Talk:KPMG

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

23 January 2023 reversions

Hello Cassiopeia. Can you please elaborate on how my deletions [1] are nonconstructive or how the content I removed deserves to be included? The article is currently a laundry list of lawsuits and controversies with no apparent curation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper clipping service; there is no effort to follow-up on the outcome of lawsuits, it seems as if the editors put in whatever they read in the news that day. The section should be cut down to contain only the most relevant of incidents. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:D837:A6FF:E335:54F5 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:D837:A6FF:E335:54F5 First of all, any info added or removed from Wikipedia need to be supported by independent, reliable source for verification. Secondly, Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. You have removed sourced content and that was the reason you received the warning message . Any update on the lawsuits can be added to the body text as long as they are support by independent, reliable source(s) (such as rom the major newspapers) and the existing of the sourced content should remain in the article. Cassiopeia talk 23:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Cassiopeia. I am the above IP. Can you please elaborate on First of all, any info added or removed from Wikipedia need to be supported by independent, reliable source for verification? I did not add or remove any unverifiable information. So, how does this sentence relate to my deletions?
On your second point: Contrary to what you seem to imply, it is perfectly fine to remove verifiable/sourced information, as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
Regarding the substance of my deletions, I would like my original question to be answered: Why should these lawsuits and tiny fines be included in particular? An article should include the most important information about the subject, but currently it is very bloated. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:91DE:84CC:CE66:DD33 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:91DE:84CC:CE66:DD33 From your comments above, I believe you have edited Wikipedia before either in a username which you dont wish to disclosed or a formal banned editor or a COI (conflict of interest) editor of the page. Anyway, the first comment is to let you know the that if you happen have would like to add info to the content, you need to have independent, reliable source to do so for verification and the editor who makes that edit bares the burden to provide the source (in line citation). Secondly, not all sourced content should be included in an article but those that are relevant - example we dont add the content to a subject on they go to holiday in May 2012 or June 2012 or any other holiday or their parents like blue shirts or the subject love meatball, or fell down the on the playground or in basketball court which have not significant contribution to the life of the subject (unless the fall contributed to a significant of the subject professional career or they life in long run which effect them greatly of their career/life) even the sources are independent and reliable. A lawsuit do bare relevant to the subject in question. Cassiopeia talk 01:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

New KPMG Scandal?

KPMG audited the wrong company? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/24/incredible-failure-kpmg-rejects-claims-it-assessed-the-wrong-company-before-423m-payment-to-paladin 50.4.132.185 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Or this cheating scandal https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/sec-probe-finds-kpmg-auditors-cheating-on-training-exams-061819 50.4.132.185 (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)