Talk:Institute of Financial Accountants

Unsourced claim of equivalence
keeps adding a line stating Full experienced members of the IFA can do the same work as many Chartered Accountants, and many do in practise [sic], despite two editors challenging the claim as unsourced. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Justgivethetruth has responded at User_talk:Fayenatic_london, stating that his understanding is based on personal experience. I tried to explain that this is not sufficient for Wikipedia due to the rule WP: No original research. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
This article has been subject to a great deal of WP:SPA, POV editing - tons of undisclosed COI editing. I have tagged it for COI. The tag can be removed after an independent editor reviews the article for NPOV and sourcing. If you remove the tag, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, I've reviewed the IFA article and it looks okay. I have also added references and updated old links where needed. I think the COI tag can be removed. If agreeable, I will do so. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will remove the COI tag. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag has two functions. One is to signal that the article has been subject to a lot of COI editing and needs to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing by an independent editor.  After doing that review, that editor can remove the tag. The other function was to warn  that they have a COI and should not be directly editing this article, much less edit warring.  They seem to have gotten that message.  So after a review the tag can come off. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the COI Tag. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't appropriate as there was a ton of unsourced and PROMO content in the article which are what you get, when conflicted editors work on an article. Rather than edit warring over the tag I am just fixing it. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done now. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jytdog. I was going to continue to do more editing on the article and appreciate your help. Audit Guy (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if the whole IFA is horseshit, of the IIPM variety. Just added two tags. Is the IFA of the same calibre as the IIPM?  Or is it just a second-tier credential?  Hmm.  The domain was registered prior to 1996, per the whois database; that's something. --Elvey(t•c) 22:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly Elvey, it is a legitimate accounting professional body in the UK. More likely, it appears to have poor editorial contributions by overzealous members. Audit Guy (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(The following was moved from User talk:Elvey)

Institute of Financial Accountants Wiki COI
Hi there Elvey, hope you are ok. I am just responding to your comment a few days ago on the above. Yes I am a Fellow of the Institute of Financial Accountants (IFA), but I am only seeking neutrality (and facts) with regard to the Wiki entry. With regard to the entry on the said plagiarising of the ACCA syllabus by the IFA (for the purposes of exemption from the CIMA syllabus), this entry does not seem neutral and is defamatory and discredits the IFA. As per the entry, the CIMA reversed their decision and agreed to grant exemptions as appropriate. There appears to be no other purpose for this entry but to bring the IFA into disrepute. It would be easy for me to source adverse material for the entries for other accountants on Wiki, but I do not choose to do so. IFA members (and those from other bodies) are instructed not to do anything that will bring the accountancy profession into disrepute, but I would not do this anyway. As regards my contribution that IFA members can do most of the work that Chartered Accountants do, I did not provide a source for this it is true. I do not know if it would be possible to do so. This though is a fact that anybody who has any knowledge of the subject knows. I have my own business as an accountant in practice and have been doing precisely this for the last 27 years !!!!! With Chartered Accountant's practices (and other accountants) most of the work done in the practices is done by individuals who are not qualified !!!!! Again, this is known by anybody who know anything about the subject. The qualified accountants run the business and make tremendous profits by charging out the work of unqualified people at an exorbitant rate. You only have to walk into any accountancy practice anywhere and ask, and you will find that most in the practices are not qualified accountants. Any conflict caused on my part has been solely down to ignorance, with no deliberate attempt to provide any form of bias. You will appreciate that there is a great vested interest in hiding these facts. Any contributors from rival accountancy bodies may obviously have a vested interest, or those benefiting from the way things are done. There is no further need for the tag regarding COI, as I will only be doing things the correct way. As stated, my falling foul of the rules, etc was down to my ignorance and no deliberate ploy on my part. I will try not to do it again, but if I do it would be that same thing ! All the best, Sincerely, Justgivethetruth (Ray Harwood) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivethetruth (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Justgivethetruth: I find your comment very rambling and at times impossible to follow and inappropriate for my talk page. If only Chartered Accountants can make tremendous profits by charging out the work of unqualified people at an exorbitant rate, as you say, then you've made it hard to argue that there's nothing only Chartered Accountants can do - because you've stated that that is something only they can do and identified it.  I suspect that there is a reason for that exclusivity.  Whether it's a good one or not is something worthy of covering if it's verifiable...  But this has all been explained to you before, e.g. [here].  Why are you not getting it?  What part of "Writing from personal experience is considered "original research" and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:NOR." do you not understand, Ray?   What part of "If this judgment was appealed and reversed, please provide a link for a report on the matter." and "It is not Wikipedia but the IFA's conduct that brought it into disrepute." do you not understand, Ray?     --Elvey(t•c) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * why are you still raising with other editors your allegation of defamation? Truth is an absolute defence to defamation. You appeared to accept this on my talk page on 17 June. While the IFA's members might wish to hide the historical record of the IFA's plagiarism, it cannot be defamatory for Wikipedia to state the truth, provided only that it is given WP:DUE weight. I believe that this is the case here, especially given the lack of other press coverage of the IFA which might confirm its notability.
 * You keep making comparisons with Chartered Accountants, who are notably authorised to sign audit reports on whether financial accounts give a "true and fair view". In contrast, your protests indicate that IFA members do not appear willing for a true and fair view of their own Institute to be published.
 * If you wish to discuss whether this article's use of the scant news coverage about the IFA is in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, please do it on this page, rather than pursing your agenda separately with one editor after another. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Justgivethetruth has yet to edit this talk page or his own talk page.  Suggests an inability or unwillingness to listen. (FYI to Fayenatic, User:NeilN.)  Has posted again to my talk page, after I removed last post there and put it here.  I just warned the user.--Elvey(t•c) 22:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That user has stopped directly editing this article. So as for me, I don't care what else he is doing or not doing. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

New logo
Hi, the IFA has a new logo. Can this be updated on the article page please? https://www.ifa.org.uk/ Thank you --Winterberry1916 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)