Talk:Forensic accounting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On July 15, 2004, the Forensic and Litigation Services Committee of the AICPA issued a Discussion Memorandum on the topic of "Forensic Services, Audits, and Corporate Governance" soliciting information to assist in the development of guidance for CPAs providing forensic services, in particular as it relates to forensic accountant involvement in statutory audits. Responses are requested by October 15, 2004.


Contents

[edit] Merger

  • Against a merge - Completely different topics. Despite what you say SirIsaac, it makes perfect sense to hire someone to do "Forensic Accounting". In fact, there are many professionals who specialize in "Forensic Accounting" and are available for hire; simply google "Forensic Accountants". Further, a definition from the publisher of the Journal of Forensic Accounting www.edwardspub.com/journals/JFA/students.html explains this. jheiv 12:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why the reversion?

Please set out the reasons why my edits - which in my view improved the article - were simply changed back? --BramleyBarn 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - only meant to revert the link that you unwisely deleted. That particular site has many, many helpful articles about the topic.


I think we need to work to find the best links for this article. There are guidelines at wikipedia:spam.
Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)
The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article isn't just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it."
Do you have any links with Sequence? --BramleyBarn 07:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article on the site in question is very relevant and could be very useful to readers: www.sequence-inc.com/press/beans.htm

  • I've added that link to the article. Bearian 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention: Various Indian IP Editors

Please don't keep adding your indiaforensic adspam as a legitimate link. Also, please don't remove other, legitimate links. The most recent edit I just undid was the one from 59.164.117.247. Thanks. Jheiv 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if indiaforensic has removed much of its ads, however I think it falls under the Wikipedia Spam category for external links and should still be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiv (talk • contribs) 04:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of "Journal of Forensic Accounting" as External Link

{{request edit}} I feel that inclusion of the Journal of Forensic Accounting is a valid external link. One editor has classified this link as "spam". My contention is that certainly, a published journal bearing the name of the wikipedia entry should be a valid external link. (See for example, External Links under Organic Chemistry). What do you think? Here is the link to judge for yourself: Journal of Forensic Accounting Jheiv (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

An editor request a WP:Third opinion as the first step in dispute resolution. It appears that the issue centers around external links to a private publication. Am I correct? Are there other issues? --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, link is to a publication for sale. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - as such Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a book. See also, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#R.T._Edwards.2C_Inc_links. While many of Jheiv Contributions are generaly good, there is a disturbing pattern of adding only R.T. Edwards, Inc links under user Jheiv and IP 68.45.246.110. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Adding R.T. Edwards, Inc links, clearly violates External links policy and Advertising and conflicts of interest. we do not promote products and services. Also Moving ones own link "UP" is not a good indication of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with Hu12) Actually, it looks like the issue is pretty clear from above and discussion among the parties at the user talk pages. Regarding the example at Organic Chemistry), that seems to be published by the Organic Chemistry Society, and the publication was deemed notable enough as a separate WP article. The link used at this page does not seem to add value to the article and links directly to a page soliciting subscriptions with pricing etc. On the other hand, if I was interested in the subject, I would appreciate knowing that there is a journal out there to give me more information. Is this journal notable enough for its own article? That would solve the dilemma. On a separate point, I don't see any value added by the other external link which appears to be to a consulting company -- I find that less pertinent than the link in question. A potential solution is to remove the external link and add a line item under references to some specific articles in the Journal. This might give us more material to expand the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Kevin Murray in regards to the remaining link. I also understand the problem Hu12 has with the pricing information, etc. A list of articles and abstracts is available here [7]. These abstracts allow readers to more fully understand the umbrella of forensic accounting. Would this link be more appropriate? Jheiv (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I could not get any of the pdf files at that link to open. Are those available by paid subscription only? If so the link is not appropriate. However, if it is a machine problem on my end and these archives are available for free use, I see this as a real plus for our readership. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can view only the abstracts, or more-accurately the first page of each article. This seems to be standard in the academic periodical publishhing industry (Journal of Organic Chemistry[8], Int'l Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics [9], Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences[10]) These summaries seem to provide a outline of what Forensic Accounting encompasses. Jheiv (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you can add meaningful content to the article using the Journal as a reference in footnotes, I can't see a problem adding some link from either the footnotes or from a bibliography section. How about an WP article on the Journal or the publisher? --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposed Resolution: Unless there are objections, I will follow Kevin Murray's suggestion and propose removing the remaining external link to the consulting company, and adding relevant material from the Journal's website along with a citation with a link to the website as its source. If I can get information from the publisher, I will create a Journal of Forensic Accounting page, similar to the other journal pages Journal of Organic Chemistry, etc. Afterwards, I will add an external link from this article, Forensic Accounting to the Wikipedia article Journal of Forensic Accounting. What does everyone think? Jheiv (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that removing the link resolves this 3O and should satisfy HU12. If you proceed as planned within the policies and guidelines for WP content, there should be no problem. I'm happy to advise you in the process. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the external link, as well as the link to the consulting company, and have added a "see also" link to the Journal of Forensic Accounting WP page which has the journal's information. I plan on adding some more content to both pages to more fully hash out what the Forensic Accounting encompasses. Thanks to Hu12 and Kevin Murray. Jheiv (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue not realted to 3O

  • In regards to moving it up, I think any objective person would agree that the link in question served the most good to the article, in fact, both links that I moved above, have since been removed by other editors who deemed the "jumped" links as spam. Jheiv (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moving up or moving others down to be "top" demonstrates the incompatibility between conflicted editors and Wikipedias aims of Neutrality. ie. conflict of interest. see five pillars. Additionaly the very next edit was adding another "better than the others" link. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of neutral content. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself.--Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I realize we disagree on the neutrality of the edit and apologize for link bumping. Jheiv (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia, disagreement has nothing to do with it. You still stand in conflict with that principle on this topic.--Hu12 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)