Talk:Thames Water

Section Financials

The section "Financials" got somehow deleted some time in 2022. I believe this article needs such a section and the information I compiled is accurate and fact based. The editors who deleted the section said that it reads like hearsay, but it is simply an analysis on the basis of the sources I listed as well as relevant analogies to explain to the reader the issues. The current discussions around a potential government bail-out may convince editors that what I wrote is neither hearsay nor speculation, but we can equally discuss on the basis of the sources I list. I reinserted the section and if people see it differently, we should discuss here. Jaeljojo (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi - Our policies are set out in WP:V , WP:CITE and WP:RS. All the information should be independently cited with inline citations (like the rest of the article). Unless that happens this material should not be included. In the case of material dealing with controversies it is particularly important that this happens. Dormskirk (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. All conclusions draw from the two sources I list above. There is no point to list each of the source again inline. if you see this differently, maybe you can let me know where I should list the two sources again in the article. It a tragedy I find that all this information is fully out there but few people understand what it means and that's why I have summarized it in this section Jaeljojo (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi - Please read WP:RS. Each fact should be cited to reliable, independent, published sources. The only sources you have cited are both company publications. You need to use independent sources such as financial newspapers and cite on a line by line basis (like the rest of the article). Dormskirk (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The "two sources" are the 2021 Annual report, and then an investor materials page linking to multiple files (not to individual documents). As a minimum, I would expect the Financials section to identify which conclusions are drawn from the 2021 document and to then cite individually whichever of the individual documents are used for other assertions. At the moment, it would be time-consuming for a reader to verify the specific sources of most of the section's information, and it reads like WP:OR. Also both the current citations are from Thames Water and are thus not independent. I have tagged the section as needing additional citations Paul W (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

All documents I cited are certainly more independent and more reliable than any financial newspaper as all the documents I cite are approved and verified by either independent audit companies and/or financial regulators of the respective countries were the debt is issued. If you do not believe such documents, then you should not trust any financial document. But I will work through it and add more citations of the individual findings. Jaeljojo (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the section accordingly. Please check whether you see the need for even more citations. Thanks. Jaeljojo (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As already explained to you by Paul W citations are from Thames Water and not independent. I have initiated some new material which is properly based on independent sources. Dormskirk (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we please have someone else look at this? I cite the official annual accounts that are approved by the auditors of the company. Can you please name me a more independent and reliable source of financial information? I redid your deletions. Jaeljojo (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read Paul W's comments..."the current citations are from Thames Water and are thus not independent". Also it is unhelpful, when other editors have offered to re-write the article / initiated new material, for you to simply delete the new material that has been introduced and to re-insert the old poorly sourced material. Dormskirk (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Where are we talking at cross purposes here? The audited annual accounts are the true financial information of the company and their accurateness is confirmed by the auditors. If this information is incorrect, it constitutes a crime and will lead to fines and potentially imprisonment for the company as well as the auditors. The entire stock market and all company financing relies on these accounts. I do not understand how you can call them "not independent" and "not reliable". I challenged you before to name more reliable sources, but you have not answered yet. It is also equally unhelpful from you to just state that the sources are unreliable and thus delete large parts of the section. Jaeljojo (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That may be your view but it is certainly not the consensus on wikipedia. I have already stated very clearly that you need to use independent sources such as financial newspapers. Dormskirk (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The audited annual accounts are verified by independent auditors, in this case PWC. If they do a mistake, they are fined and potentially lose their license. They are much more independent than any newspaper. Jaeljojo (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They are still issued by the company and are therefore, from the perspective of our policies, not independent. Dormskirk (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please point me to these policies that state this?Jaeljojo (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot keep repeating this. Please read WP:RS. Each fact should be cited to reliable, independent, published sources. Annual reports are published by the company and are therefore not independent. Dormskirk (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that annual accounts that are audited by independent auditors are not independent and reliable? Are you aware that all banks rely on this information when deciding whether to lend to a business? Our entire banking system relies on the fact that audited reports are correct and to be relied upon. Have you ever seen a bank lend money to a business based on a newspaper article? Jaeljojo (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

All I am saying is please read WP:RS. Each fact should be cited to reliable, independent, published sources and that annual reports are published by the company and are therefore not independent. I cannot keep repeating it. Dormskirk (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You do not seem to know what audited annual accounts are. Their key feature is that they are reliable and independent. I cannot keep repeating myself. They are also not "published by the company", but they are written by the auditors and the company is required by law to put them on their webpage. Would it help you if I put a link to the same document from companies house? Jaeljojo (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As I have updated the financials of all infoboxes of most FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies on wikipedia for the last 16 years, I think I know what audited annual accounts are. Sorry, but your understanding of company law is also completely incorrect. Under the Companies Act 2006, "every company has an obligation to publish its annual accounts and reports, and every public company is required to lay its annual accounts and reports before the company in general meeting". "Auditors audit the financial statements and perform other procedures on other parts of the annual report". - Auditors do not write the accounts. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The key question in my view is whether the audited accounts are reliable information. Can you please let me know whether you believe audited accounts to be reliable? Jaeljojo (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No! The key question is whether they are independent and they are not. Your understanding of the law in suggesting otherwise is just wrong. Now please back off and let other editors such as Paul W proceed as he has kindly offered. Dormskirk (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Why can you not just answer the question? Are they reliable or not? As they are audited by an independent auditor, they are by definition independent. Also, you have never answered the question what other financial information is more reliable than audited accounts.Jaeljojo (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Financial statements may or may not be reliable: there are numerous instances of issues over the reliability of financial statements. I have answered the question numerous times that you need to use independent sources such as financial newspapers and cite on a line by line basis (like the rest of the article). Again, please back off and let other editors such as Paul W proceed as he has kindly offered. Dormskirk (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me one possibility (even conceptually) to get information on sales, EBITDA, cash flow, capex and interest of a company without going to the annual accounts. Any newspaper will either copy from other newspapers or will check the annual accounts. The annual accounts are the authoritative source for such information - it is really bizarre of you to say that we cannot use them without explaining why other sources should be more reliable. And how possibly can there be "independent" information about the financial details without being provided by the company and verified by auditors? Who outside of the company can know these numbers? Of course there have been scandals and mistakes in financial statements (even audited ones) but that does not alter the fact that in all normal situations, absent of forsenic analysis by e.g. an interested buyer, there there is nothing more reliable than audited accounts.Jaeljojo (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Reputable financial newspapers get their information from a variety of sources including brokers' notes and regulatory reports from bodies such as OFWAT, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Financial Conduct Authority, as well as company visits and presentations. As already explained, the annual accounts may or may not be reliable, are not independent and your understanding of how they are prepared is just wrong in law. Again, please let other editors proceed as they have kindly offered. Dormskirk (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And where do the brokers and regulatory bodies get their information from? Who other than the company can report sales and EBITDA of the company? And then the auditors come in and check the numbers and confirm that they are correct. This is then called audited accounts. And you think they get the info from company visits and presentations? Like walking around in the company and guessing sales and EBITDA? Sorry, you got yourselves into a non-defendable position. Jaeljojo (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot just accept that any information issued by the company is reliable and it is certainly not independent. As requested numerous times, please just read the policy (WP:RS); also please read the Companies Act 1986 to understand the legal position on annual accounts. Dormskirk (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And you cannot answer my question who else should supply info on Sales, EBITDA, Capex and interest if not the company itself. No broker can guess these numbers. No regulatory authority can have them other than looking at audited accounts and/or asking the company. Jaeljojo (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The company will provide information through various means including meetings with brokers and regulators who will then interogate it. It may or may not then be regarded as reliable. I have answered numerous questions as completely as I can. Now please either substitute properly sourced information in accordance with the policy or back off and let experienced editors do it without hinderance. Dormskirk (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And when the broker and regulator interrogate the company, is that more stringent than when the auditor checks the books? You cannot seriously say that. The wikipedia policy that you quote by the way says: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". Peer-review is obviously less stringent than review by auditors who are bound by regulatory bodies, would you not agree? If peer-reviewed articles are allowed, obviously audited accounts are allowed as well. Jaeljojo (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to help answer questions from new editors but this is getting repetitive. You have already been told that "current citations are from Thames Water and are thus not independent". So, no, I do not agree that information published by the company can be used, but you already know that. Dormskirk (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am with Dormskirk on the need to have a good level of independent perspective on Thames Water's finances (WP:NPOV also urges us to represent both sides - to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic").

I have condensed the 'financials' and the brief preceding section about the current situation into a new merged section "2023 financial crisis". I have added several reputable sources (FT, Telegraph, BBC) while also retaining some of the company's own financial reporting. I think this gives a reasonable balance of sources, and sums up things quite succinctly. Paul W (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Great job! Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the rework. I think it makes sense though to have a discussion on the allowed use of audited statements. I noted that the policy says nothing about what sources to use for financial information. I will start a discussion about the policy and the suitable sources for financial information. Jaeljojo (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Um, @Dormskirk, could you please quote for me the exact line in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that is the basis for your belief that "Each fact should be cited to reliable, independent, published sources"? WP:RS says that "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but "articles" ≠ "each fact". We allow non-independent sources to be used on articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure. In the "overview" it says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dormskirk (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dormskirk, have you noticed that "Each fact must be cited..." and "Articles should be WP:Based upon..." are not the same thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Please see my comments at WP:RS which I have only just come across. It would be good to have this discussion in one place. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should be "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.... [and] ... Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

The current lead includes information (its water supply and sewage metrics, Abingdon reservoir, shareholder stakes, the basis for the name [a range of rivers and boreholes in the Thames basin], for example) that is not covered in the body copy, and there is overlap between items (the Lee Tunnel is part of the Tideway project, for example).

I propose to start a rewrite of the article, so that its lead section is a summary of the key points, with the relevant citations appearing in the body, and not the lead. Paul W (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be good. The current (poorly sourced) financial section should be removed / replaced as part of that rewrite. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I massively object that the financial section is poorly sourced. Its sources are the official financing documents of the company, approved and verified by auditors and the financial regulator. There cannot be more reliable financial information.Jaeljojo (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That may be your view but it is certainly not the consensus on wikipedia. Dormskirk (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

again, please name more reliable sources of financial information.Jaeljojo (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot keep repeating myself...you need to use independent sources such as financial newspapers. Dormskirk (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we please escalate this to some review board? You cannot be serious to say that newspaper are more independent than auditors. Jaeljojo (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We operate by consensus...other editors will add their views...as Paul W has already done...he is an extremely experienced editor, so please heed his comments. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You first say that the sources are not independent by your policies. Now you say you operate by consensus. Can you please give me a reason why a document that is verified by an independent auditor is more reliable by a random newspaper. Rather, can you please let me know where the newspaper gets its information from if not from the annual accounts? Jaeljojo (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. Dormskirk (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have completed a rewrite of the lead section, with some restructuring of the remainder of the article. As part of this (and as mentioned in the previous Talk section) I have condensed the 'financials' section incorporating both Thames financial reporting and independent reporting from sources including broadsheet newspapers and broadcasters. Paul W (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Start

Wouldn't this section at the beginning of the article: Thames Water Utilities Ltd, known as Thames Water, look better if it was changed to: Thames Water Utilities Ltd, trading as Thames Water. ?? just wondering, as TW is technically a trading name. DavidTDC3377 // 💬 Talk 11:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, fine with me. Dormskirk (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Paul W (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)