Talk:Recruitment process outsourcing

message: This article currently sounds less like an established business term and more like a neologism to package new business. In fact it sounds like FUD written by BPO/outsourcing companies about why total RPO is better than partial...
I'm going to tag it advertising (and needs sourcing) and see if we can't improve it, otherwise later on propos it for deletion as "not significant". --Saganaki- 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like an advertisment 

message: I had nothing to do with this article but I am researching HR practices. RPO is a commerical term, first established by a company called Alexander Mann Solutions. However, it is now a widely accepted acronym among HR professionals and therefore deserves an explanation for any professional seeking a definition. This article does not contain any company names and cannot, therefore, be considered an advertisement. It is admirable of the last debator to ensure Wikipedia remains commerically pure but life and work are intertwined with a fast paced world where meaning is fluid and constantly shifting. Please, Wikipedia, do not flag this article as an advertisement. There are people who need to know this information, even if it is linked with the commercial world.
:: In fact the last debator (or editor as we're called here) doesn't believe that wikipedia should remain commercially pure. Rather I think that wikipedia should be a quality source of information and, in my view and from a reading of wikipedia's policies, the article doesn't cut it, lacking sources, etc. The comment about the abscence of company names meaning the article is not an advertisement is rather disingenuous. "In this fast paced world" companies constantly invent new sales terms to push their products, viz IBM's move to distinguish Business Transformation Outsourcing from Business Process Outsourcing. Just because "meaning is fluid and constantly shifting" and "life and work are intertwined" (fancy!) doesn't mean a term necessarily deserves its own encyclopedia entry.Saganaki- 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is not an advertisement 

message: I came to this page looking for a intro to what RPO was and I found it. I don't see any way in which this page "exclusively promote[s] a company, product, group, service, or person" Saganaki, there is no need to insult people for stating a POV that doesn't agree with theirs, that is inappropriate. Jamiequint 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I also agree, not an advertisement 

message: Deleted the following as it has no relevance to the above article, cites no references as to what constitutes an 'Important Company', and appears to promote only a small group of companies within the RPO and HRO industry.
	
Important Companies:
Hyphen Recruitment Outsourcing, Adecco RPO, Kenexa, Artech Infosystems, LanceSoft Inc, Tek Systems, Aditi Technologies, Excel Data Systems, Volt, Rose International, Tec Caliber IT Services, SmartHire.ca
Jimbo.a.jones (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'Important Companies' 

message: Looking through the 'Benefits / Risks' section it's clear there have been a number of conflicting / contrasting edits which did not clearly articulate what the benefits and risks of Recruitment Process Outsourcing are. 
I've attempt to abbreviate and clarify these, but must state at this stage that I'm currently employed by an RPO provider. The reason I've chosen to make the changes is to help people to understand RPO.  
If mods / admins take exception to these changes because they have been input by someone with a vested interest in the industry, please revert them. 
Jimbo.a.jones (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes made by 65.122.241.226 to Benefits and Risks section. This IP maps to Kenexa, one of the companies mentioned in the 'Important Companies' list - conflict of interest??
Added HRO Today's Baker's Dozen, a review of the major RPO players. 
Jimbo.a.jones (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up Benefits / Risks section 

message: Hi, not sure the appropriate way to provide this feedback but the links for the references at the end of the article don't work.  Thanks, Red Redfrogs (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links (References)