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


added sueing by Booz Allen Hamilton under criticism section. Rim sim (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


added Deloitte's pledge to add jobs in UK. Rim sim (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mitigating the Insider Threat: Building a Secure Workforce[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Extensive Cleanup[edit]

This article has undergone extensive cleanup to remove much of the irrelevant debris that had piled up, with a formatting closer to that of Accenture which is regarded as a B quality on most project scales. We should start from here to upgrade it any further, as opposed to pushing any further reversions to the previous C quality article. If there are questions or discussion, the talk page is the place to have them, NOT continued reversions of the cleanup. (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a clean up. You have removed some excellent and very important sections on the development of the business, structure, branding, disputes etc. The general principle on Wikipedia is that major revisions should be discussed first and if the material is properly cited then it should remain. So please restore the material that a number of editors have worked so hard to develop over time. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The material had multiple out of date links, out of date information, and many other things that are irrelevant such as a random listing of former employees that was mostly uncited. I know the history of the article. If you have a dispute with the edits, let's talk about them on the Talk page, instead of reverting my edits. The article is much more encyclopedic as it stands, as shown in the difference in quality ratings for both Deloitte and Accenture, your subjective opinion of the material notwithstanding. (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect, as you are using an IP address rather than a proper user address there is no evidence that you have ever edited the article before. On the other hand I have added a lot of material to the article over many years and that is fully documented. As this article has never been independently assessed it is not clear whether it is 'start', 'C' or 'B'. I would again ask you to restore the deleted material. Dormskirk (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
We're going to Third Opinion then as I can't imagine how it makes sense on an objective basis to take an article based on a B class article and argue it should be reverted back to Start or C class with a bunch of irrelevant information that was thrown together and presented in a wildly incoherent manner. It feels as if your beef is less about the cleanup of the article, which was needed, but mostly that I'm an IP address and made big edits without a lengthy discussion (i.e. you appear to be disputing the procedure rather than the changes themselves) but I'll instead assume good faith. I'm filing the request now. (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am disputing the changes themselves (important information has been deleted), the process (no discussion) and your suggestion that the work of a number of editors is "irrelevant debris". In the meantime please can you follow proper process by restoring the deleted material. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I was right on the motivation here. The Third Opinion request has been filed and we can decide on action to take then. For the third party editor, the edits are based on numerous principles... Bold edits to clean up the article to begin with. Verifiability over the extensive list of former employees that aren't even mentioned on any of their pages. Undue weight for the extensive list under the "Criticism" section which had gotten ridiculously long. Reading that, you'd think the firm was full of crooks. Dead links in multiple places, and I didn't even get them all. (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Normally I would decline this 3O post for having no thorough discussion per the instructions. Though it has taken place, it's rather vague as both parties, especially the bold editor has given reasons like "out of date" and linked the usual guidelines. No one has specified or explained which part was removed or why. Till then, I'll have to support the inclusion of all this content (which is sourced) and am against this sudden blanking and bold edit. If you both feel the discussion can continue further (no walls of text please, keep it short), I'll watch this page and can give you an informal second 3O in case it's needed.

The class of an article depends its WikiProject assessment. B class and lower can be given by anybody whose read the instructions and GA class and higher require formal reviews. Though being unfamiliar with this topic, I don't see how the much reduced version is B still looks C to me.

Note: Per BRD, the bold editor who makes the change is required to discuss on the talk page and establish consensus with any opposing editor(s). No way does it say, any side of the party is free to keep reverting while discussing. Best to prevent an edit war. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the criticism section looks valid to me since it's sourced. These sections are usually valid for articles on companies, so I don't see what's wrong. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That's very considered and very helpful. For my part I would be prepared to support the deletion of the list of former employees which is uncited. I hope that helps us reach consensus. Best wishes and thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think things got a little confused here, it's my edit versus the one that was as of my big deletion. I'll explain the changes: 1) there were vast sections in the "Recent history" detailing every single merger the company has engaged in in recent years (Ubermind, etc), and despite links to press releases about the item, aren't encyclopedic in nature and aren't large in scale to warrant notability. 2) I also have rearranged some stuff in the history section that does preserve what was there, just moved around to flow better. I did get rid of stuff about "Under X's leadership" as it didn't seem to flow with the overall story of Deloitte coming together. Basically the modern firm is an accumulation of a bunch of mergers and that's the key thread I was keeping with. 3) Uncited list of former employees, we're in agreement on that so let's let that lie. 4) Scandal section. The use of the word Criticisms or Scandals seemed a bit emotional so I decided to focus on projects and outcomes where the outcome was notable, so renaming it to Notable Projects made sense, as I did in the Accenture article. As auditors, there's always going to be something when a company goes under, so listing every single incident quickly gets out of hand, and the real major ones get buried or are gone (Parmalat). I still think the list is too long and US centric to be honest. 5) Staff section. I wrote this (IP's change but it is the same person behind the keyboard), it was a few titles and where they recruit from which just isn't encyclopedic looking at the articles of other similar companies, nor does it appear in their annual reports, nor did it really add anything to the article, plus they change that stuff internally every it seemed smart to delete it. 6) Sponsorships section. This was moved into a marketing section which covers the items that were there, added bullets for formatting, and adds in some bits about how the firm markets itself - this is modeled after the section on the Accenture article. That seemed to make it comprehensive in terms of the coverage. Thanks 3O for your opinions here. (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I would prefer to see most of the history restored (although I don't mind it being tweaked to flow better and to remove very small acquisitions). As previously indicated I am content for the list of employees to go. The criticisms section should be restored in full (although, again, I don't mind it being tweaked to flow better and to remove excessive detail). I am also OK to delete the out of date staff material. I hope this helps with reaching consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If there are no more interventions in the next couple of days I will re-instate the full version as supported by the 3O (minus the uncited list of employees). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Now a deadline. You know what, do what you want as it's now apparent you never had any intention of doing anything different with this article. So much for bold edits. This whole mess has driven me away from contributing on Wikipedia again. Thanks. (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 172.15.68.XX, don't be discouraged just because your edit is going to get reverted. Remember there is no deadline and this is not the end. Dormskirk is restoring the old version and has agreed with some of your edits. You can continue boldly editing here and of course discussing each change if needed, that's how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works. Make progress, edit by edit, and in your own time. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The edge[edit]

this building is missing I think it is notable enough for wikipedia on its own, bt certainly for inclusion in notable Deloitte buildings section here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)