Talk:Ernst & Young/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Eylogo.gif

Image:Eylogo.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 06:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder - Proposed merge

I don't think that the Pakistan branch of E&Y deserves its own article, unless sources can be provided to show that it's notable in its own right. Tevildo 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder is not a branch of E&Y

FRSH is not a branch of E&Y. FRSH has its own legal identity and is a partnership firm. It "represents" E&Y in Pakistan and it is not as if FRSH is "OWNED" by E&Y.

To determine whether the FRSH is notable, one can google Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder and see that it is quite notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahson Tariq (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC

  • In that case, references for its notability should be added to its article, otherwise it's at very severe risk of deletion. Tevildo 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the merge proposal and taken the other article to PROD instead. Tevildo 13:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The ITEM Club

This entity is solely sponsored by EY, anyone prepared to create a linky (I'm not up to such matters) The ITEM Club is often cited by the BBC as an independant group. http://www.ey.com/global/Content.nsf/UK/Economic_Outlook_-_What_is_ITEM_Club so is surely worth a mention (and it's own page!)

Wiki fascism... Please will someone put back the following under the sponsorship section, it is pertinent to this company - it deserves a reference in this Wikipedia despicable (at times) project.

The ITEM Club, a UK independent economic forecasting groups, founded in 1977 by a number of major companies who wanted to share the cost of economic forecasting (Ernst & Young is not a member but is the sole sponsor).

This is a useful reference. I have no connection with EY or the ITEM Club.

The ITEM Club is one of the UK’s best-known independent economic forecasting groups. Its quarterly forecasts and special reports consistently achieve widespread coverage from the UK and international press, who frequently refer to ITEM as ‘respected’, ‘leading’, ‘authoritative’ and ‘trusted’.

The ITEM Club is unique in that it uses the same economic model for its UK forecasts as the UK Government’s Treasury uses for its policy analysis and Budget forecasts (ITEM stands for ‘Independent Treasury Economic Model’). This means that ITEM is in an unrivalled position to test whether Government claims are consistent and whether its forecasts are credible.

The ITEM Club was founded in 1977 by a number of major companies who wanted to share the cost of economic forecasting (Ernst & Young is not a member but is the sole sponsor). Members span a range of industry sectors, and have the opportunity to discuss each forecast before it is finalised so that it can take account of their current business experience. This ensures that ITEM’s forecasts and analyses are particularly relevant for business and are not just academic or theoretical.

Ernst & Young and the ITEM Club: Ernst & Young has been the sole sponsor of the ITEM Club since 1988. Untied sponsorship by Ernst & Young ensures that ITEM's forecasts are independent of any political, economic or business bias. All forecasts, analyses and commentary are those of the ITEM Club and the views expressed are not necessarily those of Ernst & Young.

Ernst & Young produces a quarterly 4-page summary of each UK forecast, Economic Outlook for Business, and provides access to ITEM reports on the Overview page of this section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.136.150 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eylogo.gif

Image:Eylogo.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Atlanta location

I have a picture of the Atlanta location Ernst & Young at night that I can post, will someone let me know how to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.217.211 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Atlanta is enough of a world-class city to warrant a photo on the main EY page.

HQ location

There was some dispute over where EY's Global Headquarters are located. Some say New York, citing Hoovers reference [1] to the US Headquarters and the fact that the Global Chairman (who is also Chairman of the Americas) resides in NY.

Others said Ernst & Young Global Ltd is in London, citing the press releases section of http://www.ey.com and the fact that most of its Global Vice Chairs and EYG staff are based in London.

EY have confirmed London as their headquarters - see http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Newsroom/Facts-and-figures

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) 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Stroescu case

This is a very important case in Romania, with a lot media interest and with reactions from several political parties (Romanian and European). Should info about this case be included in the article ?

I have removed the section relating to the Stroescu case as it is speculation and non-notable in the history of this company. Wikipedia is not a rap-sheet for all infringements made of employment regulations. No official report has blamed the company explicitly, be that in a corporate manner, or relating to the staff at the company, for causing this, it is pure press speculation. All information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability hence why I linked it my text. If you have an official source, not a Romanian blog, or one reporter's opinion piece, that states that Ernst and Young were in anyway culpable for her death, then please link it here. As it is, you don't have one, because it does not exist. They got a small fine for breaching working directives, not for endangering life in any form. Everything on Wikipedia has to be a verifiable to a reliable source, and meet a NPOV. Please also read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for every employee's grievances and issues that will occur. In the history of such a large company, this has no bearing on anything. Wikipedia is not a rapsheet. Please explain why you have reverted once again in relation to these arguments above. Woody (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this kind of information should be included in the article, yes, why not? Please notice this article is about the company as a whole, not about the history of the company. Wikipedia is not a rap-sheet for all infringements made of employment regulations, you are right, but this incident is related to the company. Also, Wikipedia is not based on official reports, but it is based (in a large part) by the information present in the media. It is not Wikipedia's mission to determine if the information in the media is true or just speculation. And the fact that you consider that information a speculation it's only your problem. Again, from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Regards. Ark25 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I know, I have read that many times, I have also read the other sections pertaining to the veracity and reliability of sources. We can have press speculation all we want, but we need official releases before we can relate a company towards the death of its employee. It is slander. Why not?: because it is not relevant and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information about a company. It does not become relevant simply because the company's name is mentioned. Do we mention every employee of Ernst and Young who has ever died whilst under her employment? Woody (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of impossible to call all the media in Romania unreliable, don't you think? It's also very hard to call it a speculation, when the woman was working even 100 hours in a week, one time worked 40 hours continuously; and the fact that the company got a fine for not respecting the regulations for extra hours its also a fact. I am talking about facts, not speculations. Also, considering she was working so much, and the cause of death was exhaustion, she was young (31), it's impossible to say there is no link between death and too much work. So that's why the press "speculated" that the company is involved in her death, and any normal reporter would have done so. Also it is much more relevant, considering that she was not the first person that died after working too much, at the same company. The thing we discuss is: Raluca Stroescu worked for Ernst & Young (it's a fact). She worked to much (it's a fact). She died from exhaustion (it's a fact). The company had no records of her extra working hours (fact). Soon after her death, the company was fined for not respecting regulations for extra working hours (another fact); She was not the first one to die after too much work at the company (another fact). All this facts make the incident directly connected to the company, and also relevant. We are not talking here if the guilt of the company is relevant. But all those facts and the links between them make the incident relevant. Even if we agree all this is a speculation, a speculation can still be relevant. For example, Sancho García of Castile: "His wife was named Urraca, whose origin has been subject to speculation". A lot of Wikipedia articles have informations regarding press speculations. Especially when the speculations are very intensive/extensive, they are not becoming true, but they become relevant. My concern is not to convince readers that the company is guilty, by the contrary, my concern is to give them the facts (including possible speculations). And in this case, I think the facts are relevant. Regards Ark25 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not call all the media in Romania unreliable, only the sources linked that speculate. This person is not imprtant in terms of the history of Ernst and Young and its company. You can create an article on the person, but the information is not relevant to the Ernst and Young company as a whole. I know she died of exhaustion, and she worked very hard, but that is not linked to the company. You need to find an official source that links it to the company: you won't find it because they don't. By commenting on it in this article, it is guilt by association. We are not here to discuss the minutiae of this case, nor can we make up our own hypothese about what happened. That is not Wikipedia is for, see the policy on Original Research and synthesis of sources. Speculation varies in its nature, the argument about other articles including speculation is a fallacy: they are debating what reliable sources have said. Take a look at the Sarah Palin article and talkpage to see how press speculation should be dealt with on Wikipedia. I state again that you need to provide an official source that directly links the two. We are not a news agency, nor a court of law where we debate and speculate on the merits of the case. Woody (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the sources linked were presenting and speculatiog the same things like many other romanian news sources, but I linked only a few. I don't think you can say "New York Times is unreliable" because you see an article in that newspaper speculating on something. If the issue and the speculations about it are relevant, then it's ok to include in Wikipedia, and speculating (i.e. trying to discover the causes) does not make a newspaper unreliable. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed". In my opinion, you are all wrong to call those sources unreliable. I was quoting from mainstream romanian newspapers.
"They got a small fine for breaching working directives, not for endangering life in any form". While that is true, you forgot to mention that breaking working directives can lead to endangering life. You can't ask someone to work 72 hours continuously and then pretend you were just breaking work regulations. If you do that, then you put that person's life in danger. It's like asking someone to throw him/her self from the top of Empire State building. You do not throw the person but you asking the person to do it; and when you threat to execute otherwise face consequences (being fired), that can be called putting pressure, or even blackmail. Putting pressure on someone to do something that puts that person's life in danger is far worse than a simple break on working regulations, and in my view, this kind of incident is relevant.
"I know she died of exhaustion, and she worked very hard, but that is not linked to the company." - How on earth that is not linked with the company, when she was working for the company?? She was working hard because she was asked to. When someone is exhausted, and works too much, it's obvious that too much work is the factor that leads to exhaustion, and when that person works for a company, of course the company is responsable for her extra work and by consequence for her exhaustion. She was not working hard in her free time or for some other company. She was only working too much for E&Y, so of course the incident is linked to this company and not to ZoombaMumbaCompany. Anyways, even if you disagree, then it's no problem. It's not important if you or I consider the incident linked to the company. It's important that the readers have the information, and based on facts, they will convince themselves if the company is linked to the incident and responsible for the consequences.
Can't see where I made any original research, if you think I did, please show me where and why you consider it's original research. Also the sources were not doing original research, but doing basic logic deductions (just like adding two numbers): "working too much leads to exhaustion", "when the company is asking you to work to much, then the company is responsable for your exhaustion", and this kind of deductions. This is not original research. This is common sense logic.
"You need to find an official source that links it to the company". No, I don't. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources - can't find any statement requiring official sources.
"By commenting on it in this article, it is guilt by association" - I am not commenting, I am just presenting verifialble facts, from reliable sources. What kind of guilt are you talking about? The guilt of acusing?
"We are not here to discuss the minutiae of this case, nor can we make up our own hypothese about what happened" - exactly, we are here to present the facts.
John Lennon - "Lennon was on tour and would not see Julian for three days, and shortly after went on holiday to Spain with Epstein, which would lead to speculation of an affair" - Cynthia Lennon, John, pg 155. Why a personal (Cynthia Lennon) speculation can be relevant in that article, and news media speculation can not be relevant in this article? In the Sarah Palin article the sources are revealing some speculations made by others, but I haven't seen any Wikipedia policy saying you can't include speculations made by the sources. If there is anything like that, please point it to me. Without a rule like that, you can't ask me to write articles only in the way Sarah Palin article is written.
"I state again that you need to provide an official source that directly links the two. We are not a news agency, nor a court of law where we debate and speculate on the merits of the case" - if we are talking about the guilt of the company, you are perfectly right. So, I corrected my contribution, stating the press speculated about the causes of death. I believe the Raluca Stroescu incident is relevant for this article. And the contribution should have been corrected / improved, and not deleted. Regards Ark25 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

We are talking about a section in the article, written by me, that was deleted 4 times: Raluca_Stroescu_incident. I think that section should not have been deleted, but improved, so this is why I call for a Request for Comment.

To sum the above talk:

The user Woody deleted the section twice, then it was deleted twice from two different IP. I only talked with Woody about it. He said the reasons he deleted the section were:

  • "not verifiable". I was showing him that the informations are verifiable.
  • Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Operating_Procedures : "A manual ... was published on Wikileaks". While Wikileaks can be respectable and might have proved in time that it's reliable, I can't see how secret documents, published anonymously on Wikileaks (that makes them quite unreachable) can be more verifiable than some local mainstream newspaper articles.
  • "not reliable sources". I explained why the sources are reliable. Even the head of the biggest political party in Romania was talking about it (Mircea Geoană) [2]. So we are not talking about facts that were just invented and did not existed.
  • it's a speculation. Well, the section contained facts, and only a single statement, that can even hardly be called "speculation". Raluca Stroescu was asked to work too much, she worked too much, she died from extenuation, she was young (31). All these are facts. Now, the newspapers said the extenuation (and consequent death) were because she was working too much. In my view, this is more like common sense logic deduction, and not much like speculation. Anyways, even if we call it speculation, there is plenty of articles presenting speculations, just like the section about Raluca Stroescu.
  • Woody said speculations should be treated other way, just pointing me to Sarah Palin and without giving me other details. Well, I have seen no Wikipedia guideline or policy saying only some certain speculation types are alowed and others not. I tried to deduce what kind of speculations he thinks are allowed at Wikipedia, and then I was showing him not only that kind of speculations are present in the articles. However would have been helpful to me if he would explain the nature of speculations that he thinks are ok, and which ones he thinks are not.
  • Not linked to the company. Well she was working too much, for the company. So the company was involved in her extra working hours (because she was doing extra hours for the company), and consequently for her exhaustion, and there is a possibility that this exhaustion lead to her death.
  • Woody said there is needed an official statement - and I agree, if we talk about the guilt of the company. I corrected the section, stating that the press was speculating that working too much led to her death.
  • I believe speculations should be treated like fiction at Wikipedia: should not be presented as real, but as what they are (speculation or fiction).

Another thing: The incident was notable, because it was a big issue (in that country, for a while). We are not talking about the color of the eyes of the cat of my neighbour; so in my view the incident is notable enogh to deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. Thanks Ark25 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is fiction until proven otherwise; speculation has no place in an encyclopedic article such as this in these circumstances. I take humbrage at the fact that you have paraphrased my responses, there was no need, they can clearly be seen above, indeed, the whole conversation can be seen above. You have said there is a possibility that the company was involved, there is a possibility that they were implicit in the killing of JFK, doesn't mean we will include here. This information should not be included in this article, it is not relevant to the company as they are not implicit in any of this. Woody (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, JFK was not working for E&Y, was not asked by the company to work extra hours. So there is no link.

Please read this: Vicki_Morgan: "Adding to the conspiracy fodder is the fact that Pancoast had worked at the theatrical agency CAA at the same time as agent Morgan Mason (son of James Mason and Pamela Mason), who by the time of Vicki Morgan's lawsuit was working for the White House, and that Bloomingdale was close friends with the Reagans; indeed, Nancy Reagan was one of Betsy Bloomingdale's best friends." Now, in the Vicky Morgan article there is mentioned a conspiracy speculation, and with a link (between Vicky Morgan and White House) far weaker than between E&Y and Raluca Stroescu. When an incident is commented and speculated extensively, it becomes relevant and of course it has a place in an encyclopedia. And I believe this incident also has a place in this article because the link is strong enough. Regards Ark25 (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Try and make an argument without WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I simply disagree that the link is a) strong enough and b) relevant to this company as a whole. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I see some issues with the proposed section on the Stroescu case. One is undue weight. Clearly many notable people have worked for Ernst & Young, and have been covered in various media. The article itself contains a whole list of notable current and former employees. Yet none of those employees or any of the issues that gave rise to their notability receives more than a few words in the article. Yet we are proposing a whole section on an employee on the basis that she worked "many" hours (not sure from the article how many, was it an unusual amount of hours for company employees, did the company force her to work those hours or did she work them on her own initiative to try to "get ahead"?) and died of exhaustion, and some in the press speculated that her death might have been caused by the number of hours worked. It doesn't seem that her case is particularly relevant to an article on the company. The last sentence of the proposed section seems even more problematic in this regard. That employee got into a car accident after working a long, but not excessively long day. There the link to the comnpany seems entirely irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A related issue is that the link to the company itself is apparently speculative, even if this was a signficant enough event to the company to warrant inclusion in article. I cannot read the sources listed so I can only go by the discussion itself, and the wording of the proposed section. But, not contesting that the sources are reliable in reporting the facts, if their linking Stroescu to Ernst & Young is speculation, then that is not a fact they are reporting. They are essentially editorializing to that extent, and editorials within sources that are otherwise reliable are not necessarily reliable sources themselves. And that speculation is apparently the link to the Ernst & Young article. If there was an article on Stroescu (assuming she or this incident meets the notability requirements for the English Wikipedia), it might be appropriate to note that there is speculation that her death may have been linked to overworking at Ernst & Young, assuming that has been reported as such by reliable sources (and not jsut speculation by the reporters within those reliable sources). But that would be different from this article because there the link between the incident and the subject of the article would be clear, and not based on speculation. But here the link of the incident to the subject of the article itself is speculative, making its inclusion in the article inappropriate (even ignoring the WP:UNDUE issues I mentioned in my earlier comment. Rlendog (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I did made lots of other arguments without WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this debate, so I do not need to try that. Also please notice that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay (not a policy or guideline), and it states "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid". And in this case, the comparisons are valid. I will try to answer the questions:

  • "she worked "many" hours (not sure from the article how many": She was working 14 to 16 hours a day and sleeping only 4 hours a night. Cause of death: exhaustion and stress. Raluca’s heart gave up. see here. Also here: "14 ore de munca pe zi, sapte zile pe saptamina. In total, 100. Odata, ar fi stat 40 de ore la serviciu incontinuu. Acestea erau conditiile in care lucra Raluca Stroescu," translated: 14 hours of work per day, seven days per week. In total, 100. One time, she stayed at work 40 hours continuously.
  • "was it an unusual amount of hours for company employees?": Well, if many of them work 14-16 hours / day (and so it seems), then it was not unusual. But not being unusual in such way, makes things even worse for the company, and then the incident is even more relevant. So, this question is somewhat irelevant for this debate.
  • did she work them on her own initiative to try to "get ahead"?: here "The company takes advantage of the young employee, who does his or her best and works on a relatively low pay, some 3 or 4 hundred euros. But the young employee also gains experience and later on will be able to use the name of that company as a launch pad for their future career.”" (talking about companies in general). See here: "Munca unui angajat la Ernst&Young se desfasoara in cea mai mare parte pe teren si presupune deplasari, pina la ore tirzii, de la un client la altul [...] Dar pentru a termina tot ce i se da de lucru in ziua respectiva, angajatul trebuie sa se apuce de treaba in jur de ora opt sau noua dimineata. Deplasarile de la un client la altul se intind pina la ore tirzii, de multe ori si pina la doua noaptea. Angajatul are parte de un astfel de program mai ales in perioada toamna-iarna, in timpul verii fiind putin mai lejer". Translated: "The work of an employee at Ernst&Young is mainly on the field and involves traveling from a client to antother, untill late in the night [...] But to finish all that he/she has to do for a day, the employee must start working at 8-9 AM in the morning. Then the employee has to travel from one client to another, wich lasts untill late in the night, many times until 2 AM. The employee has this kind of program especially in the autumn-winter, in the summer it's a bit better". So, you can see that it was not because she pushed to get ahead, but because she was asked to do so many things, that are not humanyly possible to do in a normal 8 working hours / day.
  • "and some in the press speculated that her death might have been caused by the number of hours worked." - Death was caused by exhaustion. At 100 hours / week worked, you can hardly call "speculation" the fact that exhaustion was because of work. I think you can say that one speculates when there are no visible links between cause and effect, and to me it does not seem to be like this in this case.
  • "it might be appropriate to note that there is speculation that her death may have been linked to overworking at Ernst & Young, assuming that has been reported as such by reliable sources (and not jsut speculation by the reporters within those reliable sources" - Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline saying that speculation made by the reporters should not be included?

Question: Acording to the link above [3], in Romania, the employees of E&Y have to work from 9AM to 2AM. That makes 19 hours of work / day. It might be a true fact, it might not be. Do you think this information can be included in this article? If not, what other things are needed, in order to make that information worth to include in this article? I try to find a balance: If one employee dies and the company is not involved in that, then it's not fair to blame the company. On the other hand, if the company is exploiting employees, then it's not fair to have a complete silence about that. Regards Ark25 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that a particular employee worked very long hours and died of exhaustion. There is speculation that the long hours and death are related, but, apparently no definitive link. The link seems clear to you, and probably to the others making these speculations (reporters and otherwise), and it seems to me that the link is likely, but our opinions do not make this link supported by reliable sources. For example, the woman could have been suffering an illness that made her suscepible to what happened, even if she worked fewer hours. I'm not saying that is the case; I just don't know. And we don't know why she worked such long hours. Presumably she did it on her own volition - presumably with the company's acquiencence and even request, but not subjected to force. Are other company employees working such long hours and dying of exhasution? If so, that is notable. If this is an isolated event, then even if the speculation about the reason for her dying of exhaustion is correct and has reliable sources to that effect (which apparently it does not) I am not sure it is notable within a general article about the company. In addition to my reasoning above, it also seems to run contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Previously uninvolved RfC comment. An encyclopedia is not a collections of things that "might be a true fact" or "might not be." We need verifiability, meaning that the claims are previously published in reliable sources. From what I can tell, this might be undue weight. Accidents are tragic, but they occur while individuals are employed at many companies; these tragic deaths do not usually merit inclusion unless they receive significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, we don't have any concluding the synthesis that long hours led to her death. It should be excluded unless substantiating coverage is forthcoming.
It's hard for me to get a sense on the reliability of the sources discussing her death in context of Ernst & Young? I see a May 2, 2007 reference picked up by the BBC, but that's the only English-language source I have:
Text of report in English by Romanian news agency Rompres:
Bucharest, May 2 (Rompres) - Over 1,500 persons - PSD [Social Democratic Party] members and sympathizers - rallied on Tuesday, 1 May, at the headquarters of the party for a meeting, and wherefrom they started on a march dedicated to May Day, attended by over 10,000 supporters.
...
"Let us restore the honour to Romanian politics and remove all that does not mean modesty and honesty, The political class can be changed" - this was the message with which the PSD leader started his speech. "Generations that will observe Constitution are coming. On May 19, the Romanians will know what to vote for. Only a left-wing party can observe the essence of Constitution: decent life, decent salaries, decent pensions!' added Mircea Geoana. "May Day remains the celebration of the left. PSD is the party that must bring the answers for the social and European Romania," concluded Geoana, who thanked all the participants to the event. Invited at the Open Door Day organized by PSD was also the secretary general of the Party of the European Socialists, Philippe Cordery. He dedicated May Day to Raluca Stroescu, the Ernst & Young Romania manager who died last week of exhaustion. ...
Seems like the death became a political issue, so I'm wary that reports might have been spun by political parties. Tell me about Cotidianul, for example. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to answer to your questions and statements, but you did not answered to my questions. I have some more questions:

  • "For example, the woman could have been suffering an illness that made her suscepible to what happened, even if she worked fewer hours. I'm not saying that is the case; I just don't know." To be honest I don't know that too. Question is: even if she was suffering from anything (AIDS, Tuberculosis, or whatever), then isn't that just natural, that the extra effort she made working extra hours made her body weaker? There is no disease that kills you in an instant. They grow by accumulating. And too much effort adds an extra weight. So, even if she had some severe disease, the fact that she worked too much is very likely to agravate the whole. And even in case when a person has an accident, or assimilates some poison, exhaustion is a factor that can make the body too weak in resources to resist.
  • "presumably with the company's acquiencence and even request, but not subjected to force". What do you mean by force? Because, from the links above it looks like the companies (not only E&Y) asks the employees to do so much work that is not humanly possible to do in 8 hours of work / day. Otherwise they loose the job. And that means putting pressure. That means forcing. I guess you don't mean "pointing a gun" by force.
  • "If so, that is notable. If this is an isolated event, then even if the speculation about the reason for her dying of exhaustion is correct and has reliable sources to that effect (which apparently it does not) I am not sure it is notable within a general article about the company.". Question: how many people have to die from exhaustion, after working too many extra hours, like Raluca, for the incident(s) to become relevant?
  • Yes, the leader of a political party (Geoană) tried to use the incident in order to exploit it for getting a few more votes. Nothing unusual for Romania, unfortunately. But that is not by far turning the situation into "A political party invented a problem and now E&Y is the innocent victim of dirty tricks". By the contrary, in Romania is not very unlikely to fake the medical report and have no punishments for the company - even if it is guilty. It happens in other countries too, like in the Teo Peter case. The police knows who died and who killed, the press knows it, everybody knows it, but amazingly - the court says "no one is guilty".
  • In Romania you can expect newspapers not to mention the facts when a strong politician or company has a guilt. But when it's something too hard to hide, they just can't hide it. So instead of suspecting the press to be manipulated to invent something about a big company, expect it to get money for not telling all the facts or the important facts, when someone important did something wrong. That applies to Cotidianul too. Regards Ark25 (talk)
    • "So, even if she had some severe disease, the fact that she worked too much is very likely to agravate the whole." But that is speculation and WP:OR. We have no sources that the death was due to the number of hours, and she would not have died had she worked 8 hours a day.
    • If she voluntarily worked the very long hours, then how is her death relevant to an article on Ernst & Young? If Ernst & Young threatened to fire her and blacklist her in the industry if she didn't work 19 hours a week, then it may be relevant to an article on Ernst & Young, although if it is an isolated incident then it still probably doesn't meet notability.
    • "Question: how many people have to die from exhaustion, after working too many extra hours, like Raluca, for the incident(s) to become relevant?" This is not a question of whether the incident is relevant, although the two issues above do relate to whether the incident is relevant specifically to an article on Ernst & Young. No one is saying her death is not "relevant". But a single incident, even if it is relevant to Ernst & Young, does not make for notability in an article about Ernst & Young. For example, if someone was writing a book about Ernst & Young, I doubt this incident would be more than a footnote, if that. And here we are talking about an article, not a book. If Ernst & Young was making ahabit of abusing employees (not necessarily resulting in their death) then that might be notable, but then there should be reliable sources about that pattern of abuse. And newspaper articles about a single incident don't represent such a pattern of abuse.Rlendog (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Presenting a speculation as it is does not make it original research. If you contribute in an article, presenting a speculation as being real, then we can talk about original research or synthesis. Just like fiction: It's not ok to present fiction as being true (from in-universe), but it's ok to present it as fiction. So when you present someone's speculation, specifying that it's a speculation, you practically present a point of view. Wikipedia can not decide which point of view is valid and which is not. That's why multiple, divergent points of view can be presented in an article. In order present a point of view, you must make sure that point of view is relevant, notable, verifiable and coming from reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not the voice of official authorities. That means, not only official statements made by governments, courts etc should be presented – many times the official statements can be untrue, and represent the interests of those who pay more. Seems that E&Y is making a habbit from abusing employees, if you believe some sources.

Question: if you were a reporter, making an article about the issue, about how much people work at the company, if you feel that something is wrong there, and it's possible that the company is abusing employees, then what you will do, to find out what is going on, and to make a newspaper article in such way that it's conclusion can be included in Wikipedia? I don't know if the company is abusing employees or not, you don't know either, I guess. But in case it is abusing, then what pieces of the puzzle are missing, what keeps this "picture" from being relevant enough to be included in Wikipedia? (presented as a point of view, of course not as the ultimate truth). Regards Ark25 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a published report by a reliable, neutral source investigating employee abuse at Ernst& Young not just newspaper articles on a particular isolated incident that may or may not have been related to an employye working too many hours)? Rlendog (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Rhapsody_(online_music_service): "Most petition comments were negative, with some accusing RealNetworks of astroturfing". Is there a reliable, neutral source investigating this and declaring there was a real astroturfing? Can you or I be sure that RealNetworks was doing astroturfing? I guess not. Still, the acusations were there. Once they were visible, numerous and noticeable enough, those acusations were ok to add in a Wikipedia article.
Look, I'm not trying to win a dispute. I'm not trying to put a company in a bad light also. What I want is just to show a fact: there are suspicions that the company is/or was abusing employess. The press was reporting the employees were working 17 (sorry, not 19) hours per day. 2 people died, with some visible conection between their death and working too much. The only article in english I found was not even mentioning the company name (that looks very suspicious to me to be honest). Take Teo Peter case for example. The court decision was very weird - they said the accident did not even happend. A court should be a neutral source - but it's not allways that way, even in US. Of course I wish to find some official investigation (and there is one already started). But in Romania there are big problems with the justice system (lot of corruption, none of those acused of big corruption were ever convicted) - so it's just natural not to trust "official investigations" too much, and to consider alternative views, like the speculations and suspicions seen in the newspapers. I will try to find more information about this, but anyways I'm afraid I'll have to push it further. Ark25 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
But that's the point. This is two people who worked for Ernst & Young. Out of thousands. And one of those (the one who died in a car accident) really does not have a link between her death and the company. People who work for many companies die in car crashes every day. So we are down to one employee out of the thousands who worked for the company. And even although that employee's death may be linked to the many hours she worked:
  1. For now, the link is entirely based on speculation. That is not to say that speculation by reliable sources about the link to Ernst & Young couldn't be noted in an article about Ms. Stroescu (assuming she meets notability) since the link between her and her death, and between her and Ernst & Young is clear. But since the very link between her death and Ernst & Young is speculative, her story does not belong in the Ernst & Young article.
  2. Even if the link is true, it is tenuous, since people at many companies (including Ernst & Young and the other audit firms) voluntarily work many hours, and Ms. Stroescu may have as well (which isn't to say the company didn't like or want her working so much).
  3. This is still a single incident, essentially a news item, out of the many, many employees who have worked at the company. Many of whom are much more notable than Ms. Stroescu. But clearly they cannot all have their story told within the space of a Wikipedia article. What happened to Ms. Stroescu is tragic, but not notable within the context of a Wikipedia article on Ernst & Young (even if the link is true per #1 and relevant to Ernst & Young per #2).
I just don't see any way that this information belongs in the Ernst & Young article (although, as I said above, it may belong in an article about Ms. Stroescu, assuming she meets notability requirements). The closest would be if there was a study by a reliable source about general abuse of employees at Ernst & Young, which may well incorporate this incident. Then, the findings of the study (and any refutations) may well be appropriate for the article (although still probably not the details of this particular incident). Rlendog (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
One single death that may or may not be related to a company employing 130,000 people around the world is irrelevant. A scandal that causes the collapse of an energy giant and sends shockwaves through the entire industry? Worth documenting. A single employee death in a country that no one honestly cares about anyway? Not worth documenting. Just because it is a significant case in Romania means nothing, Romania is not the global centre of capital of anything, and truth be told even if employees died in London or New York under the employ of EY, it STILL wouldn't be significant enough. Jackwillis2007 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable employee ?

Dear anonymous. You entered Richard Snelson as notable employee (business), explaining: 'A Principal at the firm, donated more than $1,000 to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8 which eliminated marriage for same-sex couples [4]'.
I think that an article about a firm should not include facts stating private actions of one of its 135,000 employees/executives. This donation is private and does not bind nor implicate the firm. If you think this fact should be mentioned in an encyclopedia, you might add it to Proposition_8#Proponents where other proponents are listed or mention it in an article about the executive himself. Kind regards, Encyo (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for 'Notable current and former employees' is clear unless otherwise specified. They must be: (1) notable, and (2) current or former employees. Richard Snelson is notable for the reason sourced. He, an executive at Ernst & Young, donated a large sum to Proposition 8 which eliminated rights in California. That another employee chose to work for Coca-Cola after leaving the firm is just as private as Mr. Snelson's donation: not private because it's a matter of public record. It seems to me that you, as someone who may be concerned about E&Y's image, might want to clarify what "Notable" means if not of interest to many individuals. That's my two cents. 68.96.74.243 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear anonymous. Firstly, I do not care whether anyone donates as opponent or proponent. Image is not the issue, but notability. Secondly, you read private as not public but in this context I meant the more general meaning personal/individual, referring to the fact that the donation was done personally, as I understand from your reference, not on behalf of Ernst & Young. Whether a donation is a matter of public record, does not pertain to notability but to verifiability.
You state that "Snelson is notable for the reason sourced". So, what is notable? Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: Worthy of notice, remarkable, memorable, noted or distinguished.
Is donating a sum of money in support of a cause notable? It does not strike me as remarkable or memorable in the US. Lots of employees of countless firms will support causes (political, environmental, social, religious, etc.) in one way or another. I suppose we agree on this because you did not list all Ernst & Young employees who donated to Proposition 8.
So Snelson cannot be notable simply for donating to Proposition 8. Therefore, is Snelson perhaps notable as a person, e.g. due to being an executive? The fact that there is no article about him as yet, might be an indication. However, an article can be written about him if he meets the criteria of wikipedia guidelines for notability. General guidelines are outlined in Wikipedia:Notability, e.g. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Guidelines detailling this for people can be found in Wikipedia:Notability_(people), a.o. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The guideline mentions that these principles also apply to lists of people in articles. The source you provided is a primary source, not a secondary source.
Can you argue Snelsons notability based on significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources? Kind regards, Encyo (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Client list

I have re-removed the client list, as it is

  • Un-Sourced and fails WP:V;
  • Promotional (the only reason a company publishes is client list);
  • not encyclopaedic - the company has a website for this information.

There is also a risk that unless this list has been published else ware it could also be WP:OR.

Codf1977 (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms: Too Much Weight

Removed bold from 'criticism' section as it gives far too much weight, see other 'Big Four' articles for template. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Too many photos

Do we really need photos of nondescript office buildings in every city in which E&Y has a presence? Some of the photos (e.g. London and Melbourne) actually seem to be photos of other things (the Thames and a church respectively) in which the E&Y buildings happen to be visible. I propose that the set of photos be trimmed to the one or two most important or iconic buildings. Pburka (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it does not conflict guidlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.36.188 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to EY (company)

I have a few points on the move to EY (company):

  • Was the move discussed? Wiki policies require all moves to be discussed so consensus can be obtained.
  • I thought the change to EY was just a brand change and that the legal name of the firm remained "Ernst & Young"
  • I also thought EY was a limited liability partnership and not a company.

Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • "EY" is not the legal entity name, but then again neither was "Ernst & Young". "Ernst & Young" was, and now "EY" is, the brand name. That seems to be consistent with the representation of other similar organizations, for example the page title is "Deloitte" not "Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited". Further, EY is a network of member firms, so there is no single legal entity name. "EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young..." seems the correct way to describe it in the lead paragraph.
  • You're right that it's not a company, but a network of member firms. Good point. I don't know how that should be represented in the URL.
  • Disclosure: Current EY employee. Acting here in a personal capacity, but I'll be sticking to the facts...
Brendan D (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I note that the small print at the bottom of the firm's web pages refer to "Ernst & Young Global Limited" which suggests the name is still "Ernst & Young" (and that it is a company). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so factual accuracy is more important than branding (see WP:ADVERT). The article certainly should not have been moved without a full debate and probably ought to be moved back at this time. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2013 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ernst & Young → EY (company) – name changed in 2013. EY represents a groups of firms with different legal statuses - see Deloitte and KPMG pages for similar cases. Proposal to add notes to explain the name change and the partnership (LLP) aspect of the company. Charlie elise (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Question do you really suggest to move the page from the current nam to that same name? That's not a move, or am I missing something subtle? Cecil Huber (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The article was moved without discussion or agreement. Dormskirk (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (i.e. oppose move from Ernst & Young to EY (company)) We do not change articles just because of re-branding - see PricewaterhouseCoopers - and the formal and legal name of the firm remains "Ernst & Young". By the way, KPMG uses that designation as legal name as well as branding and therefore that naming on wikipedia remains justified. Also this move should not have been made without discussion or agreement. Dormskirk (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of bringing this discussion to a close perhaps I can suggest "EY (firm)" as a better solution if we must use the new branding? Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Move it back to Ernst & Young. Real-world sources do not call it "EY (firm)" or "EY (company)". Why make up our own disambiguation, when there's a perfectly unambiguous natural name? bobrayner (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I have moved it back to "Ernst & Young" pending further debate. It should only be moved to a new name once there is consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Ernst & Young" is likely to continue to be used, so let's see if this official name catches on. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bad first paragraph

First paragraph looks like it was written by a 12 year old. "corporation|multinational]]" and "New York City, New York, The The United States" ...

I'm not sure of Wiki standards so I'll leave it for somebody else. But do you really need New York City, New York? And you definitely don't need The United States, let alone The The US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.8.75 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ernst & Young → EY (company) – Three years ago Ernst & Young changed its name to EY. EY was a nickname for Ernst & Young for many years and now it's the official name so the article name needs to reflect that. Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. This was considered in 2013 (see archives) and the decision was not moved. Also according to its website the official name is still Ernst & Young. In any case Ernst & Young is not a company. Dormskirk (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Ernst & Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hellas addition

This inclusion was a part of a larger personal attack on Nikesh Arora. That entry has been restored but seems the attack editor included it on a couple of more articles. I will revert here and those also.--WatchingContent (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

S.D. Leidesdorf & Co

History section is very incomplete! Missing is the company S.D. Leidesdorf & Co. --2A02:1206:4548:57C0:64F5:3974:6A5D:D6C8 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

German speaking countries

There the company seems to play a not insignificant role. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_%26_Young#EY_Deutschland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:109C:50FD:1A43:72D5 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Most globally managed

The linked reference for the above claim "EY is the most globally managed of the Big Four firms.[28]" does not appear to provide support for the claim. Correct reference or remove claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.134.114 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ernst & Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ernst & Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernst_%26_Young/Archive_1&oldid=1157919869"