Talk:Philosophy of accounting

Deletion
Im not really sure why this page is being flagged for deletion. I am still working on it and I would welcome any contributions and comments.

Pkearney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC).


 * As the notice says, the reasons it's being proposed for deletion are being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Accounting, q.v. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yea, I found the discussion after I made the post. It seems I may not have the rights to contribute to that conversation so I will add my own comments and replies in on this discussion page. Pkearney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC).


 * You certainly have every right to participate in that discussion, and in fact you should. That's the forum where the decision will be made whether to delete the article.  Don't count on editors in that discussion looking elsewhere, even to this talk page, for the discussion that should  be there.   If you want your views to be considered in the discussion, you should engage in the discussion.  TJRC (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy of Accounting: Does it Exist?
It appears that some of the objections to this page were founded on a question over whether a discrete philosophy of accounting actually exists. I would suggests it depends on your perspective / philosophical perspective perhaps. One debater suggested that it is might be in the realm of philosophy of washing machines and lawn mowers. Another claimed to have a wide who was a CPA and said that philosophy wasnt something that accountants thought about.

There is a philophy of accounting - it is embedded in the Frameworks issues by the IASB and FASB. Accountants, being mainly procedural people, are not inclined to debate their philophies much - most appear to prefer toa pply the accounting standards almost as though they were handed down by the gods, rather than taking a step back and really questioining whether what they produce is fair, true, ethical etc.

The issue of ethics was also raised I would add that one of the causes attributed to the Enron scandal was that accountants applied the letter of the standards, rather than taking a step back and applying the principles of "fair presentation". This is part of the somewhat "exciting" debate between the US standards setters and the rest of the world as to whose standards should prevail and how they should be applied.

Forgive me, but I believe that there is philosophical debate raging at the moment within the profession and the reason I created this page was to try to get some real academic input on the subject. Perhaps I have made a poor start, but then I understood that the whole purpose of Wikipedia was collaboration. I invite you to help and make this a worthwhile page.

Regards Pkearney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC).


 * how about a rename to Philosophy Applied to Accounting, (it's not the applied philosophy, its the unapplied that gets you. or pholosophical issues in accounting.pohick (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful for Pkearney's explanation here. I think it illuminates some of the confusion. The term "philosophy of X" in English does not mean "the philosophy that practitioners of X happen to hold", nor does it mean "the philosophical presuppositions underlying X". Rather, it means the philosophical analysis of the concepts, strategies, social contexts, etc., of X. There are many X's for which there is no "philosophy of X" as a discrete thing. For example, there is no subject called "philosophy of television" or "philosophy of postage stamps" or "philosophy of furniture", though to be sure, philosophers have written about all three, and people who are engaged in those businesses (being humans!) do sometimes muse upon the philosophical implications of their work. But now that I see Pkeearney's explanation here, there is a chance to explain the problem:
 * A page called "Philosophy of Accounting" describes something which doesn't exist--it's a term that does not mean "the philosophy underlying accounting terms", it means actual, explicit, spelled out, philosophy of accounting. Saying it's "embodied in the standards" is exactly what is not ok: if it's only implicit, then it's not explicit, and the explicit is what the term would refer to.
 * You sound as if there are these crucial disputes which are new (no, they're not new: they've been around as long as Adam Smith and longer), which you are trying to "get some real academic input". That's a research project.  Wikipedia is for collaboration but not for collaboration in the task of academic research.  Wikipedia is here to document research that has already been done.  To create a wikipedia page for the purpose of stimulating academics to study something is exactly backwards.  They (or we, ahem) study, and then wikipedia can comment on it.
 * When you say that accountants are "not inclined" to debate their philosophies much, this is in the way of an explanation for why there is no such field as "philosophy of accounting". If philosophers haven't deemed it worthy of concentrated work, and accountants also don't, then isn't it clear that what you are saying is that people ought to be talking about this?  But that's not the same as whether they are, and indeed, your plea that they ought to be only highlights that, so far, they mostly are not.  And that's the problem.  Tb (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tb, You make a valid point. The following is not meant as an objection to your statements - its just an interesting side point.

I had a conversation with someone I know who is a Professor of Finance and Accounting in a Top 50 (global) business school (ie not not too far down the food chain) about "fair presentation". To my surprise, he had never heard of it - which I immediately thought (unfairly and with some jest) "Oh! thats because your'e a CPA - had you been a CA it would have been front of mind." We later figured out that he just knew the concept as "true and fair presentation" and because my academic background is situated in another country and in a different decade - I used a different term.

I do think though that your suggestion that there might be a philosophy of anything is a little extreme. Philosophy is really about truth, ethics, reality and the presentation of that - I still stand by my view that there is a much more substantial philosophy underlying accounting and the concepts of "True and Fair Presentation" (to use my friend's term) than there is in Postage Stamps... There areant many ethical or reality issues associated with postage stamps are there?

Perhaps we could rename the page "Fair Presentation (Accounting)" or "True and Fair Presentation (Accounting)". Then at least the term exists and then we can lay out the papers and references that define what this concept actually is...

Pkearney (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have missed the point, I believe. When you say "there is a ...substantial philosophy underlying accounting" [emph. added], you could mean either of two things.  You could mean that there are philosophical presuppositions underlying the practice of accounting, or you could mean that there is an ongoing academic exploration of those presuppositions.  If you mean the former, you are surely correct, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to conduct original research into what those might be.  If you mean the latter, then we need to see the sources to show it, and confine the article to what those sources actually say.  I really think you have entirely missed the point of WP:OR.  Tb (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The current title is quite reasonable in that the word philosophy has a common usage which the OED gives as "The study of the general principles of a particular subject, phenomenon, or field of inquiry." Other titles might do as well, such as Principles of Accounting, but it is best to develop the article before rushing to move it around, as study of the sources will tend to indicate the best title. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a ridiculous point of view. The article was likened to Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Economics, and Philosophy of Mathematics, as if this "philosophy of accounting" were some similar sort of sub-field of philosophy, discussing the character of accounting, the way those other things are sub-fields of philosophy discussing law, economics, or mathematics.  Now you are saying that you don't even know what the article is about, and that you must conduct a "study of the sources" to determine what it's really about.  I think it was perfectly clear what it was about.  Now we've got an article wandering about, hunting for its own subject and title, and two of you are confident that somehow, somewhere, there is something you want to write about.  Well, that's awfully close to original reasearch, as indeed your suggestion of a "study of the sources" points out.  Wikipedia is not about conducting a study---of anything---but of being only a tertiary source.  Once again, we entirely lack the sources.  All this posturing is quite pointless.  Find sources to back up the key claims (including the claim of the existence of the field of "philosophy of accounting"), or confess there are none, and it's a field you think should exist, but which does not at present exist. Tb (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Intersubjectivity
Nice addition.. Thanks. Its very relevant for this field.

Pkearney (talk)

Redundancy
Should the 'Ontological Issues' section, particularly 'truth', contain as much detail on the philosophy side? Particularly the list of theories for definition of truth seems a little out of place in terms of level of detail. You could just link to Truth. Reducing this may make it seem a little less unnecessarily cumbersome for a subject whose very existence is being debated! ;-) Wikiphile1603 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. :) Tb (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted mention of intangibles
So the previous text said that intangibles didn't "objectively" exist, which is really philosophical nonsense. They don't physically exist (that's what "intangible" means), but that's irrelevant to the question of form/substance, where the question originally was. So I altered the text to fit the substance/legal-form question, since it is true that many intangibles (though not all) have no legal existence as property. For example, goodwill cannot be sold, nor can it be stolen; likewise the unique talents of a businesses employees might be counted as an intangible asset. But then an editor move the question over to truth, apparently because the idea is that intangibles don't "really" exist, which is really nonsense. There is no epistemological issue about intangibles; there is an interesting ontological one, but accounting is irrelevant to it. But, if the substance/legal-form thing is really a genuine issue (we are still waiting for a reference on that absolutely key claim without which the whole article falls) it would certainly fit there. So as I see it, there are two options: drop the mention of intangibles entirely, or put it in the substance/legal-form question.

Of course, this points out the serious problems in the article as a whole. What we need is not our judgment on the question, but a suitable secondary source which tells us which philosophical issue is supposed to be raised. And that's just entirely lacking. Tb (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * subjectivity versus objectivity is not nonsense. it just means that it is very hard to get a handle on the substance.  the FASB seems to change forms a lot (we know goodwill exists, but what form to follow?)  goodwill can be sold, when you sell a company, that you bought for more than the book value; goodwill can be lost through trashing of 'brand' value (for example 'new coke')  i moved it to truth, since i took your argument of form versus substance seriously, it could also fit there, since it is hard to account for the goodwill truth.  you had a reference to substance over form at the reference "Reflecting Form Over Substance: The Case of Enron Corp." which was about abuse of mark to market accounting.  the finance lease issue is where the accountants force you to recognize a sale, when you have called it a lease, because they say form over substance pohick (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * non-philosophers often think that they know what "subjective" and "objective" mean, but generally, they don't, and this is an excellent example. Goodwill is difficult to measure, but it is incorrect to say that it does not "objectively" exist.  It is intangible--can't be touched, the way a car or a pile of precious metal can be--but it is real, objectively so, as much as money, presidential power, the academy awards, or the human genome.  (When I say non-saleable, I mean it is not separately saleable; it's not possible for IBM to sell its goodwill and retain all the rest of its assets, the way it could sell a computer, a plant, a piece of land, a patent, or a debt.  Note that of those, the patent and the debt are intangible, but not an example of substance differing from form.)  But all this hunting about it precisely the problem with the article as a whole.  Find a source which discusses it as a philosophical issue, and that will dictate where to list it. (Just because the truth of something is hard to figure out does not mean that it is a philosophical difficulty related to truth, or even that it raises philosophical concerns!)  Or, if there is no source, then it does not belong here at all.  So, find a source, and then the encyclopedia can say what that source does.  Absent a source, it doesn't belong here. Tb (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i gave sources and you deleted them, do they exist? objectivity being a continuum, if you can't objectively measure it, does goodwill exist? sure you can sell goodwill, you could outsource all your assets, and then sell your company.  many companies are more vaporware than assets.  if you want references, why not leave the ones you deleted and rewrite?pohick (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "objectivity being a continuum" is the kind of thing which non-philosohpers thinks means something, but really doesn't. "if you can't objectively measure it, does goodwill exist?" I would say yes, and trivially so (lots of unmeasurable things exist), but the issue isn't what I think.  It's whether there is a source which discusses this as a philosophical issue.   Tb (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You most certainly did not have a source which discussed goodwill and intangible assets as a philosophical issue. We need a source which tells us that this is an issue in epistemology, or ethics, or ontology (whichever it is, you seem to change your mind frequently).  Not just a source which talk about it, but a source which talks about it as a topic in the "philosophy of accounting".  Tb (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Board concluded that amortization of goodwill was not consistent with the concept of representational faithfulness, as discussed in FASB Concepts Statement No. 2, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. The Board concluded that nonamortization of goodwill coupled with impairment testing is consistent with that concept. The appropriate balance of both relevance and reliability and costs and benefits also was central to the Board's conclusion that this Statement will improve financial reporting." do you want the accountants to speak in philosophical terms, or will you accept a translation? pohick (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now there is hope of you maybe understanding. Yes, since this is an article about a supposed branch of philosophy, I want them to speak in philosophical terms.  Or alternatively, if they are not talking in philosophical terms, it is entirely inappropriate for this article to start doing so.  Our language here must match their language there.  It is inappropriate to describe anything here as a "philosophical" issue; at most, there are philosophical presuppositions--but even those are left entirely unexplored and unremarked upon by the FASB.  And, finally, the FASB is a primary source.  We rely on secondary sources here.  What you need is someone in an article analyzing the FASB and relating it to whatever philosophical issue they think it relates to.  And then, we here on Wikipedia, can describe that.  Please see WP:OR.  Tb (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, i see you have rejected the thesis of philosophy as general principles. are you perhaps minimizing the definition to fit the argument? would meta-accounting be philosophy? unlike tangile objects like stamps, accounting is an obtruse intellectual profession. are professional first principles philosophy?  are professional ethics? pohick (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps it is that you have misunderstood the definition you are citing. First, there is a colloquial use of the term "philosophy" which often means just one's point of view or something like that, and which is not what the subject itself is, as a simple look at Philosophy would show.  Second, the definition is designed to help someone figure out what the term means, not to operate as a complete list of necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the term.  Dictionaries are poor guides to anything other than the use of language: they cannot tell you what things are, or what philosophy is.  But none of this is really that relevant.  We must confine statements in the article to what is actually said in secondary sources.  If those sources do not discuss coherence theories of truth, we should not do so either.  If they do not identify an issue as connected with deeper philosophical concerns about the nature of reality, we should not do so either.  And so forth.  Tb (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you may have lost the terminology war: "What is the relevance of philosophy to accounting? Much of philosophy is concerned with morals and ethics. Accoutancy is all about - or should be all about - ethical accounting of business transactions. The current malaise in the financial markets shows that morals and ethics have not been as prominent as they probably ought to have been in the minds of many people." you know dictionaries are verifiable, even if poor guides. (which is the wiki form) i'm not sure i want to rely on the philosophers to define terms for me. pohick (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, accounting requires ethics, and is centrally concerned with them (or should be!). That doesn't mean there is a discrete "philosophy of accounting".  For example, the US Presidency entails some ethics, or should, but there is no special topic called "philosophy of american presidency".  Why?  Because the ethical principles governing the american presidency are those goverinng everything else; at the very least, they are the same as the principles governing the exercise of political power of whatever sort.  And there is, indeed, something referred to as political philosophy--itself a quite distinct field from political science, just as philosophy of economics is from economics, or philosophy of law is from law.  Likewise, if there really is a field called "philosophy of accounting", we should expect to see some distinct philosophical analysis, not just the observation that ethics applies in accounting--just as it does in every other aspect of human life.  A good example here of the problem is your recent addition of references and EL's.  Do these connect with the topic as announced in the article?  Not so much.  For example, "accounting philosophy principles" even says that the term "philosophy of accounting" is suspect and goes on not to discuss anything philosophical, but instead, to discuss the central principles of accounting.  However important these are, they are not philosophy, any more than the principles of acoustics are part of the philosophy of music.  Tb (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * part versus the whole? ethics and aethetics are philosophy. do you really want to argue that technique is not philosophy? i don't see the difference between lawyers, economists, politicians, and accountants.  they all have professional ethics, a body of knowledge, and philosophy. pohick (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Philosophy of Law has almost nothing to do with the professional ethics of the legal profession, for example. And yes, there could be a philosophy of accounting, but there only is one when it's actually been written about. Tb (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * body of knowledge, Weltanschauung the other professions are better at marketing using philosophical terms, it's unclear to me that lawyers have a better claim to philosophy than accountants: they are both technicians. pohick (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(break) Yes, since this is an article about a supposed branch of philosophy, I want them to speak in philosophical terms. - well, what if they are talking about philospohical issues in non-philosophical terms: "concept of representational faithfulness". are you imposing the philosophical jargon upon a subculture with their own? like the anthropologist, can we describe the subculture with meta-language? pohick (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not imposing anything. I'm happy to agree that they don't talk in philosophical terms.  And that philosophers have (perhaps wrongly) mostly ignored accounting.  That's my point.  If they aren't doing it, then they aren't doing it.  It is this article which has been engaging in imposing philosophical discussions upon accounting.  I'm happy to delete the whole thing.  Tb (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well you do have a POV, that they adopt your philosophical language. (it reminds me too much of the Ugly American who speaks only english)  i'm sure there are philosophers that have discussed accounting, but the academy marginalizes them.  i get the impression that this article is under seige, do you want to allow the article creator to build and meet your critique, or do you want to let TJRC to destubify; bully him off so you can AfD after 30 days? is the 'under construction icon' a kick me sign? pohick (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a POV, it's the neutral POV that an article called "philosophy of accounting" should, um, be philosophy, just as all other "philosophy of X" articles and disciplines. I don't the subject even exists, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.  I'm not happy with the view that the subject must exist just because some people who don't understand what philosophy even is think it should.  That's WP:OR.  And I'm happy to give people who like the article a chance to actually write something about the "philosophy of accounting", properly cited.  I've seen no hope of it actually happening, but who knows, maybe it will.  'Sup to y'all.  Tb (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it's a neutral POV that imposes its values at AfD time. Verifiability is a different standard.  If there were verifiable sources that don't conform to your use of language, will you continue to delete them?  the point remains that the article creator was driven off, making your prediction self-fulfilling. as much as i agree with your exactitude, i find the WP:BITEing atmosphere not calculated to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. do you really want to say there is "no hope" that sources can be found, given the large and wideranging philosophical discourse that does exist? pohick (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if you are saying that we should ignore WP:OR and WP:V. Tb (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i hope not, i'm saying flag it, don't delete it. are you saying no philosophy is better than bad philosophy;  is not the socratic dialogue a better method?  wouldn't using this article as a teachable moment be a better outcome for this author? (whatever the fate of the article) pohick (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research is a very good thing. But not on Wikipedia.  Perhaps we have taught the author that Wikipedia is not the place to publish essays on subjects you think should exist?  Tb (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted mention of re-evaluation of fixed assets
It is certainly true that at one time fixed assets were assigned the value of their purchase cost, less depreciation, and that was that. And it is certainly true that considerations of substantial accuracy have led to a reconsideration of that practice, and the increasing practice of re-valuing them based on current market values. But it is not clear that this has anything to do with the stated purpose of the section it was placed in: the distinction between substance and legal form. There is no "legal form" here; the closest we have are such things as IRS rules that mandate that, for example, charitable donations of property be valued at current market value. And in such cases, far from there being a distinction between substance and legal form, the two are entirely parallel. So, again, what we need is a secondary source which actually says what the philosophical issue is supposed to be. Let's find that citation, and only then add it back, in the proper place. Tb (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the FASB form is enshrined in law, with sarbanes oxley, there are big penalties for not following the legal forms. the mark to market pricing is a form, and the true value of the asset in a distressed market is different.  reference: "Reflecting Form Over Substance: The Case of Enron Corp."?  enron lobbied to get mark to market accounting so they could lever up even more, and then when their bubble burst, they committed fraud to cover up.pohick (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So where is the citation which describes this as a philosophical issue? Tb (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Baker,C.R & Hayes, R, "Reflecting Form Over Substance: The Case of Enron Corp.", Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Volume 15, Issues 6-7, August-October 2004, Pages 767-785  i take it you want a published monograph that lays out the article.  you won't accept the textbook examples? pohick (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That discusses form and substance. Where does it relate it to a philosophical issue?  And where does it tell us what the "legal form" and the "substance" are?  The example of finance leases is clearly about a disparity between substance and legal form (though it's still not clear what that has to due with any philosophical issue).  Tb (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * what "proof of philosophy" would you accept? trying to get the accountants to even think in philosophical terms, much less express them is a high bar, there are plenty of sources that express accounting as principles. is that not philosophy? pohick (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * no, it's not philosophy. "Philosophy of X" is, in general, the branch of philosophy which analyzes the underlying presuppositions and methods of X.  It is not the underlying presuppositions themselves, except in a secondary and metanymic sense.  I want you to say in the article what they say there.  Instead, what you are doing is offering your own amateurish philosophical observations--you are, in fact, trying to do philosophy of accounting, which is a laudable goal, but not one appropriate for Wikipedia.  Here, you must only report on other people's published attempts to do philosophy of accounting.  Yes, it's a high bar, by the way.  This is why there is no article on the philosophy of postage stamps, even though there are plenty of interesting philosophical presuppositions to the subject. Tb (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * to clarify, you want published sources using philosophical language applied to the accounting profession. pohick (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. It is, in fact, what Philosophy of X is for all the other examples, including those you yourself gave.  But note the point here: it was you who wrote an article which used philosophical language applied to the accounting profession.  The problem is that you did so without any secondary sources substantiating it.  Tb (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * just to be clear, i did not write that, rather i attempted to add some sources, upon the assumption that this is an article worth saving. pohick (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted mention of inflation accounting
Inflation accounting calls for restatement of figures to account for the general weakness of a currency. (Oddly, btw, nobody ever talks about deflation accounting. Maybe recent events will suggest that to the profession.)  The undocumented and tenuous claim a while ago was that epistemological concerns are supposed to be raised by the requirements of "faithful representation", "neutrality", "prudence", or "completeness" because those requirements somehow imply a coherentist understanding of truth. Though it was entirely unclear what that meant, and the original explanation was so confused that it had to go. Perhaps if we had a secondary source on the point, it would be ok. Still, the question of inflation accounting has nothing to do with it. Tb (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the saxe lecture on inflation accounting accounting is pretty good To eliminate the "money illusion," the euphoria associated with inflation, by reducing the accounts to "real terms."  this issue has been dormant since the 80's. FIFO or LIFO? accounting assumes stable prices, reality is different and affects companies in counterintuitive ways.  i expect we will be getting an update on this in the near future given the global 'stimulus'. pohick (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You've said nothing here about philosophy. This is a philosophy article.  Tb (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * funny, i thought it was an accounting article. pohick (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. Now take a look at Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Economics, and Philosophy of Mathematics, which you identified as parallel examples. Notice the headword in the phrase "philosophy of accounting".  It's clear that you are not really quite clear what philosophers do, and what philosophy is--which is not at all your fault, and an excellent example of collaboration in action.  Tb (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)  Oh, and indeed, notice that Jurisprudence is the one which does not clearly start off saying it's a branch of philosophy--because, the article is not actually titled "Philosophy of Law", it's titled "Jurisprudence", though the contents are still essentially what "Philosophy of Law" would be.  Check out Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Art as well.  Tb (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the Philosophy of Economics is the closest to this one. (did i mention them?) funny the more philosophy i take the less i know.  i appreciate your sceptical attitude, but it dosn't strike me as improving the quality of the article.  should we rename it "philosophical problems raised by accounting".  clearly the accountants have issues - should i go crib the encyclopedia of philosophy? the writing is pretty good there. pohick (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Philosophical issues raised by accounting" would surely be preferable. But still, the requirement for sources doesn't change.  You would no longer need sources which establish the existence of this field of study, but you would still need sources which speak about these issues as philosophical issues.  It's not enough to describe some accoutanting issue, and then say what philosophical issues you think it raises.  You must say what philosophical issues so and so says it raises, citing so-and-so.  And no, cribbing isn't allowed; se WP:Copyrights.  Tb (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Philosophy of Economics is not very good, but it certainly exhibits the substance of the point I'm making about what is lacking here. Note that it refers to three journals which are explicitly about Economics and Philosophy, and two whose titles do not imply this, but in fact do cover the topic.  Note that the Bibliography in that article includes many references to monographs and articles about the topic, by philosophers.  And while the article is woefully short on citations, I can assure you that the claims made in the article that such-and-such is a philosophical issue can be backed up from the bibliography--the authors there do, in fact, discuss explicitly, and in philosophical terms the issues discussed, the very thing that (according to you) accountants don't do.  Well, people who study philosophy of economics do do it, because that's what the field is.  If nobody's doing it for accounting, that's because the field "philosophy of accounting" doesn't actually exist. Tb (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i guess i have more sympathy for the author, to build his article, than to trash his references, and then put him under time pressure. you would agree that there is an article here?  let's at least get it to the Philosophy of Economics level (agreed low bar). pohick (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that I'm presuming that I'm correct that the field doesn't exist. But hey, it isn't what I think, it's what the sources prove.  I'm not interested in time pressure.  As I said below, if nothing has happened in a month, if no references to support the central claims of the article have been found, that's a problem.  But if real progress is made, even if not complete, then sure, I don't care how soon things are fixed up, provided they really are.  If we got it to the level of Philosophy of Economics, that would be awesome, but I doubt it can actually be done.  Prove me wrong, and the encyclopedia gets better!  (I had a conversation a while ago with a guy who wanted his company in Wikipedia, and it just couldn't be because it wasn't notable.  He kept focusing on "what can I do to the article to fix it?" when the point was that it was the absence of sources in the outside world which was the problem.  I suspect the same is true here.  The problem isn't with the article, it's with the actual lack of people out there in the world doing "philosophy of accounting".)  Tb (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i share your concern with the sloppy appropriation of vocabulary, however, my preliminary google sweep (added to links) has turned up some papers on subject, among the flotsam, thank you for the challenge. pohick (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A request
This article began as a high-school level listing of philosophical boilerplate, the sort of thing you find on one of those plastic "study guides" in the gas station. And, then it was attached to descriptions of various accounting rules or changes in accounting practice. That's not a very clear article. Instead, the article--if it is to exist--needs to be about the connection, since that's where the "philosophy of accounting" would lie, and it needs to have secondary sources not just for the accounting rules or practices in question, but for the connections between the accounting and the philosophy. Moreover, we must not run afoul of the rule against WP:SYNTH either. So there must be some sources, of some kind, giving an overview of the field of "philosophy and accounting" to justify the arrangement of topics and so forth. Tb (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with you. Waiting to see where the Afd goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD and current notability/reference disputes in the tags
The AfD was closed, with a result of "no consensus" which seems correct to me. So the question is, what now? The proponents of this article's notability now need to make good on their assurance that sources can be found. The key assertions which need to be substantiated are not merely sources which talk about philosophical issues related to accounting, but those which specifically build a notion of a "philosophy of accounting". At the very least, we need sources that substantiate the following key claims of the article: I would note that for something like "Philosophy of Science", say, it would be absolutely trivial to meet this test. Likewise for the examples Philosophy of Law, or Philosophy of Economics, or Philosophy of Mathematics, or Philosophy of History. There's the standard.
 * Two sources which can substantiate the definition in the lead. If nobody talks about the philosophy of accounting, as such, articulating any sort of "general framework" then either the subject doesn't exist at all, or anything we do here is prohibited original research;
 * A source which discusses whatever ontological issues are supposed to come up in the substance/legal-form distinction, clearly discussing them as philosophical issues, and connecting them to whatever the broad notion of philosophy of accounting is supposed to be;
 * A source which discusses whatever epistemological issues are supposed to come up in the question about "truth", and how accounting raises some specially distinctive issue, rather than simply repeats other well-known examples of the difficulty human beings have sometimes in finding things out or explaining them;

Please note that the issue here is not whether there are some ontological, epistemological, or ethical assumptions buried within the various standards and rules for accounting. The issue is whether anyone has written about them as philosophical issues, in such a way that there is a field called "philosophy of accounting". Even a single journal dedicated to the subject would even do the trick! The question is not whether there are interesting philosophical issues raised by accounting practices--I'm sure there are!--it's whether enough people have written about them to constitute an actual field of study called "philosophy of accounting".

If a month or so goes by, and nobody's been able to fix these problems, it would probably be appropriate to raise the AfD again. I note that the deeper problems in the article were not apparent at the beginning of the AfD, and the proponents of the article noted at the end of the process that there was barely time for them to fix things. So now, let's get the sources going. And, don't forget the prohibition of original research: it's not enough that various sources talk about things that editors here can combine into a thing called "philosophy of accounting"; the key is whether people "out there" have done so already. Tb (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Enron
Enron Scandal

Enron's bankruptcy in December 2001 provides a significant example of the issues of trust in accounting. Golden era of Enron

In 1985, Enron was formed by Kenneth Lay merging the natural gas pipeline companies of Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth. [1] From 1990s to 1998, Enron's stock increased 311% percent which was only slightly higher than the average growth. Then the stock increased by 56% in 1999 and a further 87% in 2000. By December 31, 2000, Enron's stock was priced at $83.13. In addition, Enron was rated the most innovative large company in America in Fortune's Most Admired Companies survey.

Downfall timeline

Fall of Enron stock, 1997-2002 August 22, 2001 - Sherron Watkins gave Kenneth Lay a six-page letter further explaining Enron's accounting issues.

October 16, 2001 - Enron announces a third quarter loss of $618 million.

October 31, 2001 - The SEC opens a formal investigation into Enron's transactions.

November 9, 2001 - Enron and Dynegy announce the $7.8 billion merger agreement. It would form Dynegy Corp, in which Dynegy would own 64% and Enron 36%.

November 28, 2001 - Dynegy announces it has terminated merger talks with Enron.

December 2, 2001 - Enron files for Chapter 11 protection, becoming the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history at that time and leaves thousands of workers with worthless stock in their pensions.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0117 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tony, this is an article on the philosophy of accounting. Why do you feel this Enron content is relevant, and is there a published reliable source connecting Enron with the philosophy of accounting? Bahooka (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Good Progress
Hi everyone. Its great to see the progress that has been made on this page. I originally set it up in 2009 and got burned at the stake for daring to suggest that there was a "philosophy of accounting". It sure has taken on a form now that I could not have produced myself. Pkearney (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) 15 Nov 2015.