Talk:Bain & Company/Archives/2019

This needs to be encyclopedic

On and off I've taken efforts against both extremes here. In the talk page I've spoken against making it a "hit piece" with proportionately undue coverage of accusations etc. Also there has been some opinions expressed that they need a "smackdown" because the poster felt they have it coming. On the other hand, I just deleted a subsection which was tagged by someone else as being advertisement which consisted mostly of talking points / sales points generate by the company. C'mon folks, we're building an encyclopedia here. This shouldn't about how much smackdown vs. promotional material is here, let's just make it an encyclopedic article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your removal, but I'm curious where you saw that anyone said Bain needs a "smackdown", which you placed in quotation marks. I don't see that anywhere else on this page, or in the archives. If those are your words, you shouldn't impute them to other editors. Carlstak (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That was my shorthand way of describing occurrences. The typical theme is an editor who thinks negatively about the company and so thinks that the article should be made more negative.North8000 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we get more un-involved eye-balls on the page from editors that do not have a pre-existing opinion or affiliation with the article-subject. Perhaps asking for some eye-balls from the NPOV Noticeboard would do the trick. I would be interested in what they say on the African controversy section as well.

The Reception section was cited primarily to two in-depth profile stories in The New York Times and Fortune Magazine. Those are extremely strong sources that felt including that information was part of a balanced profile on the company. Since the section did not use flowery language, was cited to strong sources, and was representative of those sources, I don't see how it was promotional. If I go to Wikiproject Video Games and click on the first Featured Article listed it says "was called "one of the best values in both sports and racing gaming." I think the article is degrading as good sources are removed, but op-eds are added. CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there is some question about my deletion I'm going to self-revert pending further discussion. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO, better not to revert yourself exclusively on my account; an editor with a disclosed conflict of interest is not considered to have a "vote" (for lack of a better word) in consensus building. It's begging for controversy about my involvement. But we should get more eyeballs and discussion with disinterested editors. In general, I feel like I keep seeing a high level of scrutiny to positive information and more lenience towards mediocre sources and excess detail for negative info. It could be just me, but even a momentary glance at the African controversy section I notice at least one cite to an op-ed and a lot of detail for mid-sized newsy sources, while in-depth profiles in The New York Times and Fortune Magazine get trimmed. CorporateM (Talk) 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I did it just to give time to do it well. Especially regarding not losing good sources. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

May I point out that there are ten other references to Liz Roman Gallese's NYT article (a masterpiece of reporting by the way) besides the two in the "Reception" section removed and then restored by North8000? And that the Fortune article is referenced twelve times outside the two in that section?

This bit in the "Reception" section clearly violates WP's neutral point of view policy: "Sometimes consultants are acting as though, and treated as if, they are a member of the company's own senior management." Bleh. CorporateM, can you seriously maintain that this corporate pablum belongs in our WP article?

I think it's actually rather funny that both the NYT article and the Fortune articles detail conflict of interest accusations against Bain made as a consequence of a major Guinness stock manipulation scandal that involved a Bain executive, Olivier Roux, serving as a director of Guinness. I quote, "Roux, on loan to Guinness, had served as controller and financial director of the British company and as a member of its board of directors." The hilarity is heightened by the fact that this WP article about Bain has been perennially manipulated to ill effect by editors who have or appear to have a conflict of interest as employees of Bain. It seems obvious that the "strong sources" were appended to the non-NPOV information in the section to give it the aura of respectability, even though both the cited references actually portray Bain in a bad light. Carlstak (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Regarding accusations that Bain employees have manipulated the article, can you elaborate on that? My understanding is that Bain has a policy against employees editing the article. If there is evidence of Bain employees editing the article inappropriately, I would like to let them know so they can put a stop to it. The only thing I've noticed is stuff that is likely from students that hope to be a candidate for employment. What content in the current article do you believe was added by a Bain employee? Are there specific accounts this accusation is levied towards?

Regarding the phrase "Sometimes consultants are acting as though . . . " my understanding of that sentence is that it is a criticism. Outside consultants are supposed to remain independent and easy to fire, not become internal decision-makers. I suggest we check the source and (1) if I am right and the source depicts it is a criticism, but it seems that is not apparent to all readers, we clarify as such (2) if you are right and it is fluff, deleting it.

The Guinness thing already has two paragraphs devoted to it. It was about 20% of the entire history section before the African Controversy nearly doubled the size of that section. Can you elaborate on why you think these sources are reliable for criticisms, but not for praise? Is the source being mis-represented in some way? CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

CorporateM, please understand that the probable COI edits I'm talking about are historical, as in the very first edit that created the article in 2004. It says, "Bain is a premium strategy management consulting firm with headquarter [sic] in Boston, MA."

In some quick digging through the article history of edits, I found these, as examples of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bain_%26_Company&diff=837759189&oldid=837757408

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bain_%26_Company&diff=prev&oldid=142550724

Note the exceedingly detailed information added in the second diff, without sources.

A user contribution list like this one are a red flag, and often indicate material added by an editor with a conflict of interest, but unless a registered editor self-declares, there's no way short of a CheckUse to determine if they are affiliated with Bain (as I understand it, it would have to be from an address associated with Bain to declare a COI, and only users with CheckUser permission are authorized to to do this. The policy says "Only stewards, some Wikimedia Foundation staff, ombudsmen, and a very small number of other users are allowed to have CheckUser access." Any user, however, can make a request for CheckUser information.

Regardless of how one interprets the text, "Sometimes consultants are acting as though, and treated as if, they are a member of the company's own senior management" it's a non-neutral point of view statement because it presumes a god-like omniscience; also, it's a completely subjective observation and unencyclopedic in tone. Carlstak (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I originally zapped the section due to two things: #1 The tagger held the same opinion. #2 The wording looks like the types of things that they would say about themselves during marketing efforts. In hindsight, I should have spent more time on it to see shoe solidly that came from solid sources. And in my mind "solid source" , besides wp:rs criteria, I would look for expertise and objectivity with respect to the items which cited it. If those thing came from such sources, then they could be and objective description of their way of doing business. And so I self-reverted to allow for a more thorough analysis and discussion. I still haven't taken the time to explore that but I will. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All of the major business consultancies are famous for cherry-picking top grads in their recruiting in an extremely competitive process and for paying buckets of money compared to what a fresh-graduate typically makes. This looks like something that was likely added by a student that was doing research into employment at Bain. In deleting this content, in addition to removing some of the weaker cites to primary sources, you also removed citations to the Financial Times, Business Insider, and Forbes. I haven't looked into each source individually; do you believe these sources are not reliable or do not support the article-text? That looks like more content that should be restored, but perhaps cut in half and copyedited to remove the primary sources and some editorializing. Regarding accusations of manipulation by Bain employees, I am empathetic that we do not know the identities of contributors, but I think the best way forward is to focus on content and sources if there is no evidence of impropriety. I agree with your assessment on Redsoxhero, but that was almost 12 years ago. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Just clarifying, I didn't remove that content that you are describing.North8000 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're paying due attention, CorporateM. I'm not German Joe, and I didn't remove that content. And you're missing the point about reliable sources and NPOV. It doesn't matter how unimpeachable the sources (whenever they are), if the content they're intended to support doesn't adhere to neutral point of view policy, it doesn't belong in the article and it, along with those particular given cites, will be removed. I'm telling you that the text, "Sometimes consultants are acting as though, and treated as if, they are a member of the company's own senior management" is obviously not neutral point of view, and that the rest of the "Reception" section, although it cites reliable sources, is written like an advertisement and not encyclopedic. And as I said, the abuse of this article by editors who seem to have a conflict of interest is historical, and I dredged up ancient examples to explain my use of the words "perennially manipulated". i request that you review NPOV policy. Carlstak (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

For better or worse, Carlstak, wp:npov does not say what you are saying it does in your post.North8000 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said what the NPOV policy says or doesn't say; I simply pointed to the policy page, and pointed out the text violates the policy and is written like an advertisement and not encyclopedic.. Carlstak (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I read the sources for the reception section. They are first rate.....well researched, thorough coverage, neutral. And the sentences are not only supported by the article, they are derived from it. But I don't think that the gist of the article made it through. For example, the items in the second paragraph, which some have concern as being advertising were actually covered as being problems with Bain's approach or things that have caused Bain problems. So possibly a more thorough extraction from the source article is in order.North8000 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO the South African Revenue Service Inquiry has become wp:undue large. For a multi-billion dollar company with a 45 year history, the section on this one incident in South Africa is so large it's over 1/3 of the whole article. One suggestion would be to condense it to about 1/2 of it's current size. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be willing to take the time to take a stab at a longer Reception section that includes more criticism and better reflects the context of the sources and a shorter African controversy section that is not so undue and is more balanced, if you would both support that. However, I wouldn't want to spend all that time on it if I would just get lambasted for rewriting controversies with a COI. So please let me know if you would both be comfortable with me writing some draft content for inclusion in the article that would address these issues based on North's feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 15:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of good neutral content in the references for the "reception" section. I think getting the gist from the sources into that area would make a good addition / rework. I think that the oversized South African Revenue Service Inquiry needs to be reduced regardless. IMO having someone work on a high quality shortened section would be a good thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How's this? CorporateM (Talk) 02:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I took a first look. My first impression on the South Africa one is that it's a big improvement. I think that it's more informative on the key issues, without pulling any punches, while solving the wp:undue problems by condensing. At first couple reads the reception one also looks like an improvement. Less confusing on the previous wording that could be "taken two ways". The latter refers to language which in source was intended as a criticism but which out of context might sound like advertising. But on the reception one I'd like to read and compare more thoroughly when I have some more time. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did it. We can evolve from there. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)