Talk:TransPerfect

message: Article is promotional short of G11, and needs help in the Neutral Point of View department -- Y not? 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed this myself. -- Y not? 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone tagging

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

message: Now, I'm not that familiar with TransPerfect itself, but if it provides translation and interpretation services, would it really need to employ 4,000 students of linguistics? I don't mind using the word "linguist" to mean "someone who is proficient in numerous languages", but could we not come up with a better Wikilink? elvenscout742 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a hyper-inflated number.  They are clearly counting their independent contractors (who don't even appear anywhere on the payrools) as 'employees.'65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "linguists"? 

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

message: TransPerfect is in clear violation of the rules. I have attempted to make their page on Wikipedia more neutral by adding a paragraph pointing to the many problems of the company (high turnaround, employee abuse, translators' dissatisfaction). My paragraph stays on line a few hours and is then deleted. They should be banned from Wikipedia. Could something be done about this? {User:grinzing )  —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been stated in the Edit Summary every time I have deleted this contribution, the citation is inappropriate, as it features subjective reviews that are not subject to scrutiny in the manner that news or journal articles are. The Glassdoor website does not verify contributions for their authenticity. It is possible for one person to open numerous accounts and post a series of extremely negative reviews in order to discredit a former employer or competitor. I do not represent TransPerfect or have any connection to the company whatsoever, but this kind of contribution needs to be verified by, for example, a journalistic investigation. Is this reasonable? If other copyeditors disagree with me, then I will happily leave further contributions of this nature; however, the content is not encyclopedic in this context.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These contributions—with Glassdoor, etc, as citations—are reappearing and this needs to stop. Fortunately, other copyeditors are monitoring the page for such edits. I am not discounting the possibility that TransPerfect is in breach of LSP codes, employer contracts, or whatever it may be, but these need to be presented after such activity becomes public knowledge after a media report/investigation, court decision, or the publication of findings by an appropriate body. One simply cannot insert allegations of misconduct into the article based on subjective accounts, such as those found on websites like Glassdoor. Additionally, I am not questioning the reputation of Glassdoor, but investigative journalism is not one of their aims or objectives, and it is not appropriate to use the contributions of users as citations. However, if this happened to be an article on the translation industry or businesses that were founded during a particular period, then content from TransPerfect's "About" page or their annual reports may be fairly used. 
I hope this has further clarified the matter for people who were still unsure after my first post on the subject. If the edits are being made by a former, now-discgruntled employee/s, then the purpose and nature of Wikipedia needs to be reaffirmed to him/her/them, or the corresponding pages on Wikipedia policy, etc. need to be read or reread. Thank you for your time and please feel free to add to this discussion newly or further, so that a beneficial outcome can be finalized. Thank you again, --Soulparadox (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this page because I have just been listening to a bunch of professional translators who all have a very low opinion of Transperfect. I wanted to find out why, but this article is nothing but a puff piece for a company that is intensely disliked by a large number of people who are in the same field. The article certainly needs to be vetted for neutrality. Evangeline (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the puff piece. I'm going to remove everything that is unsourced or irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of promotional material 

message: This company has been mired in legal issues for the past 3 or four years and the issues need to be part of this page, since it has been so public. Fairlysimple (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite  to discuss their concerns about this matter here.331dot (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit story

message: There appear to be major new legal developments in the TransPerfect case. It seems to have been announced that Phil Shawe has won the auction to purchase the firm, but large numbers of senior staffers have resigned prior to this still preliminary ruling, and it remains to be seen if they will return. 
Sources (in the form of multiple articles) here if anyone wants to write up the story:
https://slator.com/tag/transperfect/
Slator is an online Language Services Provider Industry site.
FurnaldHall (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Late November 2017 -- New Legal Developments

message: The issues that developed in the Chancery Court over TransPerfect have not completely ended. While the ownership matter was finally resolved, the company is still in court there over lingering legal fees and there is a public campaign now by a group that appears to be partially made up of employees of the company who are now challenging the chancery rules through media ads and legislation. Article One Article Two Press Release  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantEditor126 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 2019 Continued Legal Developments