Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Accenture/Archive 6) (bot |
2600:1700:960:23b0:ed7a:203f:e0df:a78 (talk) →September 2018 update request: OOPS. I put in Tax 2012 tax stuff and moved NHS problem to controversy. |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
{{fake heading|sub=3|Controversy}} |
{{fake heading|sub=3|Controversy}} |
||
The ''Controversy'' section in the article is two sentences long. There is frequently debate on ''Controversy'' and ''Criticism'' sections, and I know a number of editors think ''Controversy'' sections are deprecated. As [[Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Controversy%22_section|WP:CRIT]] says, these sections can become a mixed-bag of detail that is labeled controversial, and similar sections can come to violate [[WP:NPOV]]. I'm wondering if the existing material should be integrated into more appropriate sections of the article, such as the end of ''History'', or be given a more specific, unbiased section title? |
The ''Controversy'' section in the article is two sentences long. There is frequently debate on ''Controversy'' and ''Criticism'' sections, and I know a number of editors think ''Controversy'' sections are deprecated. As [[Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Controversy%22_section|WP:CRIT]] says, these sections can become a mixed-bag of detail that is labeled controversial, and similar sections can come to violate [[WP:NPOV]]. I'm wondering if the existing material should be integrated into more appropriate sections of the article, such as the end of ''History'', or be given a more specific, unbiased section title? |
||
5/31/2019 |
|||
OOPS. I often see such a section and put one in here without consulting the talk page first. If you revert please make sure the 2012 tax issue is moved somewhere. I saw the NHS thing and put it in Controversy. Perhaps it should be under Criticism. Or a section called "things didn't go well". I really don't think the NHS thing needs to be in the Bermuda section it was in. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:960:23B0:ED7A:203F:E0DF:A78|2600:1700:960:23B0:ED7A:203F:E0DF:A78]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:960:23B0:ED7A:203F:E0DF:A78|talk]]) 05:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC) J |
|||
{{done}} |
{{done}} |
Revision as of 05:42, 31 May 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
| |||||||
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Accenture Strategy
An editor has red-linked Accenture Strategy. Per WP:REDLINK articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article. I am yet to be convinced that divisions of Accenture are notable in their own right. And so I do not believe Accenture Strategy warrants an article - unless it has been involved in some controversy that we are not yet aware of. Dormskirk (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 update request
Hi all! Again, I am back with some routine updates on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.
The introduction was updated in recent months to include the following:
Accenture has six divisions; these are Accenture Strategy, Accenture Consulting, Accenture Digital, Accenture Federal Services, Accenture Technology and Accenture Operations.
Accenture Federal Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Accenture (essentially an "industry" or vertical practice area), and is not equivalent to one of Accenture's five businesses. Could this be changed back to the previous version of this sentence?:
- Accenture has five businesses; these are Accenture Strategy, Accenture Consulting, Accenture Digital, Accenture Technology, and Accenture Operations.
Done
The Controversy section in the article is two sentences long. There is frequently debate on Controversy and Criticism sections, and I know a number of editors think Controversy sections are deprecated. As WP:CRIT says, these sections can become a mixed-bag of detail that is labeled controversial, and similar sections can come to violate WP:NPOV. I'm wondering if the existing material should be integrated into more appropriate sections of the article, such as the end of History, or be given a more specific, unbiased section title?
5/31/2019 OOPS. I often see such a section and put one in here without consulting the talk page first. If you revert please make sure the 2012 tax issue is moved somewhere. I saw the NHS thing and put it in Controversy. Perhaps it should be under Criticism. Or a section called "things didn't go well". I really don't think the NHS thing needs to be in the Bermuda section it was in. 2600:1700:960:23B0:ED7A:203F:E0DF:A78 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC) J
Done
As discussed above, Accenture Federal Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Accenture (essentially an "industry" or vertical practice area), and is not equivalent to one of Accenture's five businesses. I also note that Accenture Federal Services was previously included in this section under a Principal subsidiaries subsection. Following a discussion on the article Talk page, it was determined that the subsidiaries do not belong here and they were removed in this edit. The article markup includes a note telling editors not to add the content back without further discussion on the Talk page. It says: "Principal subsidiaries Removed per talk page discussion. Please do not add back in without talk page discussion."
Could Accenture Federal Services be removed from this bulleted list?
Done
There is new recognition from Forbes, Fortune, and DiversityInc. Can these be updated? I have provided a draft and markup for the updated awards
- In 2018, Accenture was ranked No. 288 on the Forbes Global 2000 list.[1]
- In 2018, Accenture was ranked No. 316 on the Fortune Global 500 list.[2]
- In 2018, the firm was named 9th in the Top 50 Companies for Diversity by DiversityInc.[3]
*In 2018, Accenture was ranked No. 288 on the [[Forbes Global 2000]] list.<ref name="ForbesGlobal2000 2018">{{cite news |title=The World’s Largest Public Companies |url=https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#search:Accenture |magazine=[[Forbes]] |date=2018 |accessdate=28 August 2018}}</ref>
*In 2018, Accenture was ranked No. 316 on the [[Fortune Global 500]] list.<ref name="Fortune Global 500 2018">{{cite news |title=Global 500 |url=http://fortune.com/global500/list/filtered?searchByName=Accenture |magazine=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] |date=2018 |accessdate=28 August 2018}}</ref>
References
|
---|
References
|
Done
Dormskirk: Since you have reviewed my edit requests in the past, I'm wondering if you would be interested to review these potential updates and make the changes if they seem ok. I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or discuss these requests. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review and making the updates, Dormskirk! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Pierre Nanterme update
Hi all! A quick request note here as there has been a change in the company leadership, which was reported in a company press release and several news stories this morning. Pierre Nanterme has stepped down as CEO of the company, and David Rowland has become the interim CEO. Please can editors make this update in the article? @Dormskirk: Since I see you've recently reverted this change, I wanted to let you know that there is now sourcing to support it:
- {{cite news |title=Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme Steps Down for Health Reasons |author=Ben Foldy |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-11/accenture-says-ceo-pierre-nanterme-steps-down-for-health-reasons |work=Bloomberg |date=11 January 2019 |accessdate=11 January 2019}}
Similar to my other requests above, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm here on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance for your help to make this update! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 update request
Hi all! Again, I am back with some updates on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.
Revenue in the infobox includes a typo. The correct revenue for 2018 is $41.6 billion, not $41.06 billion. Can this be updated?
The image in the infobox is for the Kronberg campus. This is a generic campus building and I'm not sure why Accenture's Kronberg office would need to have a prominent position in the article. Can this photo be deleted or moved into the body of the article instead of the infobox?
In Marketing, branding and identity, Accenture's Interbrand ranking is outdated. I suggest updating the sentence:
- As of 2018, Interbrand ranked Accenture No. 34 on its list of best global brands.[1]
Additionally, will editors consider removing the following sentence from Marketing, branding and identity:
- "Accenture actively manages their Wikipedia presence using the public relations company Burson-Marsteller and advertising agency Beutler Ink.[2]"
The mention does not cite a reliable source and there has been no secondary coverage of Accenture's requests for Wikipedia, to my knowledge. If this is a question of transparency, I have properly disclosed my conflict of interest on this page using Template:Connected contributor (paid), and have refrained from editing the article directly, and all of my suggested updates have been posted here on the Talk page for uninterested volunteer editors to review and determine if they are appropriate encyclopedic content.
There is new recognition from Fortune. Can this be updated?
- In 2019, Fortune magazine named it as the world's most admired Information Technology Services company.[3]
Lastly, I request removing the link to Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland#Corporate tax inversions. Due to a misunderstanding of Accenture’s corporate structure and corporate taxation, the company was incorrectly listed as a corporate tax inversion; it is not. In fact, Accenture#Bermuda_headquarters discusses this:
- In October 2002, the Congressional General Accounting Office (GAO) identified Accenture as one of four publicly traded federal contractors that were incorporated in a tax haven country.[4] The other three, unlike Accenture, were incorporated in the United States before they re-incorporated in a tax haven country, thereby lowering their US taxes. Critics, most notably former CNN journalist Lou Dobbs,[5] have reported Accenture's decision to incorporate in Bermuda as a US tax avoidance ploy, because they viewed Accenture as having been a US-based company.[6] The GAO itself did not characterize Accenture as having been a US-based company; it stated that "prior to incorporating in Bermuda, Accenture was operating as a series of related partnerships and corporations under the control of its partners through the mechanism of contracts with a Swiss coordinating entity."[7]
Accenture is not and has never been a U.S.-based or U.S.-operated organization, and it has never operated under a U.S. parent company. It operates in the U.S. through Accenture LLP.
Dormskirk: Since you have reviewed my edit requests in the past, I'm wondering what you think. I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Best Global Brands 2018 Rankings". Interbrand. 2018. Retrieved February 6, 2019.
- ^ "Beutler Ink Capabilities Deck". Dokumen.tips. Retrieved 2018-11-14.
- ^ "World's Most Admired Companies". Fortune. 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2019.
- ^ Information on Federal Contractors That Are Incorporated Offshore; United States General Accounting Office; 1 October 2002
- ^ Dobbs, Lou (9 March 2004). "Exporting America". CNN. Retrieved 3 May 2011.
- ^ [1] Archived 3 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Information on Federal Contractors That Are Incorporated Offshore". gao.gov. General Accounting Office. Retrieved 4 December 2017.
- Hi - All done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for reviewing this, Dormskirk and making the updates. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism / Spam
"For the fiscal year 2018, Accenture reported earnings of US$4.060 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.603 billion, an increase of 13.2% over the previous fiscal cycle. Accenture's shares traded at over $159 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$104.2 billion in October 2018.[30]" - this clause, and the associated link to macrotrends.net is almost identically repeated across 50 other pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=macrotrends.net&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go for full list of companies linked. I see Dormskirk referenced here as an editor - can you advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.192.128 (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)