Talk:Perot Systems/Archive 1

Refactored

Of all business-related things to have on this page, the author chose to cite their Diversity ranking? Why not something as equally unrelated such as the percentage of coffee drinkers by division? - 141.123.100.70, 23 September 2005

Because coffee-drinking is not a significant part of corporate culture. Diversity and, for better or worse, having or not domestic partnership benefits is.--Dali-Llama 15:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this company has the lowest equality index score according to the Human Rights Campaign is notable. Apparently the information was removed, so I will readd it. Theshibboleth 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article reads as if it were written by the public relations dept at Perot Systems. It needs to be more balanced. --rogerd 03:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Case style for URL

This comment was originally left at User talk:Justen:

Hi Justen, I was wondering why you downcased PerotSystems.com in the company infobox? Personally I think the camel case domain name is somewhat more readable, and just as valid as the lower case version. MarkBrooks 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mark. I tried to find out if there was a standard for URL case. I always figured the standard was to use lowercase, but there, in fact, is no Wikipedia style standard. The very consensus I seemed to get over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Style for URL case seemed to agree with you that camel case is the best. I noticed you just updated the article to restore the URL to camel case, so that seems great. I'll keep trying to get Wikipedia to settle on a standard. Thanks for bringing it up! Justen 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had just updated the infobox and hadn't changed the URL style (I have now); I was waiting to get some kind of consensus. I would guess that company infoboxes are one of the few places where URLs occur in the presentation (as opposed to in links). MarkBrooks 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is the Chairman?

The first sentence: Peter Altabef has served as president, chairman, and chief executive officer since 2004.

On the right: Key people: Ross Perot, Jr., chairman

Will Entriken 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

History Section Vandalism?

I am not understanding the portions under the History section that read 'dirty, dirty prostitute places' and 'Tenemos 400 cabezas y colas de caballo'.

Looks like vandalism to me, but I am not going to touch anything.

--Powertrippin (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral Perspective, Removing Sentence

The sentence "Although Perot Systems is a government contractor, as of January 2008, the company does not have a diversity or inclusion program." suggests that all government contractors are required to have diversity or inclusion programs, which is not true. This sentence seems to serve no purpose other than to attempt to cast a negative light on the company, so I am removing it. I will remove it again if it is added back unless someone can provide a reasonable explanation of its neutrality. Blendenzo 2:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

HRC

The addition about the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is continued LGBT spam. Please justify the positioning why this is relevant to the masses. I agree with the above that there is a non-neutral perspective but something releavant to the company needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is the addition is sourced. Perhaps it can be re worded and looked further into Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a newer version of this source? is a question i would pose, that may accomodate POV Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The source of this does not matter. It is clearly LBGT SPAM by Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Wikipedia has no agenda while it is obvious the people who continually revert this do. Please ad an explanation why this has any value to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely I think the reversions are occuring based on removal of sourced content. And not to do with the fact of agendas of the editors. Its usually perceived as vandalism when something sourced is removed in this case the source seems to be valid without too much inspection. The question really is, is the source valid. will look into and post back.... Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the sourcing. In 2009 the company ranked zero again http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2009.pdf also covered in http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Miscellaneous/Ratingsindexes/HRCCorporateEqualityIndexUSA and many other secondary sources (just do a google serach theres many). I would go as far to say this is legit. Theres ample coverage of this organization on wiki, and its one of two companies to place this low. its notable. I think though one thing you could do is try to balance the section with things that mention a more positive image of the company if your worried over this. Wikipedia is not censored. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is no longer true (I know as a company insider). It is not published information anywhere though, only internal company documents which are not publicly available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.131.85.206 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 September 2009

Wikipedia depends on reliable sourcing. While we have no reason to doubt the insider information you are privy to, the most recent reliable sourcing we have access to indicates what is stated in the article. It's sort of an unusual concept for many to immediately grasp, but the standard here is verifiability, not truth. Which is to say, at least in this case, information changes, but we have to depend on reliable sources updating those facts, not on insider information or other original research. Hope this helps clarify. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the span of 25 minutes (16 October 2009 @ 22:14-22:39), three WP users reverted edits which correctly identified HRC as a homosexual lobby group and filled in the ellipsis which hid the "GLBT" language in the quotation. Those three users are Vishnu2011, J (Justen), and Iner22. In all three "independent" cases the edits were deemed nonconstructive by these three "independent" WP users. Why would three "independent" WP users consider factual information about a homosexual lobby group to be nonconstructive? 74.107.127.84 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging an article with both {{weasel}} and {{pov}} because you believe there is some hidden gay agenda being enforced by "three 'independent'" editors through their insistence on neutral wording in the Corporate Equality Index section? Your edits were largely nonconstructive, and given your familiarity with Wikipedia policies and templates, I'm sure you've been around here, in some incarnation, long enough to know that. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dell Services VS Perot Systems

This article is about Perot Systems. If the current name 'Dell' boldfaced in the lede and the Dell logo in the info box are to be used then it should be as such in the Dell article after this article is merged into the Dell article. However, I do not condone this. Because the article is about Perot Systems, it should remain so and be changed to past tense. The original Perot Systems image should be in the info box. The boldface term should be Perot Systems. This is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of corporate merging. BTW, I'm not sure "Dell Services" even exists as a noteworthy Wikipedia article subject matter; certainly, anything officially "Dell Services" is not by definition formerly Perot Systems. - Steve3849^talk 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, change to past tense and the lede could just mention that the business now operates as a unit of Dell Services and link to Dell. The "fate" variable of the company infobox could also be added. jæs (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I came across this article late last night while editing the Plano, Texas article. At first glance, it appeared as if the editors had simply forgotten to change the article name. Much of the information in the Infobox refers to Dell Services, especially the logo, which leads the reader to believe the article is about Dell Services. I recommend the following changes:

1. the lead section should read something like:

Perot Systems was an information technology services provider founded in 1988 by a group of investors led by Ross Perot and based in Plano, Texas, United States. A Fortune 1000 corporation with offices in more than 25 countries, Perot Systems employed more than 23,000 people and had an annual revenue of $2.8 billion before its acquisition in 2009 by Dell, Inc..

2. the infobox should look something like this (see box at right):

Perot Systems

Industry	Information technology
Founded	June 1, 1988 (1988-06-01)
Founder	H. Ross Perot, Sr.
Defunct	September 21, 2009 (2009-09-21)
Successor	Dell Services
Headquarters	Plano, Texas , United States
Key people	H. Ross Perot, Jr., chairman Peter Altabef, chief executive officer Russell Freeman, chief operating officer
Services	Application development, systems integration, information technology consulting
Revenue	US$2.8 billion (2010)
Number of employees	23,100 (2010)

3. Dell Services should be a section within the Dell article. I hope this is helpful. DiverDave (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)