Talk:PwC/Archives/2012

Citation

"PricewaterhouseCoopers (or PwC) is the world's largest professional services firm." Could somebody please confirm this? I was under the impression that the big 4 firms did not have a definate ranking between them. -- 125.238.40.208 05:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PwC is the biggest by revenue and number of employees... this can easily be seen in any of the Four's accounting statements.

Also PwC is the fourth (or was last year) biggest private company in the US. The only companies that are larger were all manufacturing companies... so yes, this statement is true and is not contested by any Big Four member. (The others' targets often involve catching up with PwC). I don't think this is a controversial statement at all and is widely-known information but if you would wish for more evidence on the page, it can quite easily be provided (even if it will make the page that little bit more cluttered)--Zoso Jade 16:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is said to have 150,000 employees though on their wiki page. I'm just trying to clear up the accuracy here. 125.238.40.208 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop changing it from being a "professional services" firm to calling it an "accountancy firm". The firm is made up of a wide variety of other professionals including IT and strategy consultants, actuaries and even lawyers. The firm describes itself as a professional services firm. Wikipedia should do the same.--Zoso Jade (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. It is generally accepted that PWC is a professional services firm. But you have given no independent source to support your statement that it is one of the world's largest professional services firms: statements like this should be properly sourced or deleted Dormskirk (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear I did not make the original size claim; I merely commented on it... but I agree with its inlcusion. It is a difficult one to show, the fourth largest private company in the US statement was from Forbes magazine - it is now fifth [1]. I don't know whether there are any other independent sources though again I must stress that this is hardly a debated stat - I note the McDonald's article offers no proof of it being the largest fast-food chain presumably on the basis of general public acceptance - when there is no one even close it seems rather pedantic to require hard proof (which is often unavailable). Likewise, the big four auditors are so much bigger than other professional services firms, from law firms to management consultancies that it seems almost absurd to embark on a quest for rigorous proof (for comparison, Clifford Chance the world's largest law firm had revenues last year of less than 1/10th that of PwC. Mckinsey fared slighlty better at 1/5th.). I would be tempted to keep it in there until someone was ready to offer up a professional services firm with higher revenue/ larger market capitalisation, an unlikely event. Let me know your thoughts on this.--Zoso Jade (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to proceed as you suggest - I agree it probably is one of the world's largest professional services firms even if we cannot prove it Dormskirk (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It has actually just recently been overtaken by Deloitte as the world's largest professional services firm, in terms of revenue. 89.242.199.67 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deloitte is larger by $7m on total revenue of $26,600m! That's 0.2%, hardly "overtaken" and well within any margin of error (foreign exchange etc). Zoltuger (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Name Change

Didn't PwC change their name to "Monday" or something equally amusing a while ago (and then change it back when everybody laughed at them)? Or was that just a weird dream I had? --Camembert

They almost did. PWC Consulting planned to change its name to Monday before its IPO, but IBM offered to buy it out not long after the decision, which scrapped the name-change plans. See [2] (BBC), [3] (InformationWeek). --Geoffrey

Sam Piazza age??

The site says Sam Piazza is 45 years old (ie born in 1959/1960).... The article also says he joined the firm in 1973 and made partner in '79. He joined the firm at 13 and made partner at 19??? Just what kind of hotshot are we talking about here?

neutrality

Some of this article currently reads like an advert for PwC. Case in point:

"The Advisory Service offerings are woven around creating exceptional value for clients."

Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV.--Zoso Jade 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

incorrect sentence

"Because its only products are the outputs of its personnel, the firm has a competitive recruiting program."

As there are few companies that have products that aren't the output of the company's personnel, it is likely the author of this line meant "Because its major asset is the expertise of its personnel..." --Zoso Jade 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There are, in fact, many companies who's products are not the output of its' employees or personnel. A supermarket chain is a prime example of a company who's products are definately not an output of its' employees. In a manufacturing enviroment or in Price Waterhouse Coopers' case, a service enviroment (notwithstanding its' other product offerings), it would be true to say sometnig along the lines of: "Its' only products are an output of its employees". All of this is pretty obvious.All they can generate revenue through are the services they offer,unlike some of the above mentioned companies, that is why the line read as it did.

As a result,even though i was not the original author, i am changing the line back to its original format.

Headquarters

I've changed "headquarters: New York" to "headquarters: London" here - this still isn't entirely accurate, as the London-based international limited company does co-ordination between member firms rather than overall management, but is more accurate than suggesting that the US partnership's HQ is the HQ for the international firm --Stalinism 10:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chairman's office is based at 300 Madison Avenue in New York. Housed here are at least two Line of Service Leaders and the Global Chief Executive. Probably fair to say that New York is the global headquarters. I would view the London office as secondary, but its probably worthwhile noting that the associated legal firm, Landwell, is HQ'd in London. Matt.hatton 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, PricewaterhouseCoopers is not one global firm with office/branches in 150 countries. It is a network of professional services firms which each licenses the PricewaterhouseCoopers name. If you see the copyright statement on their global website (pwc.com) it states: "PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity." and also note: "The member firms are linked together through membership in PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL), a UK membership-based company." ( http://www.pwc.com/extweb/service.nsf/docid/8A601D5FA74A7CEA85257013006558DF ). So PwCIL "licenses" (not sure what the legal terms/technicalities are) the name "PricewaterhouseCoopers" to the local firms in each country. The US Firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, is headquartered in New York. The Italian firm, "PricewaterhouseCoopers S.p.A." is headquarted in Milan, Italy, etc. Each are separate firms, which are in turn, members of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited. Yelocab (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Clients

I noticed on the EY page that they list their audit clients by industry. I think it would be worthwhile including this information, because I have often thought about this myself, and its hard to come by a definitive list. (15:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Here is the PwC list of industries (please add any companies you can find):

   * Aerospace & Defence
   * Automotive: Ford Motor Company
   * Chemicals
   * Education & Nonprofit
   * Energy, Utilities & Mining: ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Royal Dutch Shell
   * Engineering & Construction
   * Entertainment & Media: Verisign, Paramount, Yahoo!, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
   * Financial Services: Westpac, JPMorganChase, Barclays, Lloyds, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs
   * Forest, Paper & Packaging
   * Government/Public Services
   * Healthcare
   * Hospitality & Leisure
   * Industrial Manufacturing
   * Insurance
   * Investment Management & Real Estate
   * Metals
   * Pharmaceuticals
   * Retail & Consumer: Nike
   * Technology: IBM
   * Telecommunications: Hutchinson Wapora (Orange/Three)
   * Transportation & Logistics

At Binghamton

I go to Binghamton (check the IP if you want). The academia tab violates NPOV and was shameless self-promotion, probably by another Binghamton student. What can I say? We do love our self-promotion :^) --149.125.200.78 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Honor Its Commitments

About once a week when I go to work in downtown Vancouver I see this older guy walking around with this sign in front of PWC with a sign saying something like "PWC doesn't honor its commitments". And then on the other side of the sign it says something about its older employees. I couldn't find anything about this on google or google news. Anyone know anything about this?

Moved "working mothers" award

I hope no one minds. In the "Staff" section I moved the bit about PwC being in the top 10 companies for working mothers to the end of the awards listed there. My reasoning for this is that of all the awards it is the one that is relevant to the least number of staff (I feel being in Fortune's 100 best companies to work for, or The Times no 1. place to work for graduates is far more relevant as it covers all staff). This is not to diminish the importance of the working mother award, but most PwC staff aren't working mothers and I don't believe that an award that relates to a minority of staff probably shouldn't be the second line in the section.--Zoso Jade 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Philanthropy

"PwC is known for a large investment in various philanthropic activities". The firm's website and annual report does not seem to make that claim. The article refers to the sponsorship of the Binghamton University School of Management PricewaterhouseCoopers Honors Program, but does not indicate how much that costs. Is it "philanthropy" to sponsor a program if you are trying to recruit its graduates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swinnow16 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC). Swinnow16 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the statement is too broad, particularly the term 'large investment'. Maybe some specific examples of PwC's philanthropic activities? E.g. in the Perth office they invest in local charities and sponsor employees to take days off to visit sick children, plant trees etc. Metathesiophobia 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:COaLY.gif

Image:COaLY.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Founder: Price?

According to the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "History" section, a person named Eve Ryan is mentioned as starting his accounting business. The next sentence goes on to refer to a person named only "Price". There's gotta be an error here, right? I thought Samuel Price was a founder, not this Eve Ryan. (Then again, I'm not really into accounting.) Thoughts? --Alika 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw the correction. Thanks! --Alika 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Samuel Price was the founder. I am one of his almost direct descendents and I have this information in what is known by my family as 'The Price Review'. Hope this makes matters clearer? Sapphonica (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's be clear here. There is no single founder as the firm is the result of a series of mergers. However, it is true that the "PriceWaterhouse" part of the firm was formed by Sam Price, Edwin Waterhouse and William Holyland.--Zoso Jade (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes quite true; I should have said 'a founder' rather than 'the founder'. My mistake Sapphonica (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia

Shouldn't there be at least a short mentioning of the pressure by the Russian government in the YUKOS case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.245.97 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source

I have just removed a cite using another wp article as a source. Suppose incorrect information is found in wikipedia somewhere (if you can imagine...). Now let's support that bad info. It appears in the article "A", citing "B". "B", meanwhile, cites "C". "C" cites "A". Obvious problem. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you in principle: that said in this case the table at the top of the article on Big Four auditors is at least referenced to sources Dormskirk (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now inserted an independent source: see paragraph 2 of the Accountancy Age article Dormskirk (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article / Completeness of articles

Hi, I saw that you deleted twice the name of Paul Bernardo from the list of notable workers or former workers of Pricewaterhouse. You explained it as vandalism... but Paul Bernardo, famous canadian criminal, was an employee of Pricewaterhouse, so I just can't see where's the problem. Everybody can add in the articles a piece of what he knows about the subject, so why not put this name? it's not a statement about the firm, it is a FACT, so according to Wikipedia's policy it is hard to erase my entry as it is genuine and proved...

Thanks Joe Dietrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.46.228.75 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept that this is a fact. But I consider that this fact is not relevent to an understanding of the firm's business. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

External link to ILoveBig4.com

I've just added an external link to ILoveBig4.com. Same story as for Deloitte page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deloitte_Touche_Tohmatsu#External_link_to_be_added_-_ILoveBig4.com

Will be glad to hear your ideas. BIG4PAPA (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies and discrimination

I noticed there's no section on some of the issues faced by PWC...for example, the case of Christina Rich: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/31/cnbully131.xml and http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22690132-1242,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.25 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it is an isolated issue that has not been proven? It allegedly happened to one of the firm's 140,000 staff. It hadly represents a cultural issue with the firm.--Zoso Jade (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Countries

How about adding a section containing a list of Countries/territories where PwC holds a branch? It would help to show how internationally widespread the company is. --Gibmetal 77^talk 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We know from the article that it operates in 150 countries - I fear that this would just take up a large amount of space Dormskirk (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It could easily be added as a collapsable drop-down list. I think it could be very useful for readers to find out where PwC operates without having to leave Wikipedia. --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added it to the infobox myself as a collapsable list which is non-obtrusive. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Classification of insurers

I note that a number of firms who engage in both life and general insurance are classed as general insurers in this article. As most large insurers engage in both lines of business I do not think it makes sense to split them. Examples include Axa, AIG and Zurich Financial services all of which have billions of dollars of Life Insurance business but are currently classed as Non-Life insurers.

I am combining the sectors to a single "insurers" classifcation--Zoso Jade (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Phar-Mor Scandal

I am new, but would like to know why the Phar-Mor scandal is not documented anywhere within this company's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlboroJon22 (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Bernardo in Notable current and former employees

It has been suggested that including Paul Bernardo in this section breaches Wikipedia:Coatrack. (See User_talk:Dormskirk#Removing_Paul_Bernardo_from_PricewaterhouseCoopers) I don't agree.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For completeness I also believe that listing a serial killer does not add to the reader's understanding of the article - unless the implication is that all employees of the firm are serial killers Dormskirk (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Including Bernardo no more implies that all employees of the firm are serial killers than including David Heathcoat-Amory implies that all employees of the firm are Members of Parliament.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it I am content for it to stay however trivial it may be Dormskirk (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertising (independent 2010 league table)

Why is it noted on EVERY single wiki university page that notes the independent 2010 league table it is "supported by Pricewatercoopers.this is just purely advertising and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.121.148 (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: it is pure advertising Dormskirk (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Client List

I have removed the client list, as it is

• Un-Sourced;
• Promotional (the only reason a company publishes is client list);
• not encyclopaedic.

Codf1977 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that PwC does publish such a client list but I am happy to be corrected on this point. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if they don't then it could well be WP:OR as well. 06:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways - if it was original research then it cannot have been be promotional on the part of the firm. Dormskirk (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that premiss, however that was not my point, I AGF and assumed that the editor who added it probably got the list from the PwC website, however if the list has not been published in a reliable source before then it is OR. As for how something can be both promotional and OR, (this is an example and I am not saying this is what happened here) take the case of a PR firm, who decides to collate one of their clients, client list and edit the WP article to include such a list, would not that list therefore be both OR and promotional at the same time? Codf1977 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the example you give would be both OR and promotional research. However I do not believe that is what has happened here. What has happened here was indeed OR by a series of people over several years. Being OR, it was also unsourced, but it was not promotional and was very useful as a way of identifing the firm's conflicts of interests at a glance and as such was proabably very encyclopaedic.Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree on the promotional aspect, but at least we agree that as it was both Un-Sourced and OR it should be removed. Codf1977 (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:PwC More London.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PwC More London.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

PwC → PricewaterhouseCoopers – Although PricewaterhouseCoopers did rebrand itself in 2010, the legal name remains PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is my opinion that articles should be titled by their legal name, and a redirect in place from any informal names except in exceptional cases (some companies -- e.g. DuPont -- have ridiculously long formal names). Wikipedia should not need to keep up with every companies' decision to rebrand itself. For example, the Ford article is under Ford Motor Company, The article about Eli Lilly is under Eli Lilly and Company, etc. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 02:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support: as nom. (See also: JPMorgan Chase (not simply "JP Morgan"), American International Group (not simply "AIG"), John Wiley & Sons (not simply "Wiley"), H. J. Heinz Company (not simply "Heinz"), as well as more examples here.) jheiv ^{talk contribs} 03:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support – we don't normally tite articles based on the subject favored or current branding, and it looks like it was changed to PwC without discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - company articles follow common name. Most of the examples above are not standard:

- 'Ford Motor Company' is used to make clear that the article is about the company not the marque

- 'Eli Lilly and Company' is used to make a distinction with the founder

- 'JPMorgan Chase' is used to make a distinction between the holding company and the investment banking division

- 'AIG' is already taken as a disambiguation page

- 'Heinz' is already taken as a disambiguation page

- 'Wiley' is already taken as a disambiguation page

More common examples where these issues do not apply include: Honda (not Honda Motor Company), Toyota (not Toyota Motor Corporation), HSBC (not HSBC Holdings), Ericsson (not Telefonaktiebolaget L. M. Ericsson), Huawei (not Huawei Technologies Co.), Vodafone (not Vodafone Group), Maersk (not A.P. Moller – Maersk Group), Vestas (not Vestas Wind Systems), International Airlines Group (not International Consolidated Airlines Group), IBM (not International Business Machines), Glencore (not Glencore International) and Morrisons (not Wm Morrison Supermarkets).Rangoon11 (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

??? AIG is not a dab page. IBM officially renamed themselves to IBM IIRC (similar to how Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing renamed themselves to 3M) -- if they didn't then that page too should be moved with a redirect from IBM. In the rest of your cases (except possibly Erickson), these should be renamed to the official name with redirects. Redirects still come up in the AJAX search bar as suggestions, so all this would do is add consistency, which is desperately needed in these articles (and article naming in general). jheiv ^{talk contribs} 19:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The official name of IBM is still International Business Machines Corporation, as is clear from their annual report: [4]. I didn't mention 3M. Sorry you are right about AIG, although there is an AIG disambuiation page.

A few more examples of WP company articles following the common name rule: Walmart (not Wal-Mart Stores), Boeing (not The Boeing Company), BMW (not Bayerische Motoren Werke), LVMH (not LVMH Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton), Michelin (not Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin), Munich Re (not Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft), EADS (not European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company).

Policy is quite clear. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that a joke? I disagree -- the precedent is far from clear, (see the list here) and suggest that the companies you mentioned are more the exception rather than the rule due to their use of non-english words and/or long names. Boeing and Walmart should be renamed to their legal names with redirects. BMW, LVMH, Michelin, Munich Re should stay where they are due to their use of non-english words. EADS could go either way due to its length.

Your linked list is very selective and non-standard. To take some of the other examples therein, Kenneth Cole Productions - necessary to distinguish from the founder, The Walt Disney Company - necessay to distinguish from the family, Procter & Gamble - P&G is not yet established as the common name. WP policy regarding article naming is very clear and well established, hence why you are engaging in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies) to get it changed. These individual discussions are very time wasting and duplicative.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose as per Rangoon11. This is what WP:CORP was supposed to insure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support. In addition to the arguments above, let me just add that the "rebranding" is far too recent to have become common usage (in contrast to IBM, 3M, BMW, etc.) It is still commonly referred to as PricewaterhouseCoopers. Maybe in the long run, if the acronym sticks and becomes common usage, I might support renaming. But not at present. Walrasiad (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It was commonly known as PwC before the formal rebrand, which is one of the reasons why the change was made. To revert the title of this article back to PricewaterhouseCoopers, a name which is now almost invisible on the firm's own web site and in its public communications, would be truly pathetic and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If the company is so committed to PwC, why don't they just change their name (ala Apple Computer Inc. -> Apple Inc., etc). If the name PricewaterhouseCoopers is good enough to keep as a legal name, its good enough for WP. An encyclopedia shouldn't cater to the whim of every company's marketing department. Its a shame we can't do a real google search to compare the two usages, since PwC is shared by so many (Professional Women in Construction, People Who Clean, Personal Water Craft, Pilipino Workers Center, ...) jheiv ^{talk contribs} 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You again show your unwillingness to respect the current common name policy. PwC is now the trading name of the firm, and the name which the firm uses in all public facing communications. This is clearly not a marketing campaign but a fundamental change in the name which the company trades under. As with IBM and BMW and so many others, why go to the trouble of legally changing the name when customers and the public will no longer see it? Particularly when there are so many separate legal entities which comprise the overall firm. It may well be done in time, but it is in any case irrelevant to WP policy. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The companies with long term contracts don't tend to change their legal names, as such changes mean tones of additional documentation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I know this firm well and the vast majority of people call it PwC - and have done so for at least 10 years. In fact I can't say I know anyone who uses the longform name nowadays. Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that anyone can say they know a firm well and that is what it's common name is. A link to sources would be more useful in determining this. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support While other company names can be useful, a better approach might be to determine what is the common name using reliable sources. A Gnews search for PWC shows [5] that in most instances PricewaterhouseCoopers is also used. Using PricewaterhouseCoopers as he search term[6] shows less articles also using PWC. To take into account the rebranding I only searched from 2010 onwards. AIRcorn (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Charity Work

Anyone think that there should be a section on charity work undertaken, such as 'The Fire Station' set up in the UK? I suggest before or after criticisms in order to offer some level of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.11 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

PwC is not a global firm

PwC is not a global firm. It is a network of independent firms. Please be careful.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about-pwc

'"PwC" is the brand under which member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL) operate and provide services. Together, these firms form the PwC network. Each firm in the network is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind them in any way.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopeajj (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yukos

Please explain why you think the Yukos section of the article should be removed. The Yukos prosecutions are a significant event in 21st century Russian politics and industry and PwC's involvement has been reported by highly reliable sources.--Thomas Darcy McGee (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A significant event in 21st century Russian politics and industry perhaps, but not in the history of PwC. And no wrongdoing by PwC was ever proven, placing this text in a "Controversies" section gives the strong impression that it was. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do consider it a significant event for PwC. If you review what reliable sources have written on the subject you'll find a large volume, depth and reach of coverage of PwC's role; more than the other controversies in the section. Proof of wrongdoing is not a criteria for including something in Wikipedia. I don't think the "Controversies" title implies wrongdoing but if you'd like to change the title of the section I would have no problem with that. If you find that including this in a section with instances of proven misconduct could be misleading I would not oppose dividing the current "Controversies" section into one section of proven wrongdoing and another of controversies.--Thomas Darcy McGee (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How about just putting a mention in the History section?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it fits better with the other incidents in the controversies section. I suppose you could move that whole section into the history section.--Thomas Darcy McGee (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)