Talk:Randy Altschuler

Notable

(reposted from below) I'm new to Wiki, so I wanted to discuss it with people on here first. This page does not include the final election results, which have been available for months. Altschuler lost by 593 votes (per Suffolk County Board of Elections, see link : http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/boe/eleres/10ge/ I feel this page should include the final tally. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.173.17 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The person in question is running for U.S. Congress from New York's 1st congressional district. He has received sustained coverage in daily periodicals, such as Newsday, the New York Daily News, Politico, and other politically-focused news sources. The sources used on the page itself are all from reputable publications or the individual's official biography.

Certainly the article can use editing, but the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia page.

Significant edit wars over details

NB: since mid-July, there have been three different efforts so far to double the size of the article by adding details about recent political views and efforts, by people apparently both supporting and opposed to Altschuler; all reverted. Some seem to have had decent sources, if anyone wants to take a stap at an NPOV overview. –SJ+ 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I added three days protection after a request on RfPP. The dispute seems to be about this:

In 1999, Altschuler and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business process outsourcing (BPO) company[4] with more than 4,000 employees across Asia. Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into second largest BPO firm in India.[5] In April 2006, OfficeTiger was sold to RR Donnelley for $250 Million.[6]

Could the accounts who were removing it please explain what the problem is? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Randy Altschuler page protected? The edits made are partisan, misleading, and factually incorrect. For example, OfficeTiger had 4,000 employees around the world, not all in Asia. The company had 750 U.S. based employees, the fact ignored by the partisan editor. In addition, Outsourcing is a loaded word designed to conjure up images of fired Americans having jobs shipped overseas, whereas OfficeTiger did NOT do that. Lastly, Arbor has refused repeated requested by several different editors to hash this dispute out on the Randy Altschuler talk page. --75.193.25.115 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made the disputed section invisible for now. I can see one reliable source in the article, here, which doesn't mention Altschuler, but does say the 4,000 employees were in India, not all around the world. It also says the takeover deal will make the other company the largest outsourcing company in the world, which implies that OfficeTiger is an outsourcing company.

Are there any good sources who mention his connection to OfficeTiger? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is one source that states OfficeTiger has employees in North America, Europe, India, Philippines and Sri Lanka. The company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in New York, New York. Here., I concede the 4,000 number it correct, but placing the jobs all in India is not.

That says: "OfficeTiger Holdings Inc. provides integrated business process outsourcing and transaction processing services through its operations in North America, Europe, India, Philippines and Sri Lanka. The company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in New York, New York. OfficeTiger Holdings Inc. operates as a subsidiary of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company."

No mention of employees, or of Altschuler. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The CQ article I cited mentions Altschuler's connection to OfficeTiger. Here is another Here. "Altschuler is best known for co-founding Office Tiger, a company which provides office support...Altschuler has previously pointed out that his experience in creating over 4,000 jobs with his company Office Tiger, uniquely prepares him to create jobs within the congressional district..."--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Another crucial point is that for BLP articles, there is a specific citation that the use of weasel words or loaded words are to be avoided. The word "Outsourcing" connotes the active firing of Americans workers and the jobs shipped overseas, practices that OfficeTiger did not engage in.Here" "As the articles states, "Technically, OfficeTiger did not outsource jobs because it did not eliminate U.S. jobs and move them overseas. But it did employ thousands of workers in Chennai, India, to supply business services to U.S. companies" Rather, OfficeTiger hired employees overseas to make American workers more productive, and its why it is appropriate for the Wiki article to say business services to companies.

That's Altschuler describing himself. Again no mention of OfficeTiger that I can see. Do we have a reliable source that connects him to OfficeTiger? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that the editor Arbor repeatedly refused entreaties to discuss her edits on the article's talk page, in violation of commonly accepted practice on Wikipedia for editing articles. I would have gladly engaged her in debate, but she apparently preferred to post misleading edits instead. The editor, who judging by the entirety of her edits on Wikipedia, is a partisan Democrat who is seeking any advantage over Republicans, even if it means misleading readers in candidate articles. Such misleading edits should not be rewarded. I look forward to robust debate on this topic before any protected changes are made.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition, if the editor Arbor were truly interested in making edits for the general welfare of Wikipedia readers and providing citations, then she should explain why several edits that were reverted were not sourced and bordered on WP:VANDALISM.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question's full ID is Arbor832466. I Used Arbor in the article for shorthand, but I do not wish to slight her by referring to her inappropriately. My sincere apologies for any confusion or offense, as none was intended. --HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just catching up on this now. Altschuler lists himself as the co-founder of OfficeTiger on his own campaign site [3]. As for the description of OfficeTiger as an oursourcing company:

• Offshore Business Sourcing Special Report on Law & Strategy By Ian Springsteel, Judy S. Kuan: "Showing Its Stripes; The Evolution of an Outsourcing Pioneer: A Conversation with Office Tiger's Randy Altschuler" [4]
• BusinessWeek: "OfficeTiger Roams Toward An IPO; Its MortgageRamp deal will make it a bigger pure play in outsourcing" [5]
• CNN In the Money: "Despite the anxiety outsourcing is causing, there are some firms that have found a way to make money off the trend. One company particular is called Office Tiger. The firm was set up five years ago by two Americans, and joining us today is one of them Randy Altschuler, one of the co- founders, welcome." [6]
• IT-director.com: "OfficeTiger: outsourcing with a real value proposition" [7]
• India Abroad: "OfficeTiger, one of the first to enter the business process outsourcing space in India, is now the undisputed king" [8]

I guess I didn't try to discuss it because it seemed to be so objectively factual that I couldn't imagine there would be disagreement. I agree that "outsourcing" is a hot-button word, but OfficeTiger IS CLEARLY an outsourcing company. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I can't see any problem with it. There's no dispute that he's part of OfficeTiger, and the reliable souces refer to it as outsourcing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arbor832466 that Altschuler is connected with OfficeTiger and that the company had 4,000 employees. I disputed the way she characterized the company, both in writing that the company had 4,000 employees in India and Sri Lanka, and that the company outsourced American jobs. OfficeTiger did not outsource American jobs in the classic definition because it did not engage in the firing of American workers and exporting of those jobs overseas. OfficeTiger was an international company that assisted companies all around the world with back office support services. It did not result in Americans losing jobs. See Here. As the article states, "None of those jobs got there through traditional "offshoring." They were never in the USA to begin with."

Arbor832466 agrees that outsourcing is a hot-button word, but her use of the word is not to portray an even-handed example of what OfficeTiger did, it is to arouse passions of viewers who will see the word outsourcing and automatically assume that OfficeTiger is the reason they have to call customer support in some other country. Additionally, to engage in a proper and comprehensive discussion of OfficeTiger's activities on Altschuler's page would be improper--the proper forum for that would be OfficeTiger's page. That's why the article should refrain from mentioning the word--because its simple use will give off the wrong impression, and that Altschuler's page is not the appropriate forum to clarify matters. See also the CQ article I linked to above for another source that OfficeTiger did not "outsource" jobs in the classic sense of the term in the sense that many would conclude simply by reading the word.

In sum, the edits made my Arbor832466 were misleading and designed not to present the facts of the case in a neutral manner, but rather to confuse and anger readers by the purposeful and imprecise use of a known hot-button word. It is my firm belief that such loaded words, when they would clearly be interpreted in ways other than how they should, are to be avoided.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to also point out that Arbor832466 never engaged on the article's talk page to discuss proposed edits and sourcing in the attempts to reach a compromise. Since her actions go against the spirit and aim of Wikipedia, I find it problematic that her edits might remain unchanged simply because she contacted an administrator rather than engage in the normal course of consensus-building. Had she engaged on this pages talk page (as other editors had asked her to), the page would never have needed to be locked. But I find it wrong that now it appears that there is no opportunity to forge a compromise, and that it is an either-or proposition.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the only thing we do on Wikipedia is report what reliable sources say. If he's clearly associated with the company (and he is), and if reliable sources describe it as an outsourcing company (and they do), that's what we say too. We do the same regarding the number of employees.

As for Arbor's edits, I made them invisible while we sort this out, so they're not currently visible to readers, but once the page is unprotected, there really is no reason not to restore them, though I'd ask Arbor to use only the best-quality sources, and nothing that could be deemed as a personal or unprofessional website. And also to stick very closely to what the sources say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I freely concede Altschuler's involvement in OfficeTiger. That was never at issue. My issue was use of the word "outsourcing" in a misleading way that paints a false picture of OfficeTiger's activities. I have provided equally reliable sources that OfficeTiger did not engage in outsourcing as most people interpret the word. When there are reliable sources that go both ways, the most conservative approach is appropriate, especially for a BLP article.

I am also bothered by your seeming conclusion that once the page is unprotected, that Arbor's edits should be restored, because it implies that accepting her edits are an either-or proposition. It should not be the case that it is either her edits or as the page was before. If I misinterpreted what you meant, then I sincerely apologize. Its just the way I interpreted what you wrote. I want an opportunity to engage with Arbor and to try and forge a consensus on how to word the page. I do not want it to be that her edits are the new default, simply because she did not seek to engage anyone but an administrator about this matter.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alschuler called it outsourcing himself in an interview with CNN in 2004, so there is no BLP issue here. See interview here (my bold below):

LISOVICZ: The loss of US jobs to overseas markets is fast becoming one of the hot bun issues of this election year. Despite the anxiety outsourcing is causing, there are some firms that have found a way to make money off the trend. One company particular is called Office Tiger. The firm was set up five years ago by two Americans, and joining us today is one of them Randy Altschuler, one of the co- founders ...

LISOVICZ: One of the astonishing things that we have seen in the outsourcing is that we have seen increasingly sophisticated jobs exported overseas; historically it's just been confined to manufacturing, now we see really huge meteoric growth in IT. Your staff in India has advanced degrees. Is that correct?

ALTSCHULER: That's right. In fact our entire staff has graduate degrees, one-third of them having post-graduate degrees. Seven percent of them have PhDs. So it's a very highly educated staff.

LISOVICZ: Where have they been educated? I'm just curious.

ALTSCHULER: At universities in India, as well as some people have spent time in the United States and the United Kingdom, and then come back to India.

SERWER: Randy, obviously this outsourcing thing has become a tremendous hot-button topic. A lot of people are pointing fingers. I'm a real free market guy. I don't have a problem with what you guys are doing. But how do you respond to people who say you are un- American? What do you have to say about that?

ALTSCHULER: There are two trends in outsourcing right now. One is all about cost cutting, and taking a job here, firing somebody here and moving it off shore. That's not what Office Tiger does. We are involved with the second trend, which is how can we enhance the services and the jobs that Americans are doing here domestically? And that's what we're really focused on. It's a very different kind of outsourcing.

CAFFERTY: Are you an American company or an Indian company?

ALTSCHULER: We are an American company.

CAFFERTY: Why can't you do this in America?

ALTSCHULER: The question is, if American companies are going to become more competitive, they need to focus on providing higher value added services to their clients. So you want the professional here doing different kinds of things than he or she is doing today. Office Tiger allows them to take some of the more traditional tasks and outsource that offshore.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would highlight this from that interview:

There are two trends in outsourcing right now. One is all about cost cutting, and taking a job here, firing somebody here and moving it off shore. That's not what Office Tiger does. We are involved with the second trend, which is how can we enhance the services and the jobs that Americans are doing here domestically? And that's what we're really focused on. It's a very different kind of outsourcing.
(Emphasis mine).

Also, later in that same interview:

::ALTSCHULER: Again, just to go back to what I was saying before. There are two different kinds of outsourcing. One is taking a center job here, or a data entry job here, and moving it off shore. That's not what Office Tiger does. Office Tiger is actually trying to make the professionals here more productive and grow their job responsibilities. So in fact, it's actually enhancing what professionals do here. It's very different than just shifting jobs off shore. (Emphasis mine).

It is that essential debate about outsourcing, what OfficeTiger did and did not do that is at the center of this dispute. Arbor's use of outsourcing will lead to a conclusion that Altschuler is the reason many call centers are now overseas, whereas Altschuler repeatedly makes clear that is not what his business did. As such, outsourcing becomes an imprecise and misleading word to use because of its connotation. Moreover, Arbor's edits did not make any of the ambiguity clear--the edits merely threw outsourcing on the page in a way designed to generate a negative reaction. In my view, that is inappropriate. I would like the opportunity to reach a consensus with Arbor before the page goes live again.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. If you'd like to add something—in addition to what's there—about how Altschuler has described it as a different kind of outsourcing, there's no problem with that so long as it's brief and sticks closely to what the source said, i.e. it should not turn into a platform for his views on outsourcing. It's up to you and Arbor to reach an agreement about that within the policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also argue there is a BLP issue here because the use of a loaded word like outsourcing, with its negative connotation paints a false picture of what OfficeTiger did. That Altschuler used the word in that interview is immaaterial, because the common interpretation of that word is so incredibly negative vs. what a plain reading of Altschuler's discussion about OfficeTiger's business operations would be. In that sense, the mere use of the word in the article would be misleading, and that is where the BLP issue arises.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Altschuler himself uses the term. He does not say "we are not outsourcing," or "I object to the use of that loaded term." He says "yes, that's what we're doing, but there are different kinds of outsourcing, and we're doing this kind, not that kind." So he embraced the term himself. That alone means there is no BLP issue, though even without that there wouldn't be, because we have multiple reliable sources who describe things that way too.

Could you explain what your interest in this page is? Are you connected to the subject of the article? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I welcome an opportunity to reach a consensus with Arbor before the page goes live. I do not want this page to turn into a platform for anyone's view on outsourcing, because such a discussion is designed to confuse and mislead readers. I will make a good faith attempt to work out the issue with Arbor, and I hope we can come to an understanding. I just want to avoid a situation where her edits are the default--I want it to be a clean slate. I also want it to be short, concise on both sides so that the page is not consumed by this topic.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

However, I do believe that in situation such as this where reliable sources say different things, that we should err on the side of caution. For example, in a recent endorsement of Altschuler by the New York Post, OfficeTiger was described as "offering business-support and employment services."Here. In situations such as here, where reliable sources say diverging things, a BLP article should be written as narrowly and conservatively as possible in order not to portray facts in a negative light or mislead readers.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits were not intended to confuse, anger or mislead anyone, HeyMrWilson, but rather were well sourced and factual. Please assume good faith don't resort to name-calling. As best I can recall they were all good quality sources (Businessweek, CNN, scholarly papers) but if any of the citations are insufficient please feel free to remove them. As for reaching a consensus, OfficeTiger is an outsourcing company. It just IS. If you want to include some language that better fleshes out what exactly the company does, I think that would be reasonable, but completely removing the word "outsourcing" from the description of an outsourcing company smells a lot like political whitewashing.Arbor832466 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to your question of my connection to the subject of the article, I am a supporter of his and a Republican, and I would like to seem him elected to Congress. In the interest of fairness, this question should be posed to Arbor, as she has made many, many edits on various pages that seem to favor Democrat candidates for either election or re-election (depending on the race). I suspect that this is a simple case of Republican vs. Democrat, Wikipedia style.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor- I would have assumed good faith if you had engaged in a discussion on this talk page from the get-go, and if you had refrained from making unsourced edits, as you did on several occasions. Also, I do not believe I engaged in name-calling, and I am offended at the insinuation, especially since you should also assume good faith from me--it cuts both ways.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, statements such as "OfficeTiger is an outsourcing company. It just IS" illustrates the central debate. We can both point to sources that call OfficeTiger different things and describe it differently--why then must the most inflammatory term be used? That hardly seems appropriate in a BLP article.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have no connection to the subject, then please respect his choice of term. He calls it outsourcing, as do the sources, and the article isn't going to avoid that term because someone who wants to see him elected would like to remove it. I hope you can respect that. We can certainly can add his view that there are different kinds of outsourcing; that's a reasonable request. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wish to highlight Wikipedia guidelines on editing content: "Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages." (Emphasis mine) See Here.

Again, I am open to compromise, but I do believe that his use of the term is immaterial when use on a wikipedia page will lead readers to conclude something that Altschuler's words do not state. Also, we have sources that call it outsourcing and sources that do not. In situations like that, we should be conservative with using an inflammatory, loaded word.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, since I disclosed my connection to the subject, I think its only fair for Arbor to disclose her relationship (if any).--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you're quoting a page about editing policy, because this is not a policy page. We have three core content policies. They are Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Jointly these say that Wikipedia articles must reflect all points of view, in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable published secondary sources, and that's what this article must do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread the article and its central point. Thanks for clarifying. --HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to discussing this matter with Arbor and reaching a consensus in the next few days. I also do request that Arbor reveal what, if any, affiliation she has with this campaign or, judging from her editorial history, any bias or viewpoint she has. Since I revealed mine, fairness requires she do the same. After that point, I will gladly engage in discussion on either this talk page, her talk page, or my talk page (I have no particular preference and am amenable to any forum).--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Since you asked, I am a volunteer wikipedia editor with a particular interest in the US Congress and in public policy more generally.

Frankly, I don't see any point in discussing this with you further as you clearly want to remove any mention of outsourcing from Mr. Altschuler's page in spite of the fact that he co-founded what he described as an outsourcing company, because you're concerned about how it might affect his political prospects.

In consideration of this continuing conflict, I believe this page should be fully protected until the election is over. Arbor832466 (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor, its very telling to me that you would like to see the page locked down with your edits as the final word until the election, stifling legitimate debate over how best to discuss OfficeTiger's business practices in the article. I have repeatedly stated that while I have a particular opinion and viewpoint (and the sources to back up my views, much like you do), that we should try to reach a consensus and that I am open to forging one. However, you apparently do not wish to engage in such debate, and have shown repeated reluctance to do so. Please elaborate as to why your determinations of how a particular article should be phrased are the only acceptable ones, when there are equally reliable sources that discuss the topic at hand without resorting to inflammatory and misleading rhetoric.

Also, if you were interested in consensus, you wouldn't ask for the page to be locked; rather, you would seek arbitration from senior editors on the matter.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, its not just the New York Post that describes OfficeTiger without mentioning outsourcing. A New York Times article from October 23, 2009 says "Mr. Altschuler, who lives in St. James, was a fund-raiser for Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign last year. He has founded and run Office Tiger, a business-support services company he later sold, and CloudBlue, which recycles electronic equipment."Here. And the one thing I think we can all agree on is that the New York Times is not generally known for "whitewashing" in ways that would benefit Republicans :). Arbor has linked to sites that use the word outsoursing, and I have linked to sites that do not. I assert that use of the word in this context is unnecessary and misleading, and I have reliable sources that had an opportunity to use the word and did not. Let's try to figure out a common ground.

Additionally, SlimVirgin, no one is talking about articles ignoring points of view; rather, the debate is over the best means for expressing those differing points of view. The word outsourcing is unnecessary in my view to convey that OfficeTiger had 4,000 employees worldwide and that it performed business-support services for client companies.

As another matter, I do not agree that it follows that since Altschuler referred to outsourcing, that outsourcing is the word that we must use in this article. That's like saying that since President Obama refers to the health care reform bill as "health insurance reform,"here and here. that in Mr. Obama's article, the hearing about HCR should reflect his terminology. However, that is not the case, because his Wikipedia article refers to "health care reform." It has no bearing what he called the reform efforts (and subsequently, what liberal blogs called the reform efforthere.)--what matters is that the article uses "health care reform" because it is the most natural and useful term. The article does not use health insurance reform, and it does not refer to it as Obamacare (or other right-wing terms), even though both are rhetorical devises that tend to be linked to a particular point of view. The article stays noncontroversial and informative. So it is there, so to it should be here. Outsourcing is a loaded term that, like using either Obamacare or health insurance reform, will generate a reaction by its simple appearance in an article. Wikipedia strives to present most points of view, but it need not do so in the most inflammatory ways possible. All I ask is that we apply this principle here. --HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Next step

Arbor, you asked where to go from here. Can you write up on this page what you'd like to add to the article? I suggest using the CNN source and others to describe the company, then add something about Altschuler saying it's a different kind of outsourcing, just something very brief. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, do I get a chance to comment or propose my own write up?--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, yes to both. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to propose language: "In 1999, Altschuler and Joe Seligmann co-founded OfficeTiger, a business support company that they grew to over 4,000 employees around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and elsewhere.1, The pair sold the company to RR Donnelly and Co in 2006 for $250 million." I am amenable to having a sentence or two here that mentions outsourcing/business process outsourcing and then citing the USA Today article I referenced above that "none of those jobs got there through traditional "offshoring." They were never in the USA to begin with."Here But the initial description of the company should be neutral, as reliable sources cut both ways. Wikipedia pages should avoid painting people in a negative light when reliable sources disagree.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's still important to describe OfficeTiger as a BPO, although we can certainly include some language to indicate that Mr. Altschuler disputes that it is/was an outsourcing company in the "traditional sense." I'll take a stab at it later today and post here. Arbor832466 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe its important to describe the company neutrally with citations to reliable sources and refer to the debate about outsourcing after it. To me, that is a fair compromise, as the company description is neutral (while citing to reliable sources) and there is mention of the controversy over outsourcing. If you want to take a stab at the two or three sentences that briefly mention both sides of the debate, that's fine with me.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on this now. It's coming together, but I have a hard time taking Altschuler at his word that the company wasn't sending jobs overseas when BusinessWeek says "The purchase provides OfficeTiger a shot at offering support services to commercial real estate lenders, services that some analysts say are poised to begin shifting overseas." [9] I mean, what else are we to make of that? Arbor832466 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that article that states OfficeTiger affirmatively outsourced American jobs overseas, but that source does describe the business as expanding into "offering support services for commercial real estate lenders." Additionally, later in the article, "MortgageRamp CEO Ken N. Beyer, who will remain CEO of OfficeTiger's real estate division, says the industry's financial due diligence increasingly will be done overseas. "We can't keep up with the demand," he says." If anything, that shows OfficeTiger did work a that assisted American workers, not in place of them.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

In case it's helpful, here are some sources discussing Altschuler and outsourcing:

• Thotamm, Jyoti. "Is your job going abroad?", CNN, February 23, 2004.

• "Another factor speeding things up is the development of an industry devoted to making outsourcing happen, thanks to entrepreneurs like Randy Altschuler and Joe Sigelman.

  Just five years ago, they were junior investment bankers at the Blackstone Group and Goldman Sachs, one in New York City, the other in London. During one particularly long night of proofreading PowerPoint slides and commiserating by phone about finding yet another error courtesy of their companies' in-house document service, they had an epiphany. They would find a better way of doing that work.

  This was at the height of the dotcom boom, and everyone they knew was trying to figure out a way to Silicon Valley. These two had a different idea. They would go to India, set up a team of accountants and desktop-publishing experts and persuade investment banks in New York to outsource their confidential financial documents and client presentations halfway around the world.

  The entrepreneurs' families, not to mention Silicon Valley's venture capitalists, "were looking at us in a crazy way," Sigelman says, especially when he relocated to Madras. Five years later, as it moves into more complex work, OfficeTiger, with $18 million from British investors, plans to increase the number of its employees in India this year from 1,500 to 2,500 and more than triple its U.S. work force, from 30 to 100."

• "OfficeTiger: An amazing success story", Rediff, September 14, 2006:

• "OfficeTiger, one of the first to enter the business process outsourcing space in India [ Images ], is now the undisputed king especially after R R Donnelley & Sons acquired it for a whopping $250 million in an all-cash deal.

  OfficeTiger, however, will continue its operations as an independent unit and its co-founders, Joseph 'Joe' Sigelman and Randolph 'Randy' Altschuler, will continue as its co-presidents.

  While Sigelman operates from India, Altschuler sits in New York.

  The story of the two young men chucking their high-paying jobs (Randy was in private equity at The Blackstone Group and Joe with Goldman Sachs International in London [ Images ] in the Investment Banking Division) to enter the outsourcing arena, from India, has become a legend now. ... Both knew the concept called business process outsourcing (BPO) would work. 'We hadn't an iota of doubt about it. Probably, stupid confidence, but we were confident.'"

• 6 "New York Rep. Bishop Still Favored, But Not Safe", CQ Politics, August 19, 2009:

• "The Democratic Committee in Suffolk County, which includes the 1st District, has moved quickly to portray Altschuler as an “outsourcing pioneer” who has contributed to a loss of American jobs. Altschuler rejects that label and points to the businesses he has built that have created many jobs in the country.

  'I have built several successful businesses from the ground up and I am proud that I have created hundreds of jobs across the United States,' he said in a written statement to CQ Politics."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would point to other points in the CQ article listed above: "Technically, OfficeTiger did not outsource jobs because it did not eliminate U.S. jobs and move them overseas. But it did employ thousands of workers in Chennai, India, to supply business services to U.S. companies."

Also, the USA Today article from 2005 and the New York Times articles from 2009, both which I previously cited above, merit equal consideration.

I also maintain that the initial description of OfficeTiger should be as neutral as possible, with more elaboration following it. It can even be in its own paragraph in the same section if the concern is burying the info in a paragraph.

Its amazing how much more civil a debate can be after a good night sleep :) --HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we should add the civility-enhancing qualities of sleep into Wikipedia policy somewhere. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Or a strong cup of coffee :) Arbor832466 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention pizza, ice-cream, and a good movie. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed OfficeTiger language

I have no doubt that you all will let me know what you think ;) Arbor832466 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In 1999, Altschuler and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business process outsourcing company (BPO) that performes back office support services for American companies in India and Sri Lanka. Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company, with more than 10,000 employees around the world, including 4,000 in India.

Altschuler has said he rejects the characterization of OfficeTiger as a "traditional outsourcing company," with the implication that the company directly moves jobs from the United States to Asia. He contends that OfficeTiger's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." Altschuler's political opponents, however, continue to decry Altschuler as an "outsourcing pioneer."

In April 2006, OfficeTiger was sold to global offshoring provider RR Donnelley for $250 Million.

Can you point out which source says 10,000 jobs? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rediff India Abroad (#3): "OfficeTiger with 10,050 employees has 4,000 in India. They primarily focus on law, banking and publishing. With 29 delivery centres and 42 client sites across nine countries, OfficeTiger is the second largest BPO firm in India." Arbor832466 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not clear from me if that number includes RR Donnelly businesses in India that were combined after the purchase. The source its unclear on that point.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My Thoughts:

The first paragraph is not bad, I only have two notes: I again don't feel that the first paragraph should mention business process outsourcing for the reasons listed above. Also, I cited a source all the way at the top of this page that mentions OT having employees in multiple countries, including the US, England, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and elsewhere.

The second paragraph is more problematic, because it starts off with a borderline weasel word that starts off with Altschuler being on the defensive. Also, I fail to see the relevancy of what Altschuler's political opponents have to say because that opens up a can of worms for this and other Wikipedia articles. Instead, the paragraph should use one of the sources I cited that states that OfficeTiger did not ship American jobs overseas and should present it in a less explosive manner.

The third paragraph should actually be the last line of the first paragraph, but I don't think it is appropriate to provide any description of RR Donnelly, because it is extraneous to the fact that RR Donnelly bought the company. What RR Donnelly does is no more relevant than if AT&T had bought OT and describing it as a global telecom giant.

Overall, its not great, but not as bad as I feared. I do believe between my draft above and yours, we can achieve a consensus.

All the sources I have seen list the company as having 4,000 employees.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

General Note on Sources: The book you cite to was published in November 2004, but there is no date given as to when the interview was with Altschuler. In addition, the CNN interview was also in February 2004. I Think we need to look at sources written later on, but that center on when OT was an independent company (2005-early 2006). Sources from that era will have more accurate numbers and locations of employment. As for the rediff source, it is unclear if that article is referring to OT as an independent company or as part of RR Donnelly. What is wrong with the articles I listed from USA Today, CQ, and the New York Times?--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. Maybe someone with a less vested interest in Mr. Altschuler's Congressional campaign can weigh in? Arbor832466 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you not assuming my good faith in reaching a compromise? I hardly think that's appropriate. You can take another stab at it, but rejecting honest, constructive criticism and then questioning by good faith is out of line and inappropriate.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That should say "questioning my good faith," not "by good faith."--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all! I'd just like to get an outside perspective if at all possible, since we both seem to have our heels somewhat dug in on the matter. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what SlimVirgin has to say. As I said last night, I am open to escalating this matter to senior editors for mediation. I am also open to reaching a compromise. I did come down from my position that the word outsourcing should not appear in the article at all, which should illustrate that. But the tone of your comment was unduly harsh. Do you have any comments about the suggestions I made, comments I provided, or sources I listed? I am not wedded to my draft if you have edits to make, but you should be willing to make changes to yours. Its only fair. Please engage me in constructive dialogue, and lets get this resolved.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My inclination is to wait to see what SlimVirgin has to say first, and then embark on the process of merging my copy with your edits. Sound good? Arbor832466 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. WE AGREE?!? :) --HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ALERT THE MEDIA ;) Arbor832466 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(2 x ec) Can we go through it line by line?

In 1999, Altschuler and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business process outsourcing company (BPO) that performes back office support services for American companies in India and Sri Lanka. Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company, with more than 10,000 employees around the world, including 4,000 in India.

Altschuler has said he rejects the characterization of OfficeTiger as a "traditional outsourcing company," with the implication that the company directly moves jobs from the United States to Asia. He contends that OfficeTiger's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." Altschuler's political opponents, however, continue to decry Altschuler as an "outsourcing pioneer."

In April 2006, OfficeTiger was sold to global offshoring provider RR Donnelley for $250 Million.

First sentence

So, sentence by sentence:

• "In 1999, Altschuler and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business process outsourcing company (BPO) that performes back office support services for American companies in India and Sri Lanka."

• Sourced to CNN and a book containing an interview with Altschuler. Mr Wilson, do you have a problem with it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because the sources leave out what other sources list as the countries where OT had employees, including the UK, Philippines, and the USA. Also, it should be client companies, because OT had international clients, not solely American ones.

Reposting from above re: the cnn article and the book:General Note on Sources:

The book you cite to was published in November 2004, but there is no date given as to when the interview was with Altschuler. In addition, the CNN interview was also in February 2004. I Think we need to look at sources written later on, but that center on when OT was an independent company (2005-early 2006). Sources from that era will have more accurate numbers and locations of employment. As for the rediff source, it is unclear if that article is referring to OT as an independent company or as part of RR Donnelly. What is wrong with the articles I listed from USA Today, CQ, and the New York Times?--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My own revised draft: I would change it to "In 1999, Altschuler and and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business support services company headquartered in New York, and grew into an international company with over 4,000 employees in various countries around the world, including England, India, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. (Sources--NYT article I linked to above and business week description at the very top of the discussion page." Altschuler and Seligmann sold OfficeTiger in 2006 to RR Donnelly & Co for $250 million. Source to sale.

New 2nd paragraph: "Altschuler has been criticized for his role in OfficeTiger, and has faced accusations that he engaged in the outsourcing of American jobs to countries like India (source to CNN interview.) In response, Altschuler has denied that OfficeTiger outsourced American jobs overseas (source to CNN interview and USA Today article), and has asserted that OfficeTiger contracted functions from client companies designed to make existing employees more productive (source: The book that Arbor cited to and the CNN article.

Is this workable to y'all that we can work from this?--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you're trying to sway the tone of the article for political reasons, and that you need to stick very closely to what the sources are saying. Which source, for example, discusses 4,000 employees in various countries? They seem to say the 4,000 are in India. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that first line looks good to me, obviously, because I wrote it. MrWilson, I am doing my very very very very best to assume good faith, but you are coming very close to Wikilawyering here, and combined with your apparent sole interest in the Altschuler article, I can't help but have my doubts about your interest in any outcome other than the most positive one possible for Mr. Altschuler. I really, truly and honestly don't mean to attack you--but after going in what feels like circles, that's where I'm at. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.globalservicesmedia.com/News/Home/OfficeTiger/21/27/0/general200705211102 -- See the info Box. It lists everything about OfficeTiger at the time of sale, 4000 employees, and a list of locations.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't say where they are. The 4,000 are all or mostly in India, according to the other sources, which is why there is criticism. The company was set up as an outsourcing company. The owners, including Altschuler, used that word themselves. If you're not going to collaborate in good faith, Mr Wilson, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion, unprotect the article, and make the previous version visible again, because this is very time-consuming. If it's going to be an effort to whitewash, it's a waste of time, because that can't happen. We must abide by what the majority of reliable sources are saying. That's not optional. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence

The first sentence looks fine to me. The second sentence: "Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company, with more than 10,000 employees around the world, including 4,000 in India."

This seems to be a point of contention. Which is the best-quality source for the number of employees and their location? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This 2006 source says 8,000, mostly in Chennai. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, SlimVirgin, I have provided many reliable sources that do not use the word outsourcing in the primary description of what OT did, and others that state that. It seems to me from reading from the top of this discussion page down, that once Arbor provided some sources that mentioned Altschuler, OfficeTiger, and outsourcing together, that the article and the company HAD to be described as an outsourcing company--and that was something not up for debate. If you want a more complete list of links to be copy-pasted into this discussion page that describe OT and not mention outsourcing, say the word and I will happily oblige. I have no problem abiding by what a majority of the reliable sources say, but we have only touched on, in total, about 15 sources in our debate. Allow me to provide a list and then we can discuss this.

Other than not using the words business process outsourcing in my first paragraph, what was wrong with my proposal?

Regarding the 4,000 number, I, too, can provide many reliable sources that state that OfficeTiger had 4000 companies in the countries I listed. For example, reading the book cite from Arbor, Altschuler talks about plans to grow the company by hiring in the UK and the USA, and opening a delivery center in another Asian country that is not India (see pages 99-100, 106). Again, simply because Arbor provided some sources does not automatically mean that her's are more legitimate than mine.

Judging from the second paragraph that I wrote, I do not feel that I minced words from describing the criticism of what OT did. I came right out and said he has been accused of outsourcing American jobs overseas to countries like India. I then list what he said in defense. Feel free to propose fixes to it.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You can provide sources by all means, but they must be high-quality, and preferably neutral sources. Not just websites.

Could you address this one point, please, and only this one? The people who set up the company said they were setting it up as an outsourcing company. Altschuler used that word himself. Do you accept that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to your one question, yes, Altschuler has used the word outsourcing to describe his company. That was never in dispute. The dispute was the appropriateness of using such a hot-button word in a neutral paragraph.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. That is how the subject of the BLP described it, that's how the reliable sources describe it, and that's what it is, so we're not going to call it something else. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this source acceptable?: http://www.cloudblue.com/content/randy-altschuler-chairman This site was used by Arbor previously in one of her edits: http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=8344&categoryid=&channelid=&search=colombo . It mentions OfficeTiger having 4000 employees around the world.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If I have one employee in London, one in Paris, one in Rome, and 10,000 in India, it's not quite fair to say that I have 10,003 employees around the world. We need a source to give us numbers and to say where most of the employees are, if we are going to mention them at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything to corroborate the Rediff assertion of 10K employees globally with 4K in India. Can we agree that the company is 1. Headquartered in New York; 2. The majority of its employees are in Southeast Asia; 3. The largest office is in Chennai, India? Arbor832466 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if we can also agree they OT had employees in other countries and that we list them, too. If we can agree on listing USA, India, UK, Sri Lanka, and Germany (in light of the press release from 2004), and even listing them in that order, that works for me.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair. In the ebusinessforum article, it says "To establish its global footprint as well as expand its business rapidly, OfficeTiger has relied on growth through acquisitions. In 2004, it bought the Devonshire Group, based in the UK with smaller operations in Germany. Devonshire, with 290 employees and annual revenue of about US$20m, provides (or acts as a consultant for) outsourced creative, document and staffing solutions to professional services firms in the UK and Europe.

The takeaway for me is that after OfficeTiger purchased Devonshire, they had about 290 employees in the UK. Do you want sources that mention employees in the USA, or can that be agreed to, as OfficeTiger was headquartered in New York?--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=19805 :DG had 250 UK employees, 40 in Germany. Also of note is the description of OT in the press release, listing operations in India, Sri Lanka, UK, and Germany. Also, the numbers would have changed since the release if from October 2004.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rrdonnelley.com/wwwRRD/News/2006/2006_03_20.asp :Press Release from when RR Donnelly purchased OfficeTiger in 2006. It is silent on number of employees, but does list countries of operation.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Found a pretty reliable source (research from U.Penn) that states that as of 2005, OT had 3000 employees, 2000 of whom were in Chennai [10]. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with that source. If using it, please incorporate that it says OT has international clientelle. Also, it does not conflict with the sources I provided with the list of other countries OT had offices in.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is the proportion of where the employees are. Most (per the Penn source, two-thirds) are in Chennai. To just list countries makes it seem like there are equal numbers of employees in the US, England, Germany, Sri Lanka and India, which is most definitely not the case. Agreed? Arbor832466 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what proportion has to do with it once we determined its more than a mere handful. We have the actual press releases from the companies, news articles, and the like. Are you not even willing to give a little about this?? Lets just list the facts as we can site to them.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is truly mystifying to me. I am trying to compromise and in no way am I being met even close to halfway. I feel like I am being forced to accept your proposals that further your viewpoint. I have conceded that outsourcing will be in the first paragraph, and I have come to accept that business process outsourcing will be in the title sentence and a description of the debate in the same paragraph. I feel like you can give on number of employees and country of locations.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good source to me, too, and we should stick to it closely to avoid disputes -- as of 2005 it had 3,000 employees, 2,000 of them in Chennai, India. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So the second sentence would be: "Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company, with more than 3,000 employees, 2000 of them in Chennai, India, as of 2005." Sourced to the UPenn business school site.

I have no objections to the second sentence as far as it goes, but in light that the 10000 number could not be verified, and the number of sources that exist that put the number at 4k, it seems odd to use those numbers. Seeing the number of sources that give 4000, and seeing the countries listed in the RR Donnelly press release, I don't see why we dont say "Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company around 4,000 employees in the US, India, Sri Lanks, and the UK." I do not see why we can only use one source for this sentence if multiple sources provide necessary bits of information.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it would be misleading. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not misleading. It is far worse to list the company having 3k employees, 2k of them in India. Where are the 1k? Are they irrelevant? Its misleading to pretend that 1k do not exist. As an aside, It is I think malpractice to sue a cite that we all agree is dated (since the sentence states "as of 2005" when the company was sold in 2006). From two different sources, we can properly piece together an accurate picture of the company when it was sold. Look at the edits that Arbor made on this article last week--then, she had no problem referring to the company having 4,000 employees. I fail to see why we cannot agree on that number, and then list the countries that we know OT had employees in. We can even say, with a majority in India, and others in UK, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. But using a clearly out of date number is not the answer.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we do not mention other countries in the second sentence, then we have to fix the first sentence (which still needs some tinkering because of sources stating that OT had clients all over the world) as it mentions Sri Lanka but lacks any mention of employees there.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Third and fourth sentences

Third and fourth sentences go together: "Altschuler has said he rejects the characterization of OfficeTiger as a "traditional outsourcing company," with the implication that the company directly moves jobs from the United States to Asia. He contends that OfficeTiger's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." Sourced to a CNN interview with him. [11]

Mr Wilson, any objections? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to the second sentence as far as it goes, but in light that the 10000 number could not be verified, and the number of sources that exist that put the number at 4k, it seems odd to use those numbers. Seeing the number of sources that give 4000, and seeing the countries listed in the RR Donnelly press release, I don't see why we dont say "Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company around 4,000 employees in the US, India, Sri Lanks, and the UK." I do not see why we can only use one source for this sentence if multiple sources provide necessary bits of information.

For the third and fourth sentence, my problem with the proposal from Arbor is it that its tone is one that puts Altschuler immediately on the defensive and uses the word "contends", which reads to me as a weasel word WP:WEASEL. As for the third and fourth sentences, I really do think my attempt on my second paragraph merits another look: "Altschuler has been criticized for his role in OfficeTiger, and has faced accusations that he engaged in the outsourcing of American jobs to countries like India (source to CNN interview.) In response, Altschuler has denied that OfficeTiger outsourced American jobs overseas (source to CNN interview and USA Today article), and has asserted that OfficeTiger contracted functions from client companies designed to make existing employees more productive (source: The book that Arbor cited to and the CNN article."

Is that not acceptable with some tinkering? I would like to feel like I have contributed somewhat, and that does include using some of the reliable sources I found.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this? "Altschuler has said OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company, in that it did not move American jobs overseas. He has said the company's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." Sourced to CNN interview SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that proposed third and fourth sentence is fine with me.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general question, once we reach a consensus, I assume that just the Business Career portion of this page will remain protected through the election to prevent vandalism? I am perfectly fine with that. I just think the rest of the page should be opened for edits.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole page will be open for editing, though I might semi-protect it to make sure the editors are registered, but we'll see how that goes. We can't protect just one section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think semi-protecting might be the wisest option, but I am fine with whatever determination you make.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If Arbor is fine with them, the third and fourth sentences are: "Altschuler has said OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company, in that it did not move American jobs overseas. He has said the company's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." Sourced to CNN interview

Just catching up on this, so forgive me if this has already been nailed down, but what about "As of 2005, OfficeTiger had 3000 employees around the world, with 2000 in Channai, India, and the rest distributed among OfficeTiger's headquarters in New York and smaller offices in Sri Lanka, Great Britain and Germany." I think that acknowledges that the bulk of the employees were in India, without giving short shrift to those who were elsewhere. Eh? Arbor832466 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain its odd to use a source from 2005 when we have sources from 2006 that have more updated facts and figures. I want to see sentences 1 and 2 in order to better comment on them.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifth sentence

• Altschuler's political opponents, however, continue to decry Altschuler as an "outsourcing pioneer."[5]

I would change that to something like: "Despite that, Altschuler's political opponents criticize him as an "outsourcing pioneer." Sourced to Associated Press. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even relevant? Are Wikipedia pages a forum to highlight opposition attacks? Altschuler's opponent, Tim Bishop, has nothing negative of this sort on his page. Most Wikipedia pages have nothing of this sort on them. The pages that Arbor edits most frequently have nothing of the sort on them. It is entirely inappropriate.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with MrWilson here. We say it's an outsourcing company. We say that Altschuler says it's not the traditional kind. Is adding other views laboring the point? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to disappear. Had to, you know, eat food. I agree that the opinion of his opponents can be omitted. I think I originally wrote that when I thought the word "outsourcing was being expunged from the first three sentences entirely. So long as its in there, I see no need to re-hash it. Arbor832466 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so there is consensus on sentences 3 and 4. We need to fix 1 and 2, because there are inconsistencies. For example, Sri Lanka is mentioned in sentence 1 but ignored in sentence 2. I was reviewing the ebusinessforum site that Arbor had linked to at the very top and in some of the edits from last week, and it cleaifies the number at 4k and lists some countries. If we agree to those general facts, I aill agree to putting a modified in front of India. So it would read "OT had around 4k employees, a majority of them in India, but also had employees in the US, Sri Lanka, and England."--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction- Arbor did not link to the ebusinessforum site on this page. My apologies.http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=8344&categoryid=&channelid=&search=colombo--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

So we seem to have:

In 1999, Altschuler and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business process outsourcing company (BPO) that performes back office support services for American companies in India and Sri Lanka. Under their leadership, OfficeTiger grew into a successful company, with more than 3,000 employees, 2000 of them in Chennai, India, as of 2005. Altschuler has said OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company, in that it did not move American jobs overseas; he has said the company's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." In April 2006, OfficeTiger was sold to global offshoring provider RR Donnelley for $250 million.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The cites RR Donnelly source does not say global offshoring provider. Regardless, the modifier is irrelevant.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a better source about the sale: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-03-21/business/0603210270_1_donnelley-business-process-outsourcing-sri-lanka --HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision

In 1999, Altschuler and Princeton classmate Joseph Sigelman started OfficeTiger, a business process outsourcing company (BPO) that performes back office support services for American companies. As of 2005, OfficeTiger had 3000 employees around the world, with 2000 in Channai, India, and the rest distributed among OfficeTiger's headquarters in New York and smaller offices in Sri Lanka, Great Britain and Germany. "Altschuler has said OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company, in that it did not directly move American jobs overseas. He has said the company's overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically."

Thoughts? I think it still it sort of falsely gives the impression that Altschuler's claim that OT did not move American jobs overseas is undisputed fact, rather than a point of contention for him considering his current political aspirations. But I think we're getting there. Arbor832466 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It should say client companies, because OT had international clients. In the alternative, it should say for "companies around the world." The google books source, page 100, says they have employees in the UK with clients.

As of 2005, the New York-based company had 3000 employees around the world, with 2000 in Channai, India, and others spread around offices in Sri Lanka, the US, Great Britain and Germany. That's how the sentence should read, but I still feel we can safely use a 2006 source and say the same thing.--HeyMrWilson87 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor, you should just go ahead and come up with a reasonable compromise now, one that's compliant with the sources and fair to Altschuler. The article will be unprotected in a few hours, then you can add it as you see fit. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Office Tiger misquote from CNN article

The sentence " However, later in the same interview, Altschuler admitted some companies use OfficeTiger to 'cut costs and save money by shipping jobs off shore.'" in the Office Tiger section is a complete misquote of what Mr. Altschuler said in the cited source, which was "There are two trends in outsourcing right now. One is all about cost cutting, and taking a job here, firing somebody here and moving it off shore. That's not what Office Tiger does. We are involved with the second trend, which is how can we enhance the services and the jobs that Americans are doing here domestically?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and look at the transcript, but I believe the quote that's currently in the article was from later in the interview. Arbor8 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbor, I'm restoring my edit since the text I changed was in total contradiction with the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just double checked the CNN transcript.

CAFFERTY: Why can't you do this in America? ALTSCHULER: The question is, if American companies are going to become more competitive, they need to focus on providing higher value added services to their clients. So you want the professional here doing different kinds of things than he or she is doing today. Office Tiger allows them to take some of the more traditional tasks and outsource that offshore.

The exact quote is in there, so I'm restoring. Arbor8 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbor, you're stretching things a little too far. The article says this: "The point is, how can American jobs add more value to their customers so their companies can be more competitive? That's why people should be outsourcing, not just to cut costs and save money by shipping jobs off shore." The quote you restored says this: "However, later in the same interview, Altschuler admitted some companies use OfficeTiger to 'cut costs and save money by shipping jobs off shore.'[5]" This is twisting Mr. Altschuelr's words 180 degrees in the opposite direction. He plainly states that the focus of Office Tiger is not to do do what you have selectively quoted. This is a non-encyclopedic manipulation of the original source, and violetes WP:OR and WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see how the latter portion of that could be misleading. However, the section that reads: Altschuler has claimed OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company, but rather one whose overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." Later in the interview, he contends, "You want the professionals here doing different kinds of things than he or she is doing today. Office Tiger allows them to take some of the more traditional tasks and outsource that offshore. doesn't misrepresent the source at all, so I'm restoring that part, while leaving out the latter bit. Arbor8 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A word of caution

I don't know who Mr Wilson is. He says he is not connected to Altschuler, and of course I accept that. I would only add that this is a public page, and that the IP addresses of whoever has been making these edits has been logged, because some of them were made logged out. These kinds of discussions sometimes attract attention off Wikipedia, and not always in a way that enhances the reputation of the subject, which is most unfair if the subject has not been involved. This discussion is potentially drawing more attention to the outsourcing issue than the original material in the article did. Something to bear in mind. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected

As the dispute seems to be resolved, I've unprotected and made the section in question visible again. Arbor, please feel free to tweak it as discussed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Found a more recent source (Economic Times) that had a more recent and more detailed breakdown of OfficeTiger's employees, so I used that instead of the UPenn link we discussed. If you find it problematic for any reason just let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbor832466 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. One grammatical issue: "Altschuler has said OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company whose overseas employees "enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically." That makes it sound as though that's what a traditional outsourcing company does. Perhaps better as something like: "Altschuler has said OfficeTiger is not a traditional outsourcing company; he has said the company's overseas employees 'enhance the services and jobs that Americans are doing here domestically.'" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, will change. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I'd added semi-protection because of past problems that may be starting up again. Logan, and anyone else who edits the article, please make sure anything you add is really well-sourced, and doesn't deviate from the sources. See WP:SOURCES for a description of what counts as a reliable source. Also see WP:BLP. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You should vet the edits being made to this article closely. Some of the sources used are not legitimate under WP:SOURCES.--96.57.62.106 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Misspelling of WP:SOURCES corrected.--96.57.62.106 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit:

Charges of carpetbagging were prominent in both the primary and general election when Altschuler who had moved to the district two years before the run took on lifelong Southampton resident Tim Bishop.

During the primary Altschulter accused Cox of not even paying Suffolk taxes (Cox who lived in the same New York City apartment building as his father registered to vote at his uncle's home in Westhampton Beach in 2010). Cox, whose father Edward F. Cox was born in Westhampton Beach, noted that his family had 160 years of family history in the district while charging that Altschulter had just been shopping for a district where he could get elected. Altschuler had lived in New Jersey prior to the move. Virginia Newmann Littell, chairwoman of the New Jersey Republican Party, said that Altchulter had once inquired about challenging Scott Garrett in the New Jersey's 5th congressional district. Littell noted that Altschulter has a liberal rather than conservative background including endorsement from the Republican Leadership Council and had spent some time in the Green Party.

Urbanelephants is a group blog and shouldn't be used, esp not for anything contentious. To the anon, is there any false in the edit, anything unsourced, or are the other sources objectionable? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Daily News and Capital Tonight sources appear to be legitimate. The portions about New Jersey residency is false and not supported by any sources. The letter from the former Chairwoman regards a private meeting and the contents of that have never been independently verified. Additionally, the information about Cox, Bishop, and ALtschuler's residency should be shortened to simply say Altschuler moved to St. James in 2008. Cox's residency and Bishop's residency is irrelevant in this article.--96.57.62.106 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Americasroof or Logan, could you please remove from the edit anything not in the sources (not counting urbanelephants)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just hope they do so sooner than later.--96.57.62.106 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you the person I had an email discussion with about this article? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I do not think you have the right person. SOrry.--96.57.62.106 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to promptly comply with the request for references.Americasroof (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AR. Is this definitely a reliable source? It looks as though it's published by one person. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slim for your conscientious efforts to get things right. The facts as stated are accurate and can be corroborated by numerous sources. Altschuler moved into the district two years before the election. He also toyed with Green Party and the more socially accepting wing of the Republican party. Neither of these items are damning or inflammatory. Plenty of politicians including John McCain have shopped for an election district they could win. Plenty of politicians have changed their political views including Ronald Reagan. The Suffolk Republican has a lot of stuff and it does have what appears to be the original letter published by Cox. If you want to take it off feel free to do so. If there is material that is questioned it should probably should first be addressed with CN. I will then find a new source. Thanks again.Americasroof (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to edit this, AR, because I'm adminning and I'm not familar with the material. Could I ask you, please, given that this is a sensitive BLP, to go through the sources and to remove anything not sourced directly to a reliable source, using the definition in WP:SOURCES? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that the Suffolk County Liberty Report doesn't meet WP:SOURCES by about a mile. Arbor832466 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go through this material and decide which part is supported by which source. But I also don't want to be in a position as admin of protecting inappropriate material. So I'm moving the section here. Americasroof (or anyone else), if you want to keep this, please write it so that it contains only material that is clearly relevant, and clearly sourced to reliable sources, per WP:SOURCES. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Charges of carpetbagging were prominent in both the primary and general election when Altschuler who had moved to the district two years before the run took on lifelong Southampton resident Tim Bishop.

During the primary Altschulter accused Cox of not even paying Suffolk taxes Cox who lived in the same New York City apartment building as his father registered to vote at his uncle's home in Westhampton Beach in 2010. Cox, whose father Edward F. Cox was born in Westhampton Beach, noted that his family had 160 years of family history in the district while charging that Altschulter had just been shopping for a district where he could get elected. Cox charged that Altschuler had lived in New Jersey prior to the move and published a letter from Virginia Newmann Littell, chairwoman of the New Jersey Republican Party, saying that Altchulter had once inquired about challenging Scott Garrett in the New Jersey's 5th congressional district. Littell noted that Altschulter has a liberal rather than conservative background including endorsement from the Republican Leadership Council and had spent some time in the Green Party.

I agree that the Suffolk County Liberty Report does not appear to come close to what WP:SOURCES requires for a legitimate source. I also do not think that, for the most part, the NY Daily News and Capitol Tonight sources say what AR asserts they do. AR seems to be quoting press releases that were published in full, not independent reporting by the reporters. If quoting press releases published in full is acceptable, it seems a backdoor way to attack WP:BLP subjects. Also, some information, even if from a valid source, seems out of place in this article. Why should this article have information about Ed Cox's birthplace? IMHO, such info should go in his own wikipedia entry--and maybe in the entry for Christopher Nixon Cox (which was recently heavily edited by AR). --96.57.62.106 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to Wiki, so I wanted to discuss it with people on here first. This page does not include the final election results, which have been available for months. Altschuler lost by 593 votes (per Suffolk County Board of Elections, see link : http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/boe/eleres/10ge/ I feel this page should include the final tally. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavi410 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Add'l info on Altschuler's personal life

I'm new to wiki so I thought maybe I could get some help (yes I'll play in the sandbox so I can learn to things for myself).

Until then here is some info that would enhance the Randy Altschuler article.

1. Randy and his wife Cheryl recently anonounced the birth of their new born daughter, Cheryl. http://www.facebook.com/joinrandy

2. Cheryl was born in Thailand and prior to becoming a pediatrician, was a professional ballet dancer with the Washington Ballet. Her parents are Charles Sladkin a retired CIA employee who once was awarded the (pretigious) W. Averell Harriman Award, and Yumei Sladkin A Taiwnese born businesswoman who owns Oriental Decor, stores in Rockville, Md., and in Tyson's Corner, Va., where they also own Emissary, a linen store.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/07/style/weddings-cheryl-sladkin-randolph-altschuler.html http://www.circularpower.com/PointeMagazine_Article.html http://www.ndi.org/harriman_democracy_award — Preceding unsigned comment added by Long island bob (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

edit to add

Hey guys
I'm new here.
I realize I've messed up a couple of links but, well, I'm working on it. I'd like to thank Danger for welcoming me on board, and to wish him well with his health issues.

I'm still trying to add two more sentences of background about Altschuler's company Cloudblue, but since I'm hving trouble posting proper links I think I'll go back to teh andbox for awhile.

Oh the sentences are:
1.

In the case of computers, Cloudblue erases and destroys the computer’s hard drive on the customer's site. All electronics (computer or otherwise), are then disassembled at one of the company’s processing sites. Reusable components are sold and remnants are exported to countries where the recycling continues. SOURCE: http://cloudblue.com/content/our-process
And
2.
In May 2011, the company announced it had plans to build three new processing facilities (in Texas, California and Puerto Rico, and expand its plants in Chicago IL, Dallas TX, and Joliet, IL) SOURCES: http://www.enviroblyss.com/2011/05 and http://www.cloudblue.com/news/cloudblue-expands-global-reach-meet-electronics-disposition-demand

I am not trying to disrupt the page. It's just that I am not an HTML jockey and I'm new here so sometimes I can't figure out the right way to pot a good link.

~Bob Long island bob (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Long island bob (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Plaigiarism Controvercy"

This section is a wild distortion which is not substantiated by the cited article, which merely repeats a press release issued by an opponent. The article does not report on the substance of the claims, just the existence of an allegation. Not NPOV by a long shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Has it been widely covered? Can citations be given here so editors can decide if its worthy of inclusion? --Mollskman (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, the material needs to be written to matcch the citation, which it doesn't.--Mollskman (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The source is as given: [12]. In what respect does the text not follow the source here, Mollskman? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would include who is making the accusation. The citations says that he was "stealing". Also, it doesn't look like the subject responded to this, rather the consultant did. This seems very un noteworthy unless there are other citations. Maybe include in the bio of the person making the accusation or maybe in an article about the campaign, ect. --Mollskman (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the source -- there is no problem with WP:RS here (and if you think otherwise, you can go to the relevant noticeboard). Your own feelings about the source, the interpretation you are putting on it, are completely irrelevant, per WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree completely on WP:RS. The source simply does not support the allegation of a "Controversy" but merely states that an opponent has made an allegation. A controversy must have more than one participant. Furthermore, the circular reference is quite galling. If one candidate issued a press release claiming another was a martian, and a newspaper picked it up and printed "A calls B a Martian" would it be WP:RS to claim that candidate B was in fact a cited, verified and confirmed martian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.191.42 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the "reliability" of brookster22, the user who posted this section, goes see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sdavi410/Archive. Brookster22 is one of the sockpuppets used by SDavi410 whose entire wikipedia history, apart from placing this setion in Mr. Altschuler's page, consists of supporting the source of the allegation, George Demos. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brookster22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The editing history of other editors, sockpuppets or not, isn't relevant here. Let's stick to discussing content.Arbor8 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This source notes there were "identical releases from Altschuler and Doug Hoffman" - which would not qualify as a self published source because it makes no mention of the press release. Daily News obviously an RS - so this should be included. But I agree with Jhoge123 that we can have a discussion as to the wording. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/ny-1-hopeful-george-demos-call.html Jpeter718 (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the non noteable blog opinion piece. Has this recieved any real coverage? --Mollskman (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)