Talk:Nortel/Archives/2011

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


Contents

Merge Agile Communication Environment

  • Oppose - there are already pages for all the products, as far as I can see. Merging them into this article would make it too long. --Duncan (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Page is getting to long. The page should follow Microsoft's page and have the products on seperate pages.

206.53.153.153 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I also agree. If this is a product developed by Nortel, then it should be simply listed along with the rest of the products -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While the product page is a little sparse on information adding it to the main page would prevent or deter others from adding more detail regarding this technology/product. The length of the main article alone would deter greater detail from being added. I do agree that it should follow Microsoft's format of seperating pages for products.

Has the Agile Communication Environment met the criteria for notability? If not, then it may not warrant a separate page. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)



History of Nortel

I would like to get discussion/feedback on a History of Nortel page, like History of IBM, History of Microsoft History of Google, History of BMW and others. Geek2003 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it warrants a separate page at present, as the history of Nortel comprises most of the Nortel article. I would suggest separating the product list into a separate list article, as the multi-category list is unwieldy in the middle of this article. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I do think it would be excellent to add more information on the history of Nortel. I think that's exactly the sort of information that's most useful in an encyclopedia. I somewhat agree with Isaac Lin, in that I think splitting the product info out to a different page should be done before splitting the history out. At the same time, I think the ideal end situation would be a summary section on history with {{main}} link to a more comprehensive history page. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that moving the products to a separate page is needed first; like the IBM page under history has a link to List of IBM products this makes the page look much better. But also like the IBM page has a link to the History of IBM that details the 100 years of IBM, we should start to detail the 100 years of Nortel, Northern Electric, and Northern Telecom. The history presently is extremely brief and summarized, for information covering 100 years. Geek2003 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article would have almost no content without the history, so at the moment, I believe it is sufficient to keep the history within the main article. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Most articles that I have observed on Wikipedia begin with a summary history section that sets the foundation for the rest of the article. The Nortel page is no different in this respect from other articles and yet other companies are not denied a more detailed history section 68.114.34.189 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The Nortel article would become mostly a stub if the history information were extracted from it. I believe it is best to improve the Nortel article, as it has lots of room to contain more information, and will for now avoid having to maintain both a summary and the complete history. In general, Wikipedia articles are split only as length issues start to make a single article more difficult to manage. The article's current length is far from being problematic, though. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is already in line with other articles in Wikipedia where there is an overview history and a more detailed history page. If you added the detailed history page into this article then this article would be too long and the detailed history would need to be broken out on a separate page. The content, format, and length of this article and the summary history section is very similar to the Microsoft page. ManagementMan (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Main Nortel article has a good brief history; I am talking about a detailed history like - Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel/History of Nortel Geek2003 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your intent; at present, I believe additional information can be accommodated within this article and so there is no need yet to have a separate article. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Nortel is a foundational company for North America that is over 100 years old with a rich heritage like AT&T. I feel that a small section within this article would be very restrictive and would not allow the level of detail afforded many other companies. Take the example of History of BMW this is very useful information that would be too long if left in the main article for BMW ManagementMan (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for a small section; given the sparseness of other information, the article can quite comfortably hold a great deal of history information within it, as many other articles do. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has shown regular contributions month to month and is growing. It's a similar length to that of much larger companies with more massive product lines. If you remove the Summary history section (that many other companies have of a similar length) from this article it would still have significant length in order to prevent it from being classified as a stub. If you added the detailed history section to this article then it would be too long and out of line in terms of length when compared to other articles like that of Microsoft. ManagementMan (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that the products section is removed, the only sections left would be Corporate Information and Accounting Scandal. There really is plenty of room in the current article for more information; the existing Microsoft article is about 40% longer than the Nortel article. I think once this article is given more meat, then the avenues for splitting it can be investigated with a more complete picture. It seems premature to do so in the article's current state. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem premature from the perspective that IBM only has a short history summary and that article was not prevented from splitting content into different more-detailed sections. Why are we talking about removing the Products section from the Nortel page now in addition to the history summary? These comments are a clear cut case of non-productive over-scrutiny of this article. The overall length of the main article is well in line with the overall length of articles about many other companies which are not being over-scrutinized. ManagementMan (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In comparison with the IBM article and others mentioned, the Nortel article falls well short in non-history information. By all means, please do add notable content with neutral, third-party citations, and bring the article to a state where breaking it out into separate articles becomes a more pressing matter. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As this is classified as still under development or at least it appears to be. My opinion would be to allow the author to continue. I see this as valuable information, just as valuable as othe tech companies that you are not complaining about. Sorry if I offended anyone. Heliumhel (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion

  • Thank you for the discussion.
  • Only one objection (Isaac Lin) to the History of Nortel page.
  • The history of Nortel page is already over 5 pages long, and growing. I agree we have more information that can be documented on the Nortel main page.
  • I will await others to add more inputs.
  • I also am asking for help on the work of the History of Nortel page in the project area.
  • We should start adding more information (other than History) on the main page. I have started documenting Acquisitions, please expand. We should also start a divestitures section, and if we can put together all the logos. Any other sections that should be added? Geek2003 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, notable events such as business transactions should be integrated within the main text of the article and not placed in a separate section. Generally speaking, the Wikipedia community prefers for an article's text to give a holistic account. For example, the importance of a given purchase is best understood when placed in context of the rest of the company's activities at that time. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything that says all notable events have to be integrated into main article text. Can you provide a reference, please? I've seen quite a bit about dividing things up: WP:SUMMARY, WP:SIZE, WP:SPLIT, WP:BETTER#SIZE. Heck, look at IBM, the "History" section is two sentences. While I think it makes sense to provide a paragraph or two in a "History" section at Nortel, there's a lot of good stuff in Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel/History of Nortel, and once that's turned into article prose, there's no way we should attempt to keep it all at Nortel. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note this is apart from the proposal to create a separate history article. Geek2003 had created an Acquisitions section that listed some transactions in bullet point form, without citations. As you've noted, it is better off to have this in prose; notable information is also best integrated within the main text of whatever article it is in, rather than being placed in a separate section, isolated from other events that occurred at the same time. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Isaac Lin, above several times you are an advocate for adding more content. Please help us constructively by adding more content, modifying or integrating the content that is added or add citations/notes/comments to content that require citations, expansion or modification. Most of us are new to Wikipedia, comparatively; as I look at your account (Created on 21 January 2006 at 15:39). We can all benefit from your years of experience. Everyone is very busy in real life; so it would be unfortunate to stifle or alienate any productivity on the page. The goal is to collaboratively add and modify the added information to grow the article into a Good or Featured article. You stated that Acquisition Lists are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, so I went searching for a rule and looked at several other company web pages. I have not found a rule yet, but several other company web pages use lists for acquisitions, and surprisingly the assessment of the pages are generally high with an average B-Class articles rating. (Listed Below)

Isaac Lin, I do need your help!! I found allot of information on the French Nortel Wikipedia web page at (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel) that could help us add to the content of this web page but I have no idea of how to get it translated/integrated, or how to request assistance in translations from another languages wiki system. Could you please assist us with this? Geek2003 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noted, I have made significant contributions to this article. Just like you, time unfortunately hinders me from taking on too much. I do my best to find citations for everything I add, which is very time consuming. It is unfortunately very hard to find reliable, neutral, third-party sources about a company's current state of affairs, as those who know best typically have conflicts of interest and so are vulnerable to claims of bias. I do plan on trying to integrate the Accounting Scandal section into the rest of the article; a while back I had separated it out to draw out any updates about it in one place, but now that it has reached a resolution, it ought to be restored to the company's history.
Regarding the French Wikipedia article, do note that the warning banners at the top indicate that the article is not written in encyclopedic style, and the tone is too much like promotional material. It has lot of bullet points and isolated facts, which is generally not recommended. I do not wish the failings of other articles to be propagated to this one; lists of facts are typically flagged for integration into the main text. (Specific lists may be notable in themselves; the history of spinoffs from Bell-Northern Research and Nortel would make a good article on its own.) Isaac Lin (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. I think having an acquisitions list is fine, sometimes a list is the best way to present information. It needs to be referenced though, and the original one was not. As to the other question of breaking off the history, I don't think that would be useful presently. The section is not cumbersome or overly large. In my opinion it would have to be about twice as large before it would justify being spun off into a separate article. - SimonP (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you SimonP, I see from your account you have been on wikipedia since 2001. SimonP‎(oversight, administrator) (Created on 10 December 2001 at 07:20) Geek2003 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Z Section

Other than presumably being the last CEO of Nortel, I don't see any reason for Mike to have his own section. I suggest this content get merged into "After the Internet bubble" and "Protection from creditors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.128.185.9 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Government funding to Nortel over the years

I believe this is information that should be available to Wikipedia readers. Nortel has benefitted from taxpayer funding many times and this is a matter of public interest.

How do others here feel about the addition of a new section for this purpose? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a separate section is warranted, as placing events within context of the company's history helps with understanding (for example, knowing that deregulation occurred prior to the creation of BCE as a parent company to Bell Canada and Northern Telecom). Isaac Lin (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how this would work. For example where would you insert the one dollar 100-year lease Nortel got from the NCC for building its flagship Carling complex in Ottawa? [1]? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be placed in the History section, in chronological order when the lease began, preferably together with discussion of the construction that ensued. (On a side note, the reference you provided doesn't mention a one-dollar 100-year lease, so another citation would be needed.) Isaac Lin (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am working on finding references for the lease which dates back more than 25 years - I could certainly use some help there :-) In the meantime I inserted information about another government bailout that happened in 2003. The link to the online version of the article is dead - as are many other links to media articles. The Canadian media does not normally maintain access to their "out of date" articles, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I still believe there should be a separate section dedicated to taxpayer funding of Nortel over the years. I just located another article with information regarding another $300 million taxpayer support to Nortel: Feds guarantee $300 million loan to break up Nortel published Sunday, June 21, 2009.

This bring us up to a total of three separate recorded incidents of taxpayer support extended to Nortel, even without the $1 lease which I am still hoping will turn up. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe grouping together various support initiatives over Nortel's 100+ history into one section would be the most informative way to present this. I believe putting the initiatives in the appropriate place within the company's history gives the best understanding of how these events have influenced the company. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

John Roth files claim

I did not like my initial entry on this topic but I like this revision even less. "As insurance against judgments" attributes a motive to Mr. Roth’s actions, no? Is this considered "encyclopaedic"?

Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what an indemnification is, and the cited article describes it as such. On the encyclopaedic note, to be honest, I don't find the filing to be all that notable—if the claim actually gets approved and Roth loses any of the filed suits, that would be more interesting. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose moving this information to John Roth's article: as a filed claim with no ruling or other disposition at this time, it is more notable within the context of Roth's career rather than within Nortel's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, then I will proceed with this proposal. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this information should be moved out of the Nortel article. $1,000 million is a lot of money for one former employee when Nortel is now negotiating $57 million deals with tens of thousands of other former employees. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the claim is approved, then it would become a notable part of Nortel's history. Until then, though, it's just someone asking for something that hasn't been given out yet. The negotiated pension settlements will actually pay out money, and has an immediate effect on Nortel's business. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why so many names for the same company?

In Canada some Nortel employees belong to Nortel Networks and others to Nortel Technology. If memory serves, it is something to do with the tax authorities (technology gets R&D tax credits, I think). I added it to the introduction - not sure where else to add this name. Any suggestions? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nortel also uses these names: Nortel Networks Ltd, Nortel Networks Global corporation, Nortel Networks International corporation, Nortel Networks Technology Corporation. Are all these companies currently undergoing reorganization? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
All of its operations are being sold off. Like any large multinational, its corporate structure is complicated by operating in different countries, mergers, acquisitions, and other re-organizations over the years (and indeed tax implications are often a key factor). The spin-out of Nortel from BCE resulted in Nortel Networks Corporation as the parent company for various subsidiaries. Nortel Technology is a descendant of Bell-Northern Research, after Nortel bought out Bell Canada's 50% share and assumed full ownership. Most BNR employees became direct employees of Nortel; some more research-oriented groups became part of Nortel Technology. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of employees worldwide

The box lists the number of employees as 32,550 (February 2008), with no reference. I wonder how this number was arrived at. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History from 2010 onward

Not sure what changes have raised a concern: no content has been removed; a small bit of additional explanation has been added, and the sections were merged to avoid too many small sections, which would give them undue importance versus the other sections in the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Executive compensation is a highly charged topic everywhere, not only Nortel (actually I was surprised to see no mention of previous occurances in the article). Your change removed the previous heading which was not quite as politically charged as "executive compensation", but still described the contents of the section fairly accurately , and replaced it with a plain-vanilla heading that is not at all descriptive. As far as the number of 2010 employees - I was not sure how to approach it, since the number quoted in the article box is not referenced. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The subsections within the "History" section delineate different periods of time within the history of the company; "Retention of top employees" doesn't fit this pattern. The number of employees is given in the "Business structure" section under "Corporate information", with a citation, and so the information can be updated there. I think the information on the retention bonuses fits well within the "Liquidation" section for now, and there is no current pressing need for a separate heading. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to Nortel#Windup section

The following text has been introduced into the article: "in June Nortel announced that it no longer planned to emerge from bankruptcy protection" using this as a ref: http://www2.nortel.com/go/news_detail.jsp?cat_id=-8055&oid=100257883&locale=en-US

However, one of the sentences included this ref says: "The company will assess other restructuring alternatives for these businesses in the event it is unable to maximize value through sales."

Is this not a contradiction? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The press release states the following: "Nortel will apply to delist its common shares and the NNL preferred shares from trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and expects that the creditor protection proceedings will ultimately result in the cancellation of these equity interests. ... Based upon today's announcements and Nortel's current assessment of its businesses in the context of its creditor protection proceedings, Nortel does not expect that the Company's common shareholders or the NNL preferred shareholders will receive any value from the creditor protection proceedings and expects that the proceedings will ultimately result in the cancellation of these equity interests." Isaac Lin (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Executive compensation

Just to continue the discussion we started at Talk:Nortel/Archives/2011#History_from_2010_onward - I wonder if the topic executive compensation can be properly documented simply by inserting it in chronological order within the other sections? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes—it doesn't make sense to have a section on this topic at the same level as the "History" section, and the relevance of this topic to the company is best placed within context of the company's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Topics such as executive compensation and other criticisms of Nortel should have a dedicated criticism section. Why not provide a "Criticism" section which appears in most other major company related Wikipedia articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Though naturally notable commentary from reliable sources may be relevant for this article, note that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy nor a place for news, so an appropriate balance must be struck. Your changes have moved history information outside of the "History" section so I am reverting the changes back in order to keep the company's history within the appropriate section. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new section Nortel#Criticism_and_controversy Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
As usual, be sure to find reliable sources, avoid editorial comments, and avoid giving undue weight to specific events. Nortel has a long history and care must be taken to not go into an excessive amount of detail for some events without giving similar amount of attention to similar events at different points in the company's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tabulate liquidation results

Wouldn't it be nice to show how much money Nortel netted from selling various assets? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Reduced pension benefits

The article has been copyedited and now the words in the article to say this:

pension benefits were reduced due to the pension fund being underfunded

However, I believe this statement is not factually correct, at least not in Canada where pension payments have not (yet) been reduced. The article I referenced used this wording (which I believe is more accurate):

Pensioners, many of whom, sources say, are widows of former Nortel workers, could lose up to 40 percent of their income.

Ottawahitech (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The original statement is factually correct. I'm a Nortel (UK) pensioner and my Nortel pension benefits have been reduced and all future inflation related increases blocked due to the pension fund being underfunded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.96.56 (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi 78.146.96.56, Are you saying that your pension benefits have already been reduced? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Government support

Please note not all instances of government support are bailouts, and government support is not by default controversial; notable, reliable sources must be given. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed first before it is reverted. You have wiped a whole section out [2]before giving others an opportunity to counter Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Note by the bold, revert, discuss process, once you make a change and it is reverted, a discussion follows. As you made the original addition and it was reverted, the next step is to discuss further, not to re-insert your changes, which can be considered to be disruptive editing. In addition, the information is still within the article, just not within the section you created. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Government bailout

The word "bailout" was introduced in the second reference which you have removed.

The government resisted characterizing its position on Nortel as a bailout, insisting that whatever EDC did was on a commercial basis.

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This sentence does not call the $30 million loan a bailout; it states the government's position on the loan. Without notable, reliable sources to indicate that the events are bailouts and are controversial, this information doesn't fit in this section. As the information is already covered in other sections, there is no issue with lost information if the section is deleted. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely correct - some of the information was already covered in other sections where I had origianlly inserted it at your request. When I created the new Criticism and controversy section I had neglected to remove this material from its original location in the article. I hope this has now been rectified.Ottawahitech (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As previously discussed, this information is very useful within its historical context and should remain there, independently of its inclusion in other places. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless notable, reliable sources can be provided to describe a consensus view that the provided government support was controversial, it is original research to categorize it in this manner, and should not be placed within the controversies section. I plan to remove it from the controversies section to comply with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand the notability & reliability principles of Wikipedia. The sources used should be reliable sources. It is not necessary to reach consensus on whether the source is or is not factually correct - that would be original research. If an article, which conforms to principles of notability and reliability takes a certain view, or in this particular case, brings up the issue of a "bailout", it is not necessary for Wikipedia to reach consensus on the use of this word. If you feel the article is unfair in its characterization, you can refute it by citing other articles with differing points of view. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There are currently no citations that characterize the specified government support as bailouts, or as controversies, and so the characterization is original research at this point. Isaac Lin (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

the article doesn't make it clear that the company still exists

it made the top companies as of april 2010 list. it is ranked 1516 with over 4 billion dollars in revenue and over 6 billion dollars in assets.Grmike (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)grmike

Indemnification claim

As previously discussed on the talk page for the Criticism of Nortel article, no source has been given for John Roth's filed claim as a criticism of Nortel, or controversial for Nortel. I propose removing the mention of John Roth's claim from the Criticism and controversy section. The information is already present in the History section and in Roth's article. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As no sources have been given, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, verifiability and reliable sources, I will proceed with this proposal. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section

Note that an overall introduction to the section is not required; each subsection can contain the relevant information pertaining to its statements.

In the AfD discussion for the Criticism of Nortel article, multiple editors have stated that the included statements must have sources indicating that the statements are appropriate for the topic (in this case, criticisms and controversies). There are no sources for this regarding the loans made by Export Development Canada, and therefore these statements have been made against consensus. Please do not continue to add this information to this section unless you are able to provide appropriate sources. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this article is not biography of a living person so the need for sources is not so strict as to warrant the immediate deletion of unsourced content, even if it's critical, unless it's very damaging (if untrue) and the veracity is truly dubious. Much more appropriate is to add a {{fact}} tag to the challenged content and give editors a reasonable amount of time to find a source. For critical material a couple of days is probably all that needs to be given. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily true: if the phrase is along the lines that "Person X was the recipient of ..." or "Person B is an expletive", then it spills into [[WP:BLP] territory... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that these issues regarding the EDC loans have been raised for months now, originally on this page, and then on the talk page for the Criticism of Nortel article. I have not come across any sources characterizing the loans as controversial, or being critical of them. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
All the material in the Criticism and controversy section should simply be integrated into the article at appropriate points in the history. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It is already. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there is one part that is not—retention bonuses for 2010. I will work on integrating that as well. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
@Isaac Lin: when you say "AfD discussion" I assume you mean this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Nortel ? If yes - please do not forget that not every wanabe wikipedian is familiar with this lingo - after all, to have consensus here we need more participants, don't you think? If no - what is AFD and which AFD are you referring too? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the articles for deletion discussion for the Criticism of Nortel article is what I was referring to. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
OK- in this case I have another request: either provide a reference to a Wikipedia page that clearly sets the rules for what is, and what is vnot, acceptable in a criticism section at Wikipedia, alternatively could you please summarize for the newbie's here your claim that "multiple editors have stated that the included statements must have sources indicating that the statements are appropriate for the topic (in this case, criticisms and controversies)" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Nortel ? Thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

─────── There are three core content policies. I have excerpted some key phrases from these policies; however, a full reading of the policies and associated guidelines is recommended.

  • Neutral point of view.
    • All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
    • Avoid stating opinions as facts.
    • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
    • Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion.
    • Prefer non-judgmental language.
    • Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
    • Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
  • Verifiability. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.
  • No original research.
    • To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.
    • Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
    • Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.

Another guideline is Wikipedia is not a place for news:

  • ...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Regarding comments in the discussion for deleting the Criticism of Nortel article and above:

  • Active Banana stated that Wikipedia was not a place where random bits of data can be arranged in a manner to push a point of view for or against a person or company.
  • Edison stated that a "report that someone was charged with something, or someone got a big bonus, is not criticism per se. 'Criticism' would be some editorial writer, congressman, consumer rights group, consumer testing magazine, or other spokesman actually 'criticizing' the company."
  • M.Nelson stated "There is nothing in those citations that explicitly criticises Nortel; by including that stuff here, you're declaring it a criticism, which is original research. Just because Fact X is referenced, we can't necessarily include it as a criticism: it can be included only if Nortel was criticised for Fact X is referenced."
  • DGG stated that "The presentation furthermore is very close to an attack piece."
  • Earlier in this thread, Born2cycle stated that after identifying content without a source, a couple of days is sufficient to give editors time to locate a source.

Isaac Lin (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion: you might be interested in Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program, where you can find someone who is actively looking for other editors to mentor. A mentor can help you become more experienced with Wikipedia's collaborative environment. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As no sources have been given, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, verifiability and reliable sources, I will proceed with removing the information regarding the loans made by Export Development Canada from the Criticisms and controversy section. The information will continue to be present in the History section. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sir! The material you have removed IS SOURCED. Please refrain from deletions when consensus has not been reached. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been told by Edison [3], M.nelson [4], and me [5] [6] that any criticism of Nortel must have a source explicitly criticizing Nortel on a specific basis. A source describing an event is not a criticism; a reliable source must quote a significant viewpoint expressing the specific criticism in question. You have participated in discussions pointing to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and no original research[7], [8], [9], [10]. It is disruptive editing to continue to ignore Wikipedia policies and the consensus viewpoint expressed by others, by continually re-adding this information. Please do not add the information on the Export Development Canada loans or on John Roth's indemnification claim to the Criticism and controversy section. (Note the information is present within the History section.) Isaac Lin (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of new information in the Ottawa Citizen today

Have a look at this article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Protective+gear+maker+Allen+Vanguard+weathers+corporate+wars/3731533/story.html#ixzz13ZJzr15Z there is a lot of material there - some of which I am sure can be a good fit for the Nortel criticism section. Can someone here help insert the info into the Nortel page? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do make note that no help is forthcoming! That does not seem to be the role of the "Editors".

Amiablecdn (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia from outside Wikipedia

A bit of background

For those who are new here: I have been editing the Nortel page since October of 2009 (see: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Nortel). In the beginning I tried to pacify Isaac Lin who has been the main contributor to the Nortel page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel). Unfortunately, we did not see eye to eye, as some of the history on the Nortel talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nortel#Merge_Agile_Communication_Environment) will indicate, so I decided the best approach was to separate his areas of interest from mine and tried to build another Wikipedia article named Criticism of Nortel. I assume from looking at some of the past discussions here, that there have been other contributors to the Nortel page who had trouble co-ordinating updates with Mr. Lin and who unlike me, chose to withdraw completely from contributing. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be best if we ALL withdraw from Wiki contributions until and unless they fix their own internal power freak problems.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to the suggestion Mr Lin posted above

I followed the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user provided by Isaac Lin (2 sections up from here) and since I am not a new wikipedian, ended up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests which surprisingly brought me full circle to the point where this whole saga began a couple of weeks ago, when I requested help in maintaining the Criticism of Nortel article (I will dig up my exact posting if anyone is interested?). Instead of help, as some of you may know, t my cry for help is what prompted the removal of the page from Wikipedia altogether! As another side note I would like to add that I have since posted twice to this Help area and did not receive an answer yet (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#.28Username_or_IP_removed.29) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why this whole saga is hurting Wikipedia

This is unfortunate because what we should all be concentrating on, in my opinion, is providing useful information to the Wikipedia audience, not playing Wikipedia politics. I spend time in discussion forums outside of Wikipedia and the vast majority of views I come across is that Wikipedia is/was a good idea but that Wikipedia is now too involved in internal politics and has stopped providing meaningful information. Would you like me to provide a verifiable source for stating this opinion? :-)

Unfortunately, even though I hate to admit it, I am fast coming to the same conclusion myself. In the time it took me to write this here (play politics), I could have been a lot more productive adding useful info to other areas of Wikipedia. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Regarding the Criticism of Nortel article, it added no additional information that was not already present (or could be reasonably included) in Nortel. By moving this information to a separate article, we're taking it out of context and actually reducing the effectiveness of the information, as any information is obviously better understood when presented in context. For the record, the criticism section of this article still needs work; in a perfect world, it would be integrated into the other sections of the article.
  • Taking a quick glance at the above discussions, I think that your beef with "internal politics" results from the fact that as you try to insert information, others (such as Lin) have reverted you (per WP:BRD), citing many (perhaps, confusingly, too many) policies as rationale. However, at their core, each of these policies have valid reasoning behind them, and when followed to a T, can result in featured articles such as BAE Systems. That article didn't end up featured because users added all "meaningful information" that they could find; rather, it achieved featured status by presenting that information through the filter of WP policy.
  • As a result, you might be correct in asserting that "Wikipedia is now too involved in internal politics and has stopped providing meaningful information," because information you consider to be "meaningful" has been removed due to policy (ie politics). However, the goal of Wikipedia (content-wise) is not to provide "meaningful information": it is rather to provide verified, neutral, notable (among other things) information. Wikipedia is not a newspaper of investigative journalism; it's a boring old encyclopedia. WP policies have been fine-tuned over the years to achieve this, and the general consensus is that the policies work pretty well. If you have ongoing disputes with policy, I'm afraid that the problem might not be the policy, but it might instead be you. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"the general consensus is that the policies work pretty well."

M. Nelson's personal "consensus" is that the policies work very well. There is considerable disagreement from current attempts to contribute and even more from those who choose no longer to contribute.

Amiablecdn (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bailout billion - Taxpayers to prop up mega-loser Nortel

"Bailout billion - Taxpayers to prop up mega-loser Nortel" is the title of an article which was used to reference the EDC information which Issacl has removed as "information not sourced as criticisms or controversies".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nortel&action=historysubmit&diff=330746694&oldid=329186142 Ottawahitech (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page banners

Given that the usual location for the banners is at the top of the talk page (and instructions such as those contained in Template:Talk_header is best suited for the top of the page), I believe it would be best to place them in the habitual place where editors will expect them. Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout contains more detailed guidance. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize it would also pose a usability issue, when using the "New section" link to add a new section to the talk page—since the section is added at the bottom of the page, the banners will no longer be at the bottom. I am moving the banners back to the top of the page to avoid this problem. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Amiablecdn additions

I have a number of issues with Amiablecdn (talk · contribs)'s addition to this article:

  1. The very start is copy/pasted from [11]
  2. The majority of it is completely unreferenced, such as bits about "Emperor", "HELLLOOO", and connections to GHWB
  3. That ref might not even be reliable, as it conflicts with the Nortel.com ref: [12] (regarding the time of Stern's promotion/whatever)

Furthermore, might I add that while Amiablecdn might be an expert on this topic, credentials mean nothing on Wikipedia because there's no way for us to verify them. Keep in mind that we can only use information from reliable, published sources. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Also BNR continued to exist as a separate corporate entity for some time well after Stern's departure. It was not until 1996 when Nortel integrated BNR into its operations and ceased using the BNR brand. Note the resume pointed to by the editor shows employment at BNR in 1994. Plus the dates used in the signature left by the editor on my talk page do not correspond with the employment dates shown in the resume. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the described location of the event in question, surrounded by five tiers of balconies, corresponds to Lab 5 of BNR's Carling campus in Ottawa. However, Lab 5 was not officially opened until May 13, 1993, after Stern was no longer with Northern Telecom. (See "A typical day at Bell-Northern's Lab 5" by Dominque Lacasse, The Ottawa Citizen, May 13, 1993, p E.1.) This does not correspond with the story describing a meeting with Stern as the new Northern Telecom chairman. Perhaps a meeting with Jean Monty is being recalled, who had been chairman of Nortel for four years when use of the BNR brand was discontinued, or a meeting with one of the other chairmen. Nonetheless, as noted by others, reliable, verifiable sources must be provided. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be willing to discuss the MULTIPLE errors by "Editors" and contributors (or even my own errors on recollection) however I am not willing to be treated as an incompetent contributor to Wikipedia. I was there, I was heavily involved in all of the practical, political, organizational aspects, opinions, and conflicts of the time and I have responded to EVERY request for adjustments suggested (actually insisted and aggresively asserted) by "Editors" to adhere to Wiki "policy"... only to be blocked, attacked, and insulted.

I still believe an accurate history is of value although I now doubt that Wiki is the place where that might happen.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Recollection" does not matter anyway ... that would be original research and is never permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So, the "original" sources are not able to contribute to Wikipedia.

That seems both interesting, self-defeating, and downright idiotic. Perhaps Wiki prefers second-hand, third-hand, and grandmother's rumours ?? That is what they INSIST on.

Interesting. Amiablecdn (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, "original" sources are not able to contribute to Wikipedia, per WP:No original research. Wikipedia only allows material that is cited to reliable, published sources. This is because we can't confirm the accuracy of claims such as yours, whereas if a newspaper was to publish it we would assume that the newspaper checked their facts. Sorry, there are no exceptions to this policy. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. I am a reliable AND published source.

Next concern? Amiablecdn (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the published materials that back up your addition to the article? All information here must be published elsewhere first. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I already have

Amiablecdn (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As I previously stated, the two references you gave did not back up your addition and the reliability of one was questionable. Look, we're not making any progress here; I don't have the time or patience to deal with someone who won't take the time to learn why they're breaking policy. Please read WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS, and if you think you have an addition that passes those, propose it here and we'll discuss its inclusion. Until then I have no interest in continuing this discussion. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I have the patience to deal with a total control freak. \

Please proceed to provide an accurate, detailed history of NorTel as you obviously assume only you can do.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I still believe an accurate history is of value although I now seriously doubt that Wiki, or Wiki controlled by arbitrary Analists is the place where that might happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiablecdn (talkcontribs) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I know how to make a paper airplane.

Amiablecdn (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So the perfectly valid submission which adheres to every Wiki policy is removed by another "Editor" who is not following Wiki policy.
Is it also Wiki policy to send a brown shirt out to every "Editor" ?
Heil Jimmy.
Amiablecdn (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Amiablecdn is now discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Brownshirts.[dead link] Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A WikiReviewer deleted the above-referenced "discussion" and Dougweller's responses, since it wasn't the proper forum & was mostly venting on Amiablecdn's part. Text may be viewed in the page history for interested parties. — DennisDallas (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

John Roth's claim

As previously discussed, please do not add the information on John Roth's filed claim against Nortel to the Criticism and controversy section without a source describing it as a criticism. Multiple warnings have already been provided; please do not continue to edit disruptively. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Multiple warnings? Disruptive edits? What is a "source describing it as a criticism"? Please try to respond in simple language without using wiki-jargon, without sending the readers here on a wild-goose chase, and without the use of intimidation. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to put John Roth's filed claim against Nortel in the Criticism and controversy section, then you need someone of note explicitly criticizing Nortel for John Roth's claim, or calling it a controversy for Nortel. This has been explained multiple times by multiple editors in many different ways using many different approaches, on this talk page, and in the discussion for deleting the Criticism of Nortel page. All of the commenters have been as plain-spoken as possible. I am confident that someone who is not a new editor has been able to fully understand these comments. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I hope the new version of Nortel#Nortel_ex-CEO_files_as_a_creditor_seeking_.241_billion_from_the_the_proceeds_of_bankruptcy, complete with new sources, satisfies you and all other "multiple editors". Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest combining the controversies with the Nortel pension and health plans into one section, in order to establish a more complete picture and to avoid the choppiness of many little sections, and including the information about the lawsuits within them. Then Roth's claim can be one point described as part of the lawsuits. Thanks for working towards a consensus on this topic. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────

Article introduction

In my opinion there are other areas of the article that deserve much more attention. To me at least, the article reads like a laundry list. There should be more emphasis on the human element. For example I would get rid of the following section in the introduction and replace it with something telling the reader how many people used to work for this multinational company until fairly recently and what happened to them:

Ericsson purchased Nortel's CDMA wireless business and LTE access technology,[8] Nortel's share in its joint venture with LG Electronics,[9] the Multi-Service Switch business unit,[10] and, in partnership with Kapsch, the GSM unit.[11] Avaya bought the Enterprise Solutions business unit, including Nortel's stake in Nortel Government Solutions and DiamondWare;[12] Genband acquired the Carrier VoIP and Application Solutions (CVAS) unit;[13] Ciena Corporation bought the Metro Ethernet Networks unit;[14] and Hitachi purchased the Next Generation Packet Core assets.[15]

What I would like most though is to have more editors involved in this work. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate for the disposition of Nortel's major assets to be noted, and this does cover to some extent what happened to Nortel employees. Of course there are many others who were let go. The introduction ought to be expanded to cover Nortel's entire history; I'll see if I get the chance to do it at some point. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is some fresh info someone can add to the Nortel article (the following are two excerpts from two different versions of what appears to be the same story):
Final bids are due within weeks for patents valued at more than $1 billion that are being sold by Nortel Network....
More..
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0923496320101209
NORTEL EMPIRE
The patent sale is one of the final gasps for Nortel, which at one time boasted a market capitalization of more than $250 billion and had some 90,000 employees. By November, it had raised around $3.2 billion for creditors by selling off telecom holdings...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE6B84FO20101209?ca=rdt

Ottawahitech (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Confusion over billion dollar parachute

I'm sorry it isn't clear enough for me in the article. Did John Roth get the billion dollars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaru (talkcontribs) 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation for liquidation

Since the citation that was modified in the lead paragraph with this edit was only required to source the announcement of selling off all operations, I replaced the link with a citation that provided the same information and was served directly from the publisher. All things being equal, it is better to link to an original copy of the source. I propose replacing the citation added in this edit with an equivalent link to an article that sources the sell-off announcement and is being provided directly by the original publisher, given that there are many available sources on the web that fit this criteria. isaacl (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual we disagree.
The article says: In June 2009, the company announced it would cease operations and sell off all of its business units.[7]- and the reference provided is the same one that has been in this article since June 2009, Why replace the reference by one talking in circles about a Nokia deal? What's wrong with the AP article that comes right to the point in its opening sentence:
(AP) -- Nortel Networks, once a technology giant, has decided to sell itself off in pieces rather than attempt to emerge from bankruptcy as a restructured company."
( "the citation" was not modified, it was only updated to remove a dead link) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My primary concern was the reliability of the site, but upon further review, it seems to be a reasonably stable one, and so I have no objection to using it as an indirect reference. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Took 40 minutes to revert vandalism?

Looks like this page has been deserted by wikipedians. It took a longggg time to have recent vandalism reverted. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nortel&action=historysubmit&diff=454128138&oldid=454067338 Ottawahitech (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unsatisfied with my efforts here. Hopefully whichever actual part of your life prevented you yourself from fixing the problem before me has been tidied up now, and you can be first on the scene next time. Perhaps you should raise this at WP:VOLUNTEER. :) Franamax (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
OOPS me and my big mouth :-) I did not mean to criticize anyone, actually you deserve a medal for patrolling this page which seems to have been deserted by others. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to say "You have 874 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)" ... I can only watch so much, and this was not horrific vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is not too offtopic here, but is this how wikipedia fights vanalism, by depending on all of us to track our watchlist carefully? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much, at least where some familiarity with the subject is required. The abuse filter is the first line of defense (rules written by volunteer editors, run by the software on every edit); next is the RC patrollers (volunteers using tools like Huggle to check the incoming stream of new edits); and the third line is people checking their watchlists regularly and vetting each edit to an article they're familiar with. The first two sets can catch the obvious vandalism, but it is the volunteers on the "third line" who catch the more subtle stuff, the disinformation, sneaky changing of numbers, etc. I got my start editing by noticing the Moon orbits 15 m above the Earth, which seemed pretty dangerous, so I started keeping an eye out to be sure it didn't get that low again. :) Franamax (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the other big line of defense, User:ClueBot NG, another volunteer effort that catches a lot of vandalism using fairly sophisticated rulesets. Us watchlisters are the fourth line I guess, but in a way, the most important one, as we spot the stuff everyone else misses. And to be comprehensive, the last line of defense is our readers who see the vandalism long after it happened and either fix it or ask questions. Franamax (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I once mooned a whole crowd at about 3m above the earth :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Franamax for providing such a detailed explanation. I still have to find the time to drill thru all the refs you provided - but wonder if such a succinct response is also available elsewhere on Wikipedia for those wikipedians who do not follow discussions here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Add a section for spun off companies?

Nortel incubated a few companies that later became independent such as Entrust. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a list article describing companies who were spun off Bell-Northern Research could be viable topic. (If you've seen the family tree for the Ottawa-Gatineau high tech region created by Doyletech, you'll get an idea of the genealogy.) isaacl (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Agile Communication Environment

  • Oppose - there are already pages for all the products, as far as I can see. Merging them into this article would make it too long. --Duncan (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Page is getting to long. The page should follow Microsoft's page and have the products on seperate pages.

206.53.153.153 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I also agree. If this is a product developed by Nortel, then it should be simply listed along with the rest of the products -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While the product page is a little sparse on information adding it to the main page would prevent or deter others from adding more detail regarding this technology/product. The length of the main article alone would deter greater detail from being added. I do agree that it should follow Microsoft's format of seperating pages for products.

Has the Agile Communication Environment met the criteria for notability? If not, then it may not warrant a separate page. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)



History of Nortel

I would like to get discussion/feedback on a History of Nortel page, like History of IBM, History of Microsoft History of Google, History of BMW and others. Geek2003 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it warrants a separate page at present, as the history of Nortel comprises most of the Nortel article. I would suggest separating the product list into a separate list article, as the multi-category list is unwieldy in the middle of this article. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I do think it would be excellent to add more information on the history of Nortel. I think that's exactly the sort of information that's most useful in an encyclopedia. I somewhat agree with Isaac Lin, in that I think splitting the product info out to a different page should be done before splitting the history out. At the same time, I think the ideal end situation would be a summary section on history with {{main}} link to a more comprehensive history page. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that moving the products to a separate page is needed first; like the IBM page under history has a link to List of IBM products this makes the page look much better. But also like the IBM page has a link to the History of IBM that details the 100 years of IBM, we should start to detail the 100 years of Nortel, Northern Electric, and Northern Telecom. The history presently is extremely brief and summarized, for information covering 100 years. Geek2003 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article would have almost no content without the history, so at the moment, I believe it is sufficient to keep the history within the main article. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Most articles that I have observed on Wikipedia begin with a summary history section that sets the foundation for the rest of the article. The Nortel page is no different in this respect from other articles and yet other companies are not denied a more detailed history section 68.114.34.189 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The Nortel article would become mostly a stub if the history information were extracted from it. I believe it is best to improve the Nortel article, as it has lots of room to contain more information, and will for now avoid having to maintain both a summary and the complete history. In general, Wikipedia articles are split only as length issues start to make a single article more difficult to manage. The article's current length is far from being problematic, though. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is already in line with other articles in Wikipedia where there is an overview history and a more detailed history page. If you added the detailed history page into this article then this article would be too long and the detailed history would need to be broken out on a separate page. The content, format, and length of this article and the summary history section is very similar to the Microsoft page. ManagementMan (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Main Nortel article has a good brief history; I am talking about a detailed history like - Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel/History of Nortel Geek2003 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your intent; at present, I believe additional information can be accommodated within this article and so there is no need yet to have a separate article. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Nortel is a foundational company for North America that is over 100 years old with a rich heritage like AT&T. I feel that a small section within this article would be very restrictive and would not allow the level of detail afforded many other companies. Take the example of History of BMW this is very useful information that would be too long if left in the main article for BMW ManagementMan (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for a small section; given the sparseness of other information, the article can quite comfortably hold a great deal of history information within it, as many other articles do. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has shown regular contributions month to month and is growing. It's a similar length to that of much larger companies with more massive product lines. If you remove the Summary history section (that many other companies have of a similar length) from this article it would still have significant length in order to prevent it from being classified as a stub. If you added the detailed history section to this article then it would be too long and out of line in terms of length when compared to other articles like that of Microsoft. ManagementMan (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that the products section is removed, the only sections left would be Corporate Information and Accounting Scandal. There really is plenty of room in the current article for more information; the existing Microsoft article is about 40% longer than the Nortel article. I think once this article is given more meat, then the avenues for splitting it can be investigated with a more complete picture. It seems premature to do so in the article's current state. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem premature from the perspective that IBM only has a short history summary and that article was not prevented from splitting content into different more-detailed sections. Why are we talking about removing the Products section from the Nortel page now in addition to the history summary? These comments are a clear cut case of non-productive over-scrutiny of this article. The overall length of the main article is well in line with the overall length of articles about many other companies which are not being over-scrutinized. ManagementMan (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In comparison with the IBM article and others mentioned, the Nortel article falls well short in non-history information. By all means, please do add notable content with neutral, third-party citations, and bring the article to a state where breaking it out into separate articles becomes a more pressing matter. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As this is classified as still under development or at least it appears to be. My opinion would be to allow the author to continue. I see this as valuable information, just as valuable as othe tech companies that you are not complaining about. Sorry if I offended anyone. Heliumhel (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion

  • Thank you for the discussion.
  • Only one objection (Isaac Lin) to the History of Nortel page.
  • The history of Nortel page is already over 5 pages long, and growing. I agree we have more information that can be documented on the Nortel main page.
  • I will await others to add more inputs.
  • I also am asking for help on the work of the History of Nortel page in the project area.
  • We should start adding more information (other than History) on the main page. I have started documenting Acquisitions, please expand. We should also start a divestitures section, and if we can put together all the logos. Any other sections that should be added? Geek2003 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, notable events such as business transactions should be integrated within the main text of the article and not placed in a separate section. Generally speaking, the Wikipedia community prefers for an article's text to give a holistic account. For example, the importance of a given purchase is best understood when placed in context of the rest of the company's activities at that time. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything that says all notable events have to be integrated into main article text. Can you provide a reference, please? I've seen quite a bit about dividing things up: WP:SUMMARY, WP:SIZE, WP:SPLIT, WP:BETTER#SIZE. Heck, look at IBM, the "History" section is two sentences. While I think it makes sense to provide a paragraph or two in a "History" section at Nortel, there's a lot of good stuff in Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel/History of Nortel, and once that's turned into article prose, there's no way we should attempt to keep it all at Nortel. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note this is apart from the proposal to create a separate history article. Geek2003 had created an Acquisitions section that listed some transactions in bullet point form, without citations. As you've noted, it is better off to have this in prose; notable information is also best integrated within the main text of whatever article it is in, rather than being placed in a separate section, isolated from other events that occurred at the same time. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Isaac Lin, above several times you are an advocate for adding more content. Please help us constructively by adding more content, modifying or integrating the content that is added or add citations/notes/comments to content that require citations, expansion or modification. Most of us are new to Wikipedia, comparatively; as I look at your account (Created on 21 January 2006 at 15:39). We can all benefit from your years of experience. Everyone is very busy in real life; so it would be unfortunate to stifle or alienate any productivity on the page. The goal is to collaboratively add and modify the added information to grow the article into a Good or Featured article. You stated that Acquisition Lists are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, so I went searching for a rule and looked at several other company web pages. I have not found a rule yet, but several other company web pages use lists for acquisitions, and surprisingly the assessment of the pages are generally high with an average B-Class articles rating. (Listed Below)

Isaac Lin, I do need your help!! I found allot of information on the French Nortel Wikipedia web page at (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel) that could help us add to the content of this web page but I have no idea of how to get it translated/integrated, or how to request assistance in translations from another languages wiki system. Could you please assist us with this? Geek2003 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noted, I have made significant contributions to this article. Just like you, time unfortunately hinders me from taking on too much. I do my best to find citations for everything I add, which is very time consuming. It is unfortunately very hard to find reliable, neutral, third-party sources about a company's current state of affairs, as those who know best typically have conflicts of interest and so are vulnerable to claims of bias. I do plan on trying to integrate the Accounting Scandal section into the rest of the article; a while back I had separated it out to draw out any updates about it in one place, but now that it has reached a resolution, it ought to be restored to the company's history.
Regarding the French Wikipedia article, do note that the warning banners at the top indicate that the article is not written in encyclopedic style, and the tone is too much like promotional material. It has lot of bullet points and isolated facts, which is generally not recommended. I do not wish the failings of other articles to be propagated to this one; lists of facts are typically flagged for integration into the main text. (Specific lists may be notable in themselves; the history of spinoffs from Bell-Northern Research and Nortel would make a good article on its own.) Isaac Lin (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. I think having an acquisitions list is fine, sometimes a list is the best way to present information. It needs to be referenced though, and the original one was not. As to the other question of breaking off the history, I don't think that would be useful presently. The section is not cumbersome or overly large. In my opinion it would have to be about twice as large before it would justify being spun off into a separate article. - SimonP (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you SimonP, I see from your account you have been on wikipedia since 2001. SimonP‎(oversight, administrator) (Created on 10 December 2001 at 07:20) Geek2003 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Z Section

Other than presumably being the last CEO of Nortel, I don't see any reason for Mike to have his own section. I suggest this content get merged into "After the Internet bubble" and "Protection from creditors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.128.185.9 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Government funding to Nortel over the years

I believe this is information that should be available to Wikipedia readers. Nortel has benefitted from taxpayer funding many times and this is a matter of public interest.

How do others here feel about the addition of a new section for this purpose? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a separate section is warranted, as placing events within context of the company's history helps with understanding (for example, knowing that deregulation occurred prior to the creation of BCE as a parent company to Bell Canada and Northern Telecom). Isaac Lin (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how this would work. For example where would you insert the one dollar 100-year lease Nortel got from the NCC for building its flagship Carling complex in Ottawa? [13]? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be placed in the History section, in chronological order when the lease began, preferably together with discussion of the construction that ensued. (On a side note, the reference you provided doesn't mention a one-dollar 100-year lease, so another citation would be needed.) Isaac Lin (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am working on finding references for the lease which dates back more than 25 years - I could certainly use some help there :-) In the meantime I inserted information about another government bailout that happened in 2003. The link to the online version of the article is dead - as are many other links to media articles. The Canadian media does not normally maintain access to their "out of date" articles, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I still believe there should be a separate section dedicated to taxpayer funding of Nortel over the years. I just located another article with information regarding another $300 million taxpayer support to Nortel: Feds guarantee $300 million loan to break up Nortel published Sunday, June 21, 2009.

This bring us up to a total of three separate recorded incidents of taxpayer support extended to Nortel, even without the $1 lease which I am still hoping will turn up. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe grouping together various support initiatives over Nortel's 100+ history into one section would be the most informative way to present this. I believe putting the initiatives in the appropriate place within the company's history gives the best understanding of how these events have influenced the company. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

John Roth files claim

I did not like my initial entry on this topic but I like this revision even less. "As insurance against judgments" attributes a motive to Mr. Roth’s actions, no? Is this considered "encyclopaedic"?

Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what an indemnification is, and the cited article describes it as such. On the encyclopaedic note, to be honest, I don't find the filing to be all that notable—if the claim actually gets approved and Roth loses any of the filed suits, that would be more interesting. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose moving this information to John Roth's article: as a filed claim with no ruling or other disposition at this time, it is more notable within the context of Roth's career rather than within Nortel's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, then I will proceed with this proposal. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this information should be moved out of the Nortel article. $1,000 million is a lot of money for one former employee when Nortel is now negotiating $57 million deals with tens of thousands of other former employees. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the claim is approved, then it would become a notable part of Nortel's history. Until then, though, it's just someone asking for something that hasn't been given out yet. The negotiated pension settlements will actually pay out money, and has an immediate effect on Nortel's business. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why so many names for the same company?

In Canada some Nortel employees belong to Nortel Networks and others to Nortel Technology. If memory serves, it is something to do with the tax authorities (technology gets R&D tax credits, I think). I added it to the introduction - not sure where else to add this name. Any suggestions? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nortel also uses these names: Nortel Networks Ltd, Nortel Networks Global corporation, Nortel Networks International corporation, Nortel Networks Technology Corporation. Are all these companies currently undergoing reorganization? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
All of its operations are being sold off. Like any large multinational, its corporate structure is complicated by operating in different countries, mergers, acquisitions, and other re-organizations over the years (and indeed tax implications are often a key factor). The spin-out of Nortel from BCE resulted in Nortel Networks Corporation as the parent company for various subsidiaries. Nortel Technology is a descendant of Bell-Northern Research, after Nortel bought out Bell Canada's 50% share and assumed full ownership. Most BNR employees became direct employees of Nortel; some more research-oriented groups became part of Nortel Technology. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of employees worldwide

The box lists the number of employees as 32,550 (February 2008), with no reference. I wonder how this number was arrived at. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History from 2010 onward

Not sure what changes have raised a concern: no content has been removed; a small bit of additional explanation has been added, and the sections were merged to avoid too many small sections, which would give them undue importance versus the other sections in the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Executive compensation is a highly charged topic everywhere, not only Nortel (actually I was surprised to see no mention of previous occurances in the article). Your change removed the previous heading which was not quite as politically charged as "executive compensation", but still described the contents of the section fairly accurately , and replaced it with a plain-vanilla heading that is not at all descriptive. As far as the number of 2010 employees - I was not sure how to approach it, since the number quoted in the article box is not referenced. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The subsections within the "History" section delineate different periods of time within the history of the company; "Retention of top employees" doesn't fit this pattern. The number of employees is given in the "Business structure" section under "Corporate information", with a citation, and so the information can be updated there. I think the information on the retention bonuses fits well within the "Liquidation" section for now, and there is no current pressing need for a separate heading. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to Nortel#Windup section

The following text has been introduced into the article: "in June Nortel announced that it no longer planned to emerge from bankruptcy protection" using this as a ref: http://www2.nortel.com/go/news_detail.jsp?cat_id=-8055&oid=100257883&locale=en-US

However, one of the sentences included this ref says: "The company will assess other restructuring alternatives for these businesses in the event it is unable to maximize value through sales."

Is this not a contradiction? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The press release states the following: "Nortel will apply to delist its common shares and the NNL preferred shares from trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and expects that the creditor protection proceedings will ultimately result in the cancellation of these equity interests. ... Based upon today's announcements and Nortel's current assessment of its businesses in the context of its creditor protection proceedings, Nortel does not expect that the Company's common shareholders or the NNL preferred shareholders will receive any value from the creditor protection proceedings and expects that the proceedings will ultimately result in the cancellation of these equity interests." Isaac Lin (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Executive compensation

Just to continue the discussion we started at Talk:Nortel/Archives/2011#History_from_2010_onward - I wonder if the topic executive compensation can be properly documented simply by inserting it in chronological order within the other sections? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes—it doesn't make sense to have a section on this topic at the same level as the "History" section, and the relevance of this topic to the company is best placed within context of the company's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Topics such as executive compensation and other criticisms of Nortel should have a dedicated criticism section. Why not provide a "Criticism" section which appears in most other major company related Wikipedia articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Though naturally notable commentary from reliable sources may be relevant for this article, note that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy nor a place for news, so an appropriate balance must be struck. Your changes have moved history information outside of the "History" section so I am reverting the changes back in order to keep the company's history within the appropriate section. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new section Nortel#Criticism_and_controversy Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
As usual, be sure to find reliable sources, avoid editorial comments, and avoid giving undue weight to specific events. Nortel has a long history and care must be taken to not go into an excessive amount of detail for some events without giving similar amount of attention to similar events at different points in the company's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tabulate liquidation results

Wouldn't it be nice to show how much money Nortel netted from selling various assets? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Reduced pension benefits

The article has been copyedited and now the words in the article to say this:

pension benefits were reduced due to the pension fund being underfunded

However, I believe this statement is not factually correct, at least not in Canada where pension payments have not (yet) been reduced. The article I referenced used this wording (which I believe is more accurate):

Pensioners, many of whom, sources say, are widows of former Nortel workers, could lose up to 40 percent of their income.

Ottawahitech (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The original statement is factually correct. I'm a Nortel (UK) pensioner and my Nortel pension benefits have been reduced and all future inflation related increases blocked due to the pension fund being underfunded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.96.56 (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi 78.146.96.56, Are you saying that your pension benefits have already been reduced? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Government support

Please note not all instances of government support are bailouts, and government support is not by default controversial; notable, reliable sources must be given. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed first before it is reverted. You have wiped a whole section out [14]before giving others an opportunity to counter Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Note by the bold, revert, discuss process, once you make a change and it is reverted, a discussion follows. As you made the original addition and it was reverted, the next step is to discuss further, not to re-insert your changes, which can be considered to be disruptive editing. In addition, the information is still within the article, just not within the section you created. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Government bailout

The word "bailout" was introduced in the second reference which you have removed.

The government resisted characterizing its position on Nortel as a bailout, insisting that whatever EDC did was on a commercial basis.

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This sentence does not call the $30 million loan a bailout; it states the government's position on the loan. Without notable, reliable sources to indicate that the events are bailouts and are controversial, this information doesn't fit in this section. As the information is already covered in other sections, there is no issue with lost information if the section is deleted. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely correct - some of the information was already covered in other sections where I had origianlly inserted it at your request. When I created the new Criticism and controversy section I had neglected to remove this material from its original location in the article. I hope this has now been rectified.Ottawahitech (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As previously discussed, this information is very useful within its historical context and should remain there, independently of its inclusion in other places. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless notable, reliable sources can be provided to describe a consensus view that the provided government support was controversial, it is original research to categorize it in this manner, and should not be placed within the controversies section. I plan to remove it from the controversies section to comply with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand the notability & reliability principles of Wikipedia. The sources used should be reliable sources. It is not necessary to reach consensus on whether the source is or is not factually correct - that would be original research. If an article, which conforms to principles of notability and reliability takes a certain view, or in this particular case, brings up the issue of a "bailout", it is not necessary for Wikipedia to reach consensus on the use of this word. If you feel the article is unfair in its characterization, you can refute it by citing other articles with differing points of view. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There are currently no citations that characterize the specified government support as bailouts, or as controversies, and so the characterization is original research at this point. Isaac Lin (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

the article doesn't make it clear that the company still exists

it made the top companies as of april 2010 list. it is ranked 1516 with over 4 billion dollars in revenue and over 6 billion dollars in assets.Grmike (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)grmike

Indemnification claim

As previously discussed on the talk page for the Criticism of Nortel article, no source has been given for John Roth's filed claim as a criticism of Nortel, or controversial for Nortel. I propose removing the mention of John Roth's claim from the Criticism and controversy section. The information is already present in the History section and in Roth's article. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As no sources have been given, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, verifiability and reliable sources, I will proceed with this proposal. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section

Note that an overall introduction to the section is not required; each subsection can contain the relevant information pertaining to its statements.

In the AfD discussion for the Criticism of Nortel article, multiple editors have stated that the included statements must have sources indicating that the statements are appropriate for the topic (in this case, criticisms and controversies). There are no sources for this regarding the loans made by Export Development Canada, and therefore these statements have been made against consensus. Please do not continue to add this information to this section unless you are able to provide appropriate sources. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this article is not biography of a living person so the need for sources is not so strict as to warrant the immediate deletion of unsourced content, even if it's critical, unless it's very damaging (if untrue) and the veracity is truly dubious. Much more appropriate is to add a {{fact}} tag to the challenged content and give editors a reasonable amount of time to find a source. For critical material a couple of days is probably all that needs to be given. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily true: if the phrase is along the lines that "Person X was the recipient of ..." or "Person B is an expletive", then it spills into [[WP:BLP] territory... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that these issues regarding the EDC loans have been raised for months now, originally on this page, and then on the talk page for the Criticism of Nortel article. I have not come across any sources characterizing the loans as controversial, or being critical of them. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
All the material in the Criticism and controversy section should simply be integrated into the article at appropriate points in the history. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It is already. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there is one part that is not—retention bonuses for 2010. I will work on integrating that as well. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
@Isaac Lin: when you say "AfD discussion" I assume you mean this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Nortel ? If yes - please do not forget that not every wanabe wikipedian is familiar with this lingo - after all, to have consensus here we need more participants, don't you think? If no - what is AFD and which AFD are you referring too? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the articles for deletion discussion for the Criticism of Nortel article is what I was referring to. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
OK- in this case I have another request: either provide a reference to a Wikipedia page that clearly sets the rules for what is, and what is vnot, acceptable in a criticism section at Wikipedia, alternatively could you please summarize for the newbie's here your claim that "multiple editors have stated that the included statements must have sources indicating that the statements are appropriate for the topic (in this case, criticisms and controversies)" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Nortel ? Thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

─────── There are three core content policies. I have excerpted some key phrases from these policies; however, a full reading of the policies and associated guidelines is recommended.

  • Neutral point of view.
    • All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
    • Avoid stating opinions as facts.
    • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
    • Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion.
    • Prefer non-judgmental language.
    • Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
    • Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
  • Verifiability. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.
  • No original research.
    • To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.
    • Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
    • Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.

Another guideline is Wikipedia is not a place for news:

  • ...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Regarding comments in the discussion for deleting the Criticism of Nortel article and above:

  • Active Banana stated that Wikipedia was not a place where random bits of data can be arranged in a manner to push a point of view for or against a person or company.
  • Edison stated that a "report that someone was charged with something, or someone got a big bonus, is not criticism per se. 'Criticism' would be some editorial writer, congressman, consumer rights group, consumer testing magazine, or other spokesman actually 'criticizing' the company."
  • M.Nelson stated "There is nothing in those citations that explicitly criticises Nortel; by including that stuff here, you're declaring it a criticism, which is original research. Just because Fact X is referenced, we can't necessarily include it as a criticism: it can be included only if Nortel was criticised for Fact X is referenced."
  • DGG stated that "The presentation furthermore is very close to an attack piece."
  • Earlier in this thread, Born2cycle stated that after identifying content without a source, a couple of days is sufficient to give editors time to locate a source.

Isaac Lin (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion: you might be interested in Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program, where you can find someone who is actively looking for other editors to mentor. A mentor can help you become more experienced with Wikipedia's collaborative environment. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As no sources have been given, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, verifiability and reliable sources, I will proceed with removing the information regarding the loans made by Export Development Canada from the Criticisms and controversy section. The information will continue to be present in the History section. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sir! The material you have removed IS SOURCED. Please refrain from deletions when consensus has not been reached. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been told by Edison [15], M.nelson [16], and me [17] [18] that any criticism of Nortel must have a source explicitly criticizing Nortel on a specific basis. A source describing an event is not a criticism; a reliable source must quote a significant viewpoint expressing the specific criticism in question. You have participated in discussions pointing to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and no original research[19], [20], [21], [22]. It is disruptive editing to continue to ignore Wikipedia policies and the consensus viewpoint expressed by others, by continually re-adding this information. Please do not add the information on the Export Development Canada loans or on John Roth's indemnification claim to the Criticism and controversy section. (Note the information is present within the History section.) Isaac Lin (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of new information in the Ottawa Citizen today

Have a look at this article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Protective+gear+maker+Allen+Vanguard+weathers+corporate+wars/3731533/story.html#ixzz13ZJzr15Z there is a lot of material there - some of which I am sure can be a good fit for the Nortel criticism section. Can someone here help insert the info into the Nortel page? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do make note that no help is forthcoming! That does not seem to be the role of the "Editors".

Amiablecdn (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia from outside Wikipedia

A bit of background

For those who are new here: I have been editing the Nortel page since October of 2009 (see: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Nortel). In the beginning I tried to pacify Isaac Lin who has been the main contributor to the Nortel page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel). Unfortunately, we did not see eye to eye, as some of the history on the Nortel talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nortel#Merge_Agile_Communication_Environment) will indicate, so I decided the best approach was to separate his areas of interest from mine and tried to build another Wikipedia article named Criticism of Nortel. I assume from looking at some of the past discussions here, that there have been other contributors to the Nortel page who had trouble co-ordinating updates with Mr. Lin and who unlike me, chose to withdraw completely from contributing. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be best if we ALL withdraw from Wiki contributions until and unless they fix their own internal power freak problems.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to the suggestion Mr Lin posted above

I followed the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user provided by Isaac Lin (2 sections up from here) and since I am not a new wikipedian, ended up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests which surprisingly brought me full circle to the point where this whole saga began a couple of weeks ago, when I requested help in maintaining the Criticism of Nortel article (I will dig up my exact posting if anyone is interested?). Instead of help, as some of you may know, t my cry for help is what prompted the removal of the page from Wikipedia altogether! As another side note I would like to add that I have since posted twice to this Help area and did not receive an answer yet (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#.28Username_or_IP_removed.29) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why this whole saga is hurting Wikipedia

This is unfortunate because what we should all be concentrating on, in my opinion, is providing useful information to the Wikipedia audience, not playing Wikipedia politics. I spend time in discussion forums outside of Wikipedia and the vast majority of views I come across is that Wikipedia is/was a good idea but that Wikipedia is now too involved in internal politics and has stopped providing meaningful information. Would you like me to provide a verifiable source for stating this opinion? :-)

Unfortunately, even though I hate to admit it, I am fast coming to the same conclusion myself. In the time it took me to write this here (play politics), I could have been a lot more productive adding useful info to other areas of Wikipedia. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Regarding the Criticism of Nortel article, it added no additional information that was not already present (or could be reasonably included) in Nortel. By moving this information to a separate article, we're taking it out of context and actually reducing the effectiveness of the information, as any information is obviously better understood when presented in context. For the record, the criticism section of this article still needs work; in a perfect world, it would be integrated into the other sections of the article.
  • Taking a quick glance at the above discussions, I think that your beef with "internal politics" results from the fact that as you try to insert information, others (such as Lin) have reverted you (per WP:BRD), citing many (perhaps, confusingly, too many) policies as rationale. However, at their core, each of these policies have valid reasoning behind them, and when followed to a T, can result in featured articles such as BAE Systems. That article didn't end up featured because users added all "meaningful information" that they could find; rather, it achieved featured status by presenting that information through the filter of WP policy.
  • As a result, you might be correct in asserting that "Wikipedia is now too involved in internal politics and has stopped providing meaningful information," because information you consider to be "meaningful" has been removed due to policy (ie politics). However, the goal of Wikipedia (content-wise) is not to provide "meaningful information": it is rather to provide verified, neutral, notable (among other things) information. Wikipedia is not a newspaper of investigative journalism; it's a boring old encyclopedia. WP policies have been fine-tuned over the years to achieve this, and the general consensus is that the policies work pretty well. If you have ongoing disputes with policy, I'm afraid that the problem might not be the policy, but it might instead be you. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"the general consensus is that the policies work pretty well."

M. Nelson's personal "consensus" is that the policies work very well. There is considerable disagreement from current attempts to contribute and even more from those who choose no longer to contribute.

Amiablecdn (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bailout billion - Taxpayers to prop up mega-loser Nortel

"Bailout billion - Taxpayers to prop up mega-loser Nortel" is the title of an article which was used to reference the EDC information which Issacl has removed as "information not sourced as criticisms or controversies".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nortel&action=historysubmit&diff=330746694&oldid=329186142 Ottawahitech (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page banners

Given that the usual location for the banners is at the top of the talk page (and instructions such as those contained in Template:Talk_header is best suited for the top of the page), I believe it would be best to place them in the habitual place where editors will expect them. Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout contains more detailed guidance. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize it would also pose a usability issue, when using the "New section" link to add a new section to the talk page—since the section is added at the bottom of the page, the banners will no longer be at the bottom. I am moving the banners back to the top of the page to avoid this problem. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Amiablecdn additions

I have a number of issues with Amiablecdn (talk · contribs)'s addition to this article:

  1. The very start is copy/pasted from [23]
  2. The majority of it is completely unreferenced, such as bits about "Emperor", "HELLLOOO", and connections to GHWB
  3. That ref might not even be reliable, as it conflicts with the Nortel.com ref: [24] (regarding the time of Stern's promotion/whatever)

Furthermore, might I add that while Amiablecdn might be an expert on this topic, credentials mean nothing on Wikipedia because there's no way for us to verify them. Keep in mind that we can only use information from reliable, published sources. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Also BNR continued to exist as a separate corporate entity for some time well after Stern's departure. It was not until 1996 when Nortel integrated BNR into its operations and ceased using the BNR brand. Note the resume pointed to by the editor shows employment at BNR in 1994. Plus the dates used in the signature left by the editor on my talk page do not correspond with the employment dates shown in the resume. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the described location of the event in question, surrounded by five tiers of balconies, corresponds to Lab 5 of BNR's Carling campus in Ottawa. However, Lab 5 was not officially opened until May 13, 1993, after Stern was no longer with Northern Telecom. (See "A typical day at Bell-Northern's Lab 5" by Dominque Lacasse, The Ottawa Citizen, May 13, 1993, p E.1.) This does not correspond with the story describing a meeting with Stern as the new Northern Telecom chairman. Perhaps a meeting with Jean Monty is being recalled, who had been chairman of Nortel for four years when use of the BNR brand was discontinued, or a meeting with one of the other chairmen. Nonetheless, as noted by others, reliable, verifiable sources must be provided. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be willing to discuss the MULTIPLE errors by "Editors" and contributors (or even my own errors on recollection) however I am not willing to be treated as an incompetent contributor to Wikipedia. I was there, I was heavily involved in all of the practical, political, organizational aspects, opinions, and conflicts of the time and I have responded to EVERY request for adjustments suggested (actually insisted and aggresively asserted) by "Editors" to adhere to Wiki "policy"... only to be blocked, attacked, and insulted.

I still believe an accurate history is of value although I now doubt that Wiki is the place where that might happen.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Recollection" does not matter anyway ... that would be original research and is never permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So, the "original" sources are not able to contribute to Wikipedia.

That seems both interesting, self-defeating, and downright idiotic. Perhaps Wiki prefers second-hand, third-hand, and grandmother's rumours ?? That is what they INSIST on.

Interesting. Amiablecdn (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, "original" sources are not able to contribute to Wikipedia, per WP:No original research. Wikipedia only allows material that is cited to reliable, published sources. This is because we can't confirm the accuracy of claims such as yours, whereas if a newspaper was to publish it we would assume that the newspaper checked their facts. Sorry, there are no exceptions to this policy. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. I am a reliable AND published source.

Next concern? Amiablecdn (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the published materials that back up your addition to the article? All information here must be published elsewhere first. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I already have

Amiablecdn (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As I previously stated, the two references you gave did not back up your addition and the reliability of one was questionable. Look, we're not making any progress here; I don't have the time or patience to deal with someone who won't take the time to learn why they're breaking policy. Please read WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS, and if you think you have an addition that passes those, propose it here and we'll discuss its inclusion. Until then I have no interest in continuing this discussion. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I have the patience to deal with a total control freak. \

Please proceed to provide an accurate, detailed history of NorTel as you obviously assume only you can do.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I still believe an accurate history is of value although I now seriously doubt that Wiki, or Wiki controlled by arbitrary Analists is the place where that might happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiablecdn (talkcontribs) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I know how to make a paper airplane.

Amiablecdn (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So the perfectly valid submission which adheres to every Wiki policy is removed by another "Editor" who is not following Wiki policy.
Is it also Wiki policy to send a brown shirt out to every "Editor" ?
Heil Jimmy.
Amiablecdn (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Amiablecdn is now discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Brownshirts.[dead link] Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A WikiReviewer deleted the above-referenced "discussion" and Dougweller's responses, since it wasn't the proper forum & was mostly venting on Amiablecdn's part. Text may be viewed in the page history for interested parties. — DennisDallas (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

John Roth's claim

As previously discussed, please do not add the information on John Roth's filed claim against Nortel to the Criticism and controversy section without a source describing it as a criticism. Multiple warnings have already been provided; please do not continue to edit disruptively. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Multiple warnings? Disruptive edits? What is a "source describing it as a criticism"? Please try to respond in simple language without using wiki-jargon, without sending the readers here on a wild-goose chase, and without the use of intimidation. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to put John Roth's filed claim against Nortel in the Criticism and controversy section, then you need someone of note explicitly criticizing Nortel for John Roth's claim, or calling it a controversy for Nortel. This has been explained multiple times by multiple editors in many different ways using many different approaches, on this talk page, and in the discussion for deleting the Criticism of Nortel page. All of the commenters have been as plain-spoken as possible. I am confident that someone who is not a new editor has been able to fully understand these comments. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I hope the new version of Nortel#Nortel_ex-CEO_files_as_a_creditor_seeking_.241_billion_from_the_the_proceeds_of_bankruptcy, complete with new sources, satisfies you and all other "multiple editors". Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest combining the controversies with the Nortel pension and health plans into one section, in order to establish a more complete picture and to avoid the choppiness of many little sections, and including the information about the lawsuits within them. Then Roth's claim can be one point described as part of the lawsuits. Thanks for working towards a consensus on this topic. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────

Citation for liquidation

Since the citation that was modified in the lead paragraph with this edit was only required to source the announcement of selling off all operations, I replaced the link with a citation that provided the same information and was served directly from the publisher. All things being equal, it is better to link to an original copy of the source. I propose replacing the citation added in this edit with an equivalent link to an article that sources the sell-off announcement and is being provided directly by the original publisher, given that there are many available sources on the web that fit this criteria. isaacl (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual we disagree.
The article says: In June 2009, the company announced it would cease operations and sell off all of its business units.[7]- and the reference provided is the same one that has been in this article since June 2009, Why replace the reference by one talking in circles about a Nokia deal? What's wrong with the AP article that comes right to the point in its opening sentence:
(AP) -- Nortel Networks, once a technology giant, has decided to sell itself off in pieces rather than attempt to emerge from bankruptcy as a restructured company."
( "the citation" was not modified, it was only updated to remove a dead link) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My primary concern was the reliability of the site, but upon further review, it seems to be a reasonably stable one, and so I have no objection to using it as an indirect reference. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Took 40 minutes to revert vandalism?

Looks like this page has been deserted by wikipedians. It took a longggg time to have recent vandalism reverted. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nortel&action=historysubmit&diff=454128138&oldid=454067338 Ottawahitech (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unsatisfied with my efforts here. Hopefully whichever actual part of your life prevented you yourself from fixing the problem before me has been tidied up now, and you can be first on the scene next time. Perhaps you should raise this at WP:VOLUNTEER. :) Franamax (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
OOPS me and my big mouth :-) I did not mean to criticize anyone, actually you deserve a medal for patrolling this page which seems to have been deserted by others. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to say "You have 874 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)" ... I can only watch so much, and this was not horrific vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is not too offtopic here, but is this how wikipedia fights vanalism, by depending on all of us to track our watchlist carefully? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much, at least where some familiarity with the subject is required. The abuse filter is the first line of defense (rules written by volunteer editors, run by the software on every edit); next is the RC patrollers (volunteers using tools like Huggle to check the incoming stream of new edits); and the third line is people checking their watchlists regularly and vetting each edit to an article they're familiar with. The first two sets can catch the obvious vandalism, but it is the volunteers on the "third line" who catch the more subtle stuff, the disinformation, sneaky changing of numbers, etc. I got my start editing by noticing the Moon orbits 15 m above the Earth, which seemed pretty dangerous, so I started keeping an eye out to be sure it didn't get that low again. :) Franamax (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the other big line of defense, User:ClueBot NG, another volunteer effort that catches a lot of vandalism using fairly sophisticated rulesets. Us watchlisters are the fourth line I guess, but in a way, the most important one, as we spot the stuff everyone else misses. And to be comprehensive, the last line of defense is our readers who see the vandalism long after it happened and either fix it or ask questions. Franamax (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I once mooned a whole crowd at about 3m above the earth :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Franamax for providing such a detailed explanation. I still have to find the time to drill thru all the refs you provided - but wonder if such a succinct response is also available elsewhere on Wikipedia for those wikipedians who do not follow discussions here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Add a section for spun off companies?

Nortel incubated a few companies that later became independent such as Entrust. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a list article describing companies who were spun off Bell-Northern Research could be viable topic. (If you've seen the family tree for the Ottawa-Gatineau high tech region created by Doyletech, you'll get an idea of the genealogy.) isaacl (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)