Talk:TransPerfect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tone tagging[edit]

Article is promotional short of G11, and needs help in the Neutral Point of View department -- Y not? 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this myself. -- Y not? 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this obviously promotional article and that not much seems to have been made for 5+ years, I added POV-check (I hope I am using the right banner, please correct if I am wrong) Gul-o-Khar (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Spam warning[edit]

Message to all accounts who are creating a promotional whirlwind related to TransPerfect: On Wikipedia we have a policy against Conflicts of Interest. This is an encyclopedia. We're about knowledge, not corporate promotion. A neutral article limited to sourced important facts about a notable company (which TransPerfect might be) will be permitted. A bunch of press-release-sounding articles about all its subsidiaries and proprietary technologies will not be. Future attempts at spamming will result in blocks. -- Y not? 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"linguists"?[edit]

Now, I'm not that familiar with TransPerfect itself, but if it provides translation and interpretation services, would it really need to employ 4,000 students of linguistics? I don't mind using the word "linguist" to mean "someone who is proficient in numerous languages", but could we not come up with a better Wikilink? elvenscout742 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a hyper-inflated number. They are clearly counting their independent contractors (who don't even appear anywhere on the payrools) as 'employees.'65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings clarification[edit]

Please stop correcting article to indicate TransPerfect's position as 'world's largest', when in fact it is not. Recent (05/2009) publication of rankings shows proof. I corrected the article to show this and added url for citation source.207.172.166.181 (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of promotional material[edit]

TransPerfect is in clear violation of the rules. I have attempted to make their page on Wikipedia more neutral by adding a paragraph pointing to the many problems of the company (high turnaround, employee abuse, translators' dissatisfaction). My paragraph stays on line a few hours and is then deleted. They should be banned from Wikipedia. Could something be done about this? {User:grinzing ) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated in the Edit Summary every time I have deleted this contribution, the citation is inappropriate, as it features subjective reviews that are not subject to scrutiny in the manner that news or journal articles are. The Glassdoor website does not verify contributions for their authenticity. It is possible for one person to open numerous accounts and post a series of extremely negative reviews in order to discredit a former employer or competitor. I do not represent TransPerfect or have any connection to the company whatsoever, but this kind of contribution needs to be verified by, for example, a journalistic investigation. Is this reasonable? If other copyeditors disagree with me, then I will happily leave further contributions of this nature; however, the content is not encyclopedic in this context.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
These contributions—with Glassdoor, etc, as citations—are reappearing and this needs to stop. Fortunately, other copyeditors are monitoring the page for such edits. I am not discounting the possibility that TransPerfect is in breach of LSP codes, employer contracts, or whatever it may be, but these need to be presented after such activity becomes public knowledge after a media report/investigation, court decision, or the publication of findings by an appropriate body. One simply cannot insert allegations of misconduct into the article based on subjective accounts, such as those found on websites like Glassdoor. Additionally, I am not questioning the reputation of Glassdoor, but investigative journalism is not one of their aims or objectives, and it is not appropriate to use the contributions of users as citations. However, if this happened to be an article on the translation industry or businesses that were founded during a particular period, then content from TransPerfect's "About" page or their annual reports may be fairly used.

I hope this has further clarified the matter for people who were still unsure after my first post on the subject. If the edits are being made by a former, now-discgruntled employee/s, then the purpose and nature of Wikipedia needs to be reaffirmed to him/her/them, or the corresponding pages on Wikipedia policy, etc. need to be read or reread. Thank you for your time and please feel free to add to this discussion newly or further, so that a beneficial outcome can be finalized. Thank you again, --Soulparadox (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is one-sided, highly pro-Transperfect and there's not a word of the thousands of "now disgruntled employees" who consider having worked for Transperfect one of the worst experiences of their entire life. There's a reason for their abnormally high profit and this encyclopedia is mentioning none of it. I'm adding the POV tag again until this has been addressed. transperfect-translations-concerns.blogspot.com http://segnodicaino.blogspot.se/2010/04/transperfect-translations-not-quite-so.html -- Anonymous 16/10/2014 16:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.147.113.100 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)