has been completed can be found. Popsinlist (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

PwC Australia & Robodebt

Another issue that's just recently come to light. PwC Aust. was involved in advising the Robodebt scheme. Seems the advice they gave consisted of nothing more than an eight page PowerPoint presentation - for which they charged AUD $853,859. The Guardian The Age They've now agreed to repay that money. Don't know if this deserves a mention in 'Issues'. I'll leave that for someone else. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Robodebt is an Australian government failing, PwC's involvement was at worst, peripheral. Popsinlist (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

PwC vs pwc

Hi MIDI
I feel you might have jumped the gun with the edit. PwC's own website does occasionally use the latter - but only in images - like this one. Hopefully some WikiWizard with DTP experience can see this and confirm whether it's an italicised 'w' or not. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

PwC is the in-text stylisation (or whatever you want to call it), and pwc is the stylisation for the logo. It's not uncommon, and Amazon has a similar situation with its lowercase logo (no one claims the company's name is 'amazon', all lowercase).

On the potentially one-third italicised logo - I don't think it's up to us to try and reproduce their logo typographically - please read the MOS on trademarks. A partial italicisation is obviously not covered there, but I hope you get the gist of it from some of the examples given. EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi EditorInTheRye

Not sure if we're on the same page here. This is just about whether there should be a single reference early on in the article pointing out that there can be an (albeit rarely used) alternate style for the trading name - (stylized pwc) - as per the image. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not rarely used. It's never used, unless you count the logo. But again, Amazon. EditorInTheRye (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for controversy section

Propose that the controversy section be reduced to a list in bullet points, summarising each controversy in one sentence.

Any longer controversies that would benefit from elaboration can be made into separate articles.

I've just done this for the PwC tax scandal in Australia. I see no reason the bloated content couldn't be moved to separate articles for the others. 20WattSphere (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

While you're editing it, I'd propose splitting it into "criminal and corrupt conduct" and "controversies" because it's borderline offensive that "conspiring to defraud a country" is given equal weight to "messed up at the Oscars". 2403:5808:B184:0:3749:F85:AFE4:5ACF (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. For the wording, "Crime and corruption" is better than "criminal and corrupt conduct". It means the same thing and it's shorter. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Awards

Are these awards sections noteworthy? [3] [4] [5]

Does it really inform an encyclopedia reader that one of the largest corporations in the world had a Brazilian subsidiary that was awarded "Most Admired Company" in the "Audit" category of a competition by "CartaCapital magazine"? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing them from most corporate articles, unless the awards are notable enough that a reader will be familiar with them, or they have significant independent standing.

Per [6], I am removing all awards that don't have their own article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed the "Issues" sections into a "Controversies" section

The word issues is very bizarre in this case when basically everything listed in the section is a controversy. This change will also bring this page into line with the page for Deloitte and KPMG who use the wording "controversies". This article seems alot better then when I last read it and it came across like it was written by a PwC employee. To me retention of the word issues over controversies seems to be a remnant of this previous non-neutral tone. Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)