Talk:Deloitte

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

Business Start‑class

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The scandal section is not referenced at all the person pushing for the section has to provide references and proper citations. I~~t looks like he/she just works for a competing firm and is trying to push for negative publicity.~~

The above is not true. The scandals are notable, ongoing, and an example of corporate greed and arrogance. Please see below == Egads! Corporate calumny! == gsotir 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check the new revenue figure? There is no source on that number. Is it true or false?

HI to confirm the new revenue figure is true, check www.deloitte.com and see the latest report for FY2007 which has just been released today(16/10/2007), which makes D&T #1 globally in terms of revenue and #of staff. So by the usual counts, number 1 of the big 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.76.165 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the other Big 4 firms have lists of some their major clients on their Wiki's, perhaps someone could add a list of Deloitte's major audit clients?

--

Why is this article written in the first person? It's supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. Whenever I see the word "our", I don't bother to continue reading it. If someone could fix it up it'd be great. Downwards 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History section of the article seems to be a lightly edited copy-and-paste from the History section of the company's website. (The editing seems to consist of removing first-person pronouns with the company's full name.) I'm going to put a POV-Check on it. Exia 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deloitte and Company was founded in London in 1849. Please update.

Deloitte started his business in 1845. The history section seems very US-centric - compare to the official website which has much about the activities of the UK firms in the 19th century.

-- Beardo 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of the article is a direct lift by the poster from the firm's US website, so naturally has the US history given. Appears to be both POV and copyright violation. THJames 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge - Deloitte Haskins & Sells

Article on DH&S is a stub. The history of DH&S, as one of the predecesors that merged into DTT, is already covered in the DTT article so a separate article on DH&S is not necessary.

THJames 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comments received so merged page. THJames 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is PR

We don't need PR on an encyclopedia.

Then it can be edited. I dont think anyone can argue that an article on Deloitte, as one of the nations big four accounting firms, isn't warrented in the encyclopedia. Many articles begin with information taken directly from a Company's website or other biographical

nformaiton on an individual as posted by his or her employer. If you disagree with anything in the article, please edit and discuss any changes here.--Fresh 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The significant clients are mentioned for Pricewaterhousecoopers, Ernst & Young and KPMG. Glad if someone can update the page for Deloitte and mention who their significant clients are. Thanks

Parmalat

I really think we need a section on the Parmalat scandal.

UK Acquisition of Andersen business

There is a paragraph explaining that original UK business of Deloitte passed to Coopers & Lybrand. Is it worth adding at the end a comment along the lines that "Following the demise of Arthur Andersen in 2002, the UK business of Arthur Andersen was absorbed by Deloitte. This was the optimal result in the UK from a competition perspective, redressing the loss of the original Deloitte business to Coopers & Lybrand."

I would argue that Deloitte was the weakest player in the market prior to the Andersen absorption and in many areas ex-Andersen staff have taken over the business. That's probably to UK-Centric and opinionated though. Crantock 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clientele

Is the Clientele section in this article really encyclopedic? First of all what constitutes as a "major" client? Second, Deloitte's clients are so numerous that this list could go on seemingly forever and this section is quickly turning into a "data dump". My suggestion would be to simply state the different sectors that Deloitte clients fall into such as telecomm, commerce, etc. Any thoughts? Suvablee0506 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egads! Corporate calumny!

The scandal section regarding LAUSD is referenced by newspaper articles from established corporate media. In fact, the company has been, and will continue to be a target of legal protests and perhaps lawsuits by individual teachers and unions until they fix the broken system they sold to LAUSD. I can't believe you people want to steal from school kids. I have re-inserted the entire Scandal section 9/19 after a rip in the net fabric disappeared it. If it needs to go lower down than perhaps it should be done so...and locked...

The vandalism continues on a daily basis, so I will now attempt to expand the Scandals section...obviously someone feels that you should not know this info. gsotir 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals & Rankings

The sections on scandals and rankings need improvement. This improvement should make them more encyclopedic by providing context.

The existence of rankings are not advertising but rather expresses the standing of a company as compared to other companies. The rankings say more than "this company is great" but rely on specific areas like treatment of minority employees, which evinces notability beyond advertising although further context could be provided. Perhaps the rankings section could instead be merged into sections on history thereby providing context.EECavazos (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scandals section effectively serves as a soapbox for people airing their grivances. The specific suits themselves are very notable because they provide insight as to the topic's impact. However, more context is needed. Since they were lawsuits, the company has its own view on the matter. Since the articles only discuss grivances as to the specific situations, the content is not neutral. That's not to say that I think the company should be exculpated but rather npov requirements ask for more than what is currently provided.EECavazos (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-This is what happened in the scandal.

Deloitte Consulting implemented SAP HR for LAUSD. They told LAUSD employees that they have to submit their time online in order to get paid. LAUSD employees did not submit their time online. And then, they got upset. I don't see how this is a scandal. This is LAUSD's fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doclkk (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scandal section seems to be really negative. Do we need it at all? GreenDotter (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged into one of the other sections?EECavazos (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Maybe tuck it away in the history? GreenDotter (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think this whole entry is little better than a corporate advertisment. The scandals continue to affect workers on a monthly (in LAUSD's case) basis. Any negativity here stems from selling and promoting shoddy products, not mere reporting on real events. Please, let's keep things in perspective. gsotir (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scandals and rankings sections take things out of perspective. Both of the sections are mere bullets that list sparse raw facts without context. The rankings section could be incorporated into the larger body of the article to give context to company's placement in the industry. This is what notability (as opposed to advertising) is all about: giving reason as to why the subject should have an article devoted to it. The scandals section could be incorporated into larger body to give perspective on the impact of the company. The scandals add to the subject's notability. The scandals section as it is constitutes mere reporting on current events because the bullet format and associated entries give little to no information on the "why" or "how" or even "what" for most of the scandals. The scandals section demonstrates what results from contributions made with haste and spite. Wikipedia should have an article devoted to each scandal with the summary incorporated into this article. Failing that there could be an article devoted to the scandals of this article's subject with the summary added to this article in appropriate areas. The baseline is that the scandals section should be rewritten to provide more information detailing what happened and why and how. If some of the scandals are older, then they should be put in the history section and under the proper subsection. It's hard to tell where many such individual scandals should go because they were so hastely drafted with no indication of time or the slightest context. Other scandals that are more recent should be a part of a new section that discusses the company's notable presence in the world today. The individual scandals should be kept because they add to the notability of the subject. Again, should the scandals have an adequate amount of attention and information, then they would be expanded to the point where they should have their own articles with summaries incorporated in the article.EECavazos (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Andersen#Involvement in accounting scandals is an example of the proper treatment of a scandal because it goes in depth by providing context and elaborating on what happened and why and how.EECavazos (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting scandals also points to articles that demonstrate proper treatment of scandals.EECavazos (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind spite, I just mind lazy spite.EECavazos (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Scandals section is pertinent to researchers, it is backed up by corporate media sources, it is an example of how this corporation operates, and it is being maintained and updated regularly. There have been numerous attempts to sabotage and delete and vandalize this section culminating in numerous requests to lock the section and stem further vandalism. Please see history background for details.gsotir (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this site! If you would like to add material to create context that is fine, but just making pronouncements and then deleting peoples work is little better than site sabotage. I just talked to a teacher today who was underpaid $5000 and Deloitte's computer says she was overpaid $2000 and she is freaking out. This is an example of the damage this company does. It needs to be publicized. gsotir (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please start reading what editors write in this discussion section and address such content specically? Also, review WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. An example of a scandels section that is not a soapbox can be found in Arthur Andersen#Involvement in accounting scandals and throughoutAccounting scandals. The scandals section in this article has external links that give no information other than the name of a scandal. Some of these links are dead links and provide no other information. ISoft? Others provide no information other than the external link. Parmalat? Quangdong Kelon? Can you imagine an English essay that only says "I didn't like the book"? The scandals section is of such limited quality. It has limited value particularly to researchers because they may use the public library or Lexis-Nexis or even google with a little effort to acquire more information than provided in the scandals section of this article. Just look at Arthur Andersen#Involvement in accounting scandals. This is what each scandal in the scandals section should look like at the very minimum. If someone really cared about the people not getting paid, then they would put a little more effort in providing sufficient content on what was going on in the scandal without falling back on the bad habit of seeing wikipedia as a soapbox per WP:NOT. EECavazos (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will rewrite and expand the LAUSD scandal. I do not have info about the other scandals. I have read WP:NOT numerous times and see no discrepenies between what I have contributed and WP standards. But, please be aware that Deloitte has continously tried to remove the scandals section because it contains info that does not fit their PR matrix...which is what corporate entries at WP stand the danger of degrading to. This danger is prevalent throughout WP and serves no one trying to seek valid information about a corporation.

That said, just removing an entire section because of your perceptions without notable dialogue struck me as more vandalism. While I do not profess to be an editor I do believe that consensus is more than one person making comments in disagreement with other comments made previously, and then acting unilaterally...perhaps you too should review WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

I think the Scandals section should remain until I can get a more full, and I hope, agreeable, entry...perhaps w/in the next week or so? gsotir (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk of what/where/how/when content got posted and will be revised and by who is just another example of Wikipedia's failure as an information source. Wiki is nothing better than group blog. A lot of un-vetted crap gets posted, most of which would never see the light of day in the real publishing word. Pity those who come here for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.99.34 (talk • contribs)

Dear IP68.42.99.34: Thanks, but what you are describing is pretty much the standard rap on Wikipedia. Nothing new. And this talk page is here to discuss specific ways to improve this particular article. Famspear (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we consider an external link to http://www.wikijobs.co.uk? This wiki website provides students and graduates with info about interviews and assessment days for firms including Deloitte. I think graduate users of wikipedia would find this site highly useful - plus the site is a edited wiki site that hosts no adverts and is entirely free to use! thank you Redsuperted (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article

Could someone create an article for J. Michael Cook, former CEO? Thanks! Jccort (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link to be added - ILoveBig4.com

I have an idea about adding http://ilovebig4.com/category/deloitte/ as an external link from this page. Actually, this link was here, but it was removed a week ago by OhNoitsJamie. In course of discussion we agreed that this link is relevant for big four auditors page. Although I admit that ilovebig4.com is based on wordpress engine (so could be named as blog) and the issue of COI could be raised, I strongly believe that it is worth adding the link. Just few points why to add.

1. ilovebig4.com is a specialized site which aggregates news about big four auditors. So it is definitely relevant for people reading about Deloitte.

2. Even as of now there are 16 posts about Deloitte and more than 70 posts about competitors. So, in this case, the more the better.

3. All the posts are properly referenced to sources and do not express point of view of the blogger. So, to some extent it removes the issue of COI and makes the source reliable.

4. Fresh news regularly appear on the source. So, it gives additional value of dynamic vs. static data to wikipedia users.

5. The site is administered by ex- big four worker. So, active users can ask questions and receive relevant answers. And that's another additional value for wikipedia users.

So, eager to hear your ideas about the idea! :) BIG4PAPA (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]