Talk:PwC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Good lord, is this article bloated

message: 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. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. JayJayWhat did I do? 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you Dormskirk, I apologize as I never got around to making the changes. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy section giving undue weight 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies / litigation, again 

message: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/08/pwc-fined-bt-audit-accounting-frc
John Cummings (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  PwC fined nearly £1.8m over BT fraud audit failures 

message: :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)
replies: text: PricewaterhouseCoopers →  – After the merger in 1998, traded as  until it was rebranded in 2010 as . 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 November 2022 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Regarding the Australian tax leak scandal section, the PwC cite of 3 July states: . Likewise the ABC cite from the same day states: .
 
That means that the process is underway, not completed. Thus the inclusion of the text  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)
thread_title:  Australian tax leak scandal 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal for controversy section 

message: Are these awards sections noteworthy? 
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)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed the "Issues" sections into a "Controversies" section