Talk:Amdocs

Sept 1, 2001
Regarding that connection with 9/11. ,the article writer, can you please elaborate how do you relate these two?

Amdocs India

 * merge - I don't see how it is justified to have seperate article for different branches. The DVCI article should/could be merged into a section of the main article. --Shuki 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * merge - Yes, it should be merged. There is no point in having separate articles for separate branches of a company.

9/11 Fox news report implying some Israelis' knowledge of relevant information before the attacks
First of all, the news report doesn't provide any hard evidence. Secondly, and more importantly, any newsreport of alleged Israeli wrong-doing is not relevant to an article covering a partly Isreali owned and operated company.

Second that, this report has virtually no relevance to amdocs. Removed. wimbledon andy 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this report? It's not directly related to the 9/11 thing, but these spy allegations shouldn't be completely ignored... http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/Amdocs-man-grilled-in-Israel-spy-case/2005/06/01/1117305626373.html I think that at least something should be said... My two cents anyway --Sjkebab 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires linking to verifiable source not decide on 'hard evidence'. As such news reports linking Amdocs to Israeli intelligence are most relevant. emacsuser (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aurec
AFAIK, Aurec is not Aurum (Gold) but the Hebrew word for Artery ("עורק"), which in Hebrew is used to describe a communication channel.

There is and there never was a company named "Aurec". Aurec was probably a brand name or maybe it was the name of the office building they were first doing business out of. The company in Israel was doing business under the name "P.S. Publishing Ltd.". They later changed the name to "Amdocs Israel Ltd." This company has no relevance to the publicly traded US (Delaware) corporation Amdocs Inc. (except they have some business relations and some of the ownership is the same). PowerToKnow 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Customer list
Not surprisingly, this shady company has removed its customer list since the Fox News report. Might as well remove the link unless someone can find the information elsewhere. — Possible single purpose account: 74.129.230.148 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

I have found a link to their customer list: http://www.amdocs.com/Site/About/Customers/Our+Customers.htm while doing some research with a view to contact such customers. I have been working for AMDOCS between May and August and still haven't been paid for last month of work. Looks like "shady" may be quite a mild qualification for these guys...Negusc 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is nothing shady about the company. An extensive customer list with over 150 customers is available on the website at http://www.amdocs.com/About/Pages/Customer-List.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.246.250 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The company was called Aurec for a period of years, internally in Israel, before it changed its name to Amdocs (Israel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.245.250 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC) The renaming of Hebrew businesses and interests is usually justified by reference to Nazis, where in reality, it has been a common occurance to take names from host countries or communities( so-called Anglicisation in this case). AMDOCS as a trading name sounds AMerican, thus endearing to US customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.32.226.66 (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

minus puffery
Some commercial PR talk has been removed. The list of products remains unsourced, and it would be good to see evidence that they are of any current Notability. DGG 07:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OSS
It should be great to have a disambiguated link to OSS. Does it refer to "Open-source software" (it should be great), "Operational Support Systems" (most likely), or "Operations Support Squadron" (humm).

Problems
If anyone is considering working for AmDocs, first read

You may also want to consider the size of the recruitment agency (the smaller they are the more difficult will be to get paid) and especially the payment terms between such agency and Amdocs. From my experience they have a 60 days payment terms which means you may be working 60 days with no pay ! That in itself may be acceptable as long as you know it in advance but - as it has happened to me - you may find that, after you end the contract, you still don't get paid and have no means of getting the money unless you are prepared to sue (not that such action is a guarantee of receiving what's owed to you but it may help...). More details ? E-mail me ! Negusc 09:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if other multi-national company articles on WP also get disgruntled ex-employees with a chip on their shoulder. The URL you posted is old. We can only recommend that you find references and improve this article. --Shuki 18:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Amdocs dev. centers
Amdocs development centers in Ireland, Czech Republic and China are not to be forgotten also :) Eugene R.

wrong thing
i didnt see the conection between amdocs to Where it developed-Israel the compane was Founded in Israel not in missuri its an israeli company in the "company box" you should reppr this. in the hebrew wiki the Headquarters is in Israel ,Ra'anana. and the official office is in missuri!

repper this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.51.252 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is no different then any other Wikipedia entry for a corporation and has public accessible information and is not a solicitation of product or service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.130.92 (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Amdocs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://investors.amdocs.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=76115&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=232525&highlight=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102090753/http://www.amdocs.com:80/News/Pages/Amdocs%20Completes%20Acquisition%20of%20OSS%20Solutions%20Provider%20Cramer.aspx to http://www.amdocs.com/News/Pages/Amdocs%20Completes%20Acquisition%20of%20OSS%20Solutions%20Provider%20Cramer.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.amdocs.com/site/post/docs/brochure_Amdocs_APSDP_Solutions.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531051119/http://newsstream.streamezzo.com:80/2010/05/27/breaking-news-streamezzo-was-acquired-by-amdocs/ to http://newsstream.streamezzo.com/2010/05/27/breaking-news-streamezzo-was-acquired-by-amdocs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Amdocs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005084325/http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000655376&fid=1725 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000655376&fid=1725

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amdocs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amdocs.com/News/Pages/Amdocs%20Completes%20Acquisition%20of%20OSS%20Solutions%20Provider%20Cramer.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008000630/http://www.ossnewsreview.com/telecom-oss/amdocs-to-acquire-sigvalue-technologies/ to http://www.ossnewsreview.com/telecom-oss/amdocs-to-acquire-sigvalue-technologies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Advertising Removed
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I've removed advertising from the article, which include acquisitions list, profit and loss numbers, share prize, market listing number, not notable people, and office numbers and places. Wikipedia Terms of Use no longer except advertising in any manner at any time, and must be removed immediately. All the above are considered non notable and advertising, as they serve no encyclopedic purpose, apart to inform the reason of aspects of the company, of the performance of company, which is advertising. Such advertising puts Wikipedia's licence at risk of removal, as WP is not an adverting platform, per WP:NOTADVERTISING scope_creep (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" section non-balance
Some reworking of the language is in order. Amdocs has not been tied to any known espionage activity—only speculation about the potential for such activity. A U.S. government investigation in 2000 did not support any findings that Amdocs was used in foreign espionage. I'm going to update the section accordingly. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  04:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some reworking is needed, differentiating between violating the privacy of US individuals (actually, anyone using a cellphone in the US, including European) and violating the privacy of government agencies. Go ahead and update the section accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.183.215 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

'''Yale University Changed Amdocs’ Rating Re: Russia '''

Please note that in regard to the “controversy” section, Yale has changed their ranking of Amdocs. Their article has been updated, giving Amdocs a B grade. The “worst category of “Digging in” meaning Defying Demands for Exit” statement on Wikipedia is inaccurate. Amdocs has reduced its activities in Russia and you can find the CEO’s latest public statement on Amdocs’ position on the conflict in his Q2 earnings remarks. They have been pasted below: “Let me say a few words about Amdocs' exposure to Russia and Ukraine and our response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding. From a business perspective, Amdocs' exposure to Russia and Ukraine is immaterial and roughly 1% of revenue, and its impact is already reflected in our guidance. Furthermore, we believe we have taken all necessary steps to ensure we are fully compliant with the applicable sanctions and export control, and we have stopped all new sales of our product and services in Russia. We have also taken steps to ensure the wellbeing of the employees and contractors we have in the region and to support those who wanted to leave with their families. Additionally, we are actively providing humanitarian aid in Ukraine and neighboring countries. Among our many initiatives, Amdocs is part of a donation campaign to provide essential services via UNICEF to vulnerable children and affected families. We are also offering financial support to Amdocs' employees, who are hosting refugee families.” Shuky Sheffer, CEO, Amdocs

PR amdocs (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yale University Changed Amdocs’ Rating Re: Russia
Please note that in regard to the “controversy” section, Yale has changed their ranking of Amdocs. Their article has been updated, giving Amdocs a B grade. The “worst category of “Digging in” meaning Defying Demands for Exit” statement on Wikipedia is inaccurate. Amdocs has reduced its activities in Russia and you can find the CEO’s latest public statement on Amdocs’ position on the conflict in his Q2 earnings remarks. They have been pasted below: “Let me say a few words about Amdocs' exposure to Russia and Ukraine and our response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding. From a business perspective, Amdocs' exposure to Russia and Ukraine is immaterial and roughly 1% of revenue, and its impact is already reflected in our guidance. Furthermore, we believe we have taken all necessary steps to ensure we are fully compliant with the applicable sanctions and export control, and we have stopped all new sales of our product and services in Russia. We have also taken steps to ensure the wellbeing of the employees and contractors we have in the region and to support those who wanted to leave with their families. Additionally, we are actively providing humanitarian aid in Ukraine and neighboring countries. Among our many initiatives, Amdocs is part of a donation campaign to provide essential services via UNICEF to vulnerable children and affected families. We are also offering financial support to Amdocs' employees, who are hosting refugee families.” Shuky Sheffer, CEO, Amdocs

PR amdocs (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Looks like it was taken care by another editor here. Ptrnext (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Changes to general, outdated information (employees, revenue figures, etc.)
Please note that some of this page's content is out of date based on the latest public earnings release, which came out on August 2nd, 2022.

Some edits include:

Number of employees is no longer 29,000. It is now 31,000. Note in boilerplate here.

Revenue is out of date. Amdocs had revenue of $4.3 billion in fiscal 2021.

Amdocs' growth is in some new areas not covered on this page, including 5G rollout and monetization, cloud adoption, digital modernization, and network automation.

Thanks!

PR amdocs (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated financials and employees from per SEC filings. Are there any secondary sources that talk about the company's growth into those new areas? Please re-open once you can provide them. Thanks. Ptrnext (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yale University Changed Amdocs’ Rating Re: Russia
Please note that in regard to the “controversy” section, Yale has changed their ranking of Amdocs. Their article has been updated in June 2022, giving Amdocs a B grade. The “worst category of “Digging in” meaning Defying Demands for Exit” statement on Wikipedia is inaccurate.

Amdocs has reduced its activities in Russia, and you can find the CEO’s latest public statement on Amdocs’ position on the conflict in his Q2 earnings remarks. They have been pasted below:

“Let me say a few words about Amdocs' exposure to Russia and Ukraine and our response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding. From a business perspective, Amdocs' exposure to Russia and Ukraine is immaterial and roughly 1% of revenue, and its impact is already reflected in our guidance. Furthermore, we believe we have taken all necessary steps to ensure we are fully compliant with the applicable sanctions and export control, and we have stopped all new sales of our product and services in Russia.

We have also taken steps to ensure the wellbeing of the employees and contractors we have in the region and to support those who wanted to leave with their families. Additionally, we are actively providing humanitarian aid in Ukraine and neighboring countries. Among our many initiatives, Amdocs is part of a donation campaign to provide essential services via UNICEF to vulnerable children and affected families. We are also offering financial support to Amdocs' employees, who are hosting refugee families.” Shuky Sheffer, CEO, Amdocs

This was previously removed from the page, but re-added improperly.

PR amdocs (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ptrnext (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Update to revenue figures
Amdocs recently reported its end of year earnings, and reported a fiscal 2022 revenue of $4.58 billion. Requesting this figure be updated on the sidebar. Thank you!

PR amdocs (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've updated all the financial parameters in the infobox based on the annual report (Form 20-F) that was published today. Ptrnext (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Update Infobox
Hello, I'm posting here as part of my work with Beutler Ink, on behalf of Amdocs. Because of my conflict of interest, I will not make direct changes to this article and instead will only suggest changes on this Talk page for other editors to review.

First off, I have a few updates for figures in the Infobox:
 * Update Revenue to: US$4.89 billion (2023)
 * Update Operating income to: US$698 million (2023)
 * Update Net income to: US$543 million (2023)

Reason: standard updates to common figures found in infoboxes. Source:

Thanks for reviewing! Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply 12-DEC-2023
Regards, Spintendo  03:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The provided reference is a 19 page pdf. To confirm this information, please provide the page where the information exists.
 * When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the template's answer parameter to read from y to n. Thank you!
 * Thanks for taking a look! I've updated each instance of the ref with the page number where that figure is confirmed. Note that for "operating income" the report uses the term "free cash flow". Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  02:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Article improvements
Hello again. Below are two separate requests to improve this article. The current article's History section, in particular, is mostly WP:PROSELINE and both requests here deal with that. I am making them together so editors can see all the changes in context Because I am making these requests as part of my work for Beutler Ink, on behalf of Amdocs, I will not directly edit the article. Thanks for taking a look! BINK Robin (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Part 1: Overview
First, I suggest the addition of a new section called Overview, which includes a subsection called Leadership. I've drafted what I believe this should look like in the box below:


 * Reason: This section provides additional information about what the company is and basic operations figures such as number of employees and where it operates.
 * Sources:

My goal here is to make this article comprehensive and easier to read. I am open to feedback, and happy to hear any comments. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, after swapping out press release and adding page number to filing.  STEM info  (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Part 2: History
As noted above, the History section relies on single sentence paragraphs and could use an overhaul. Much of it reads as nothing more than a list of acquisitions, without context or relevance provided.
 * I suggest Replacing the entire History section with the content in the box below:


 * Reason: This will bring the article up to date, split the section into logical subsections, and adds some details about recent company activity. Because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I also trimmed down the number of acquisitions to those that represented more significant changes in the company's direction or operating areas. I've also added third-party sources to verify leadership changes, along with timestamps that were missing.
 * Sources:

That's all for this portion of the article. I hope editors agree that this is an improvement over the current version. I am open to feedback, and happy to hear any comments. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply 20-DEC-2023

 * 1) The reasoning in the first section of the request above states It also collects information about the company's leadership that is spread throughout the current article. If the information is already "spread throughout" the current article, and because this section is new and not meant to replace any other sections, it sounds as if this will create duplicate information. Please clarify.
 * 2) Please also include (in the second section of the request above) the text to be deleted/replaced.

Regards, Spintendo  23:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to provide clarifications.

Let me know what you think, I'm happy to hear thoughts or split this into smaller requests if needed. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Apologies if that was not clear. The idea is to move leadership information from History into a Leadership subsection of a new Overview section I propose creating. So the details would not change, or be repeated, but the leadership history would be collected into a single location in the article so it's easier to understand who the company CEO was and when. I've also replaced primary sourcing with third-party sourcing, and added sources to verify when Avi Naor became CEO, as well as Shuky Sheffer, both of which are currently unsourced.
 * 2) Rather than create a long list on this Talk page, I created a copy of the article in my User space, and created this diff, which shows in detail all of the changes, including content to remove, that is part of this request. Does that work for you? I can list it out here, too, but thought this might be a bit easier to review.
 * It seems to be more common to have the history section first, and then the leadership changes integrated chronologically. Having a standalone highly placed leadership section hints at a vanity project and self-promotion. Others may disagree. STEM info  (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback. I'd initially grouped the leadership content together because I see that often in corporate profiles, typically grouped with operations and corporate affairs information. But I'm not committed to that placement and happy to integrate it back into history. I've gone ahead and done that in the proposal above, please let me know if you have any other thoughts on these changes. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ with a few modifications. I didn't add the Light Reading wireless vendor of the year item as too promotional. The award isn't covered anywhere except by Light Reading, so I didn't feel right adding it. I also didn't include the Bloomberg gender-equality index item, for the same reason, and there are a lot of companies recognized.  Doesn't seem that special. The source didn't say Comverse dissolved in 2015, so I omitted that phrase.  I swapped out the Openet Yahoo press release (per site consensus against pr), and the Forbes Bridgewater coverage, since Forbes didn't specifically state the date of the acquisition. Looks better now.  STEM info  (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! your modifications all make sense to me. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversy section
Hello, I'd like to start a conversation about the Controversy section of this article. As a reminder, all of my contributions here are on behalf of Amdocs and because of my conflict of interest, I do not make direct changes to the article.

Aside from the general consensus among editors that section titles like "Controversy" introduce inherent bias per WP:NOCRIT, I'm curious what editors think about the content of this Controversy section? This is an unusual situation where nothing described directly involves Amdocs the company. Looking at it paragraph-by-paragraph:


 * 1) The first paragraph has the best sourcing of the three, being a New York Times article. However, it's not really a controversy. This paragraph just confirms that there was an investigation and the finding was that Amdocs was not being used for Israeli counterintelligence.
 * 2) The second paragraph is sourced to a republished Le Monde article. It expands the context, but again says that there was no "direct evidence linking Amdocs to espionage" and then "the complexity of these allegations indicates that Amdocs' products may have been used by individuals for malicious purposes", which I do not see verified in the source article, and I think may be opinion. I checked the edit history of User:Wikieditswithnuance and see that adding this content to the Amdocs article is their one and only contribution.
 * 3) Like the first two, this paragraph only speculates about Amdocs, and there's no actual confirmed controversial activity from the company itself.

Overall, the amount of space this section is taking up in the article is WP:UNDUE, and the information would generally fall under WP:NOT, since nothing in here is actually about Amdocs' corporate history and is primarily speculating about how Amdocs might have been used by others.

Again, I am really curious what other editors think. I try to avoid suggesting removal of content (especially in sections with names like "Controversy"), but in this case I feel it might be appropriate. tagging you here since you've reviewed my recent request and might have ideas.

Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Robin,
 * In regards to your comment on the line: "the complexity of these allegations indicates that Amdocs' products may have been used by individuals for malicious purposes", I think the source article makes a good case for it and it provides enough for readers to follow up on should they feel inclined to do so.
 * However, there are other sources, including internal reports from federal law enforcement agencies, that confirm surveillance of internal, and in some cases highly secure, government communications and Amdocs products were considered one of the potential vectors. I'll go find those and post them, but it may have to wait until Sunday night as my schedule is packed.
 * This was my first edit in years and my lost my prior password and I don't that old email it was tied to any more, that's why Amdocs is my contribution.
 * Have a good afternoon. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I think the content as written violates WP:OR, which says any content in the article needs to be directly verified by the sources used to support it and articles should not contain "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." For instance, "the complexity of these allegations indicates that Amdocs' products may have been used by individuals for malicious purposes." appears to be a conclusion not directly verified by the source cited.


 * In the Le Monde article, Amdocs is mentioned briefly three times.
 * "It was aimed at the manufacturer of Amdocs software, placed on Wall Street, which lists, for the 25 major telephone companies of the United States, all the calls coming into and originating from American territory..."
 * "The report submitted to the American Justice Department, to which Le Monde had access, shows that many of the “fine-arts students” suspected of illicit activity have a military past in Israeli information or advanced technology units. Some entered and left the United States on several occasions, remaining each time for short periods. Several are related to the hi-tech Israeli companies of Amdocs, Nice and Retalix."
 * "Challenged, a “coed” saw her guarantee of $10,000 paid by an Israeli working at Amdocs. Questioned, two others admitted being employed by Retalix."
 * The article does not make any allegations or conclusions about Amdocs, and Amdocs is not the main subject of the reporting. As included, I think the content sourced to this article is also causing an issue with WP:NPOV because it appears to be suggesting something that is not directly verified, which is also against WP:VERIFY.


 * I'm curious to hear from other editors. tagging the three of you here since you've been involved in the article recently and I thought you might be interested in weighing in. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Robin, thanks for your comments. I've added an addition reference. --I hope your having a nice day. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Robin, I've added another reference: https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/27/an-israeli-trojan-horse/
 * I hope you've been having a nice weekend. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I saw the sources you added. Per WP:FOXNEWS and WP:COUNTERPUNCH, I do not think that either of those count as reliable in this instance. I'd also point out that the Fox News story, like other sources, notes that the concerns were about how data could be used, not making allegations or conclusions about Amdocs. I suspect this is an instance where you and I are unlikely to come to a consensus on what the article should say, so I think I'll go ahead and ask editors over at WP:3O to weigh in. Thanks, BINK Robin (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Robin. Respectfully, if you look at what my entry says: "pointed towards potential exploitation of Amdocs' extensive access to U.S. call data. Although direct evidence linking Amdocs to espionage activities was not established, the complexity of these allegations indicates that Amdocs' products may have been used by individuals for malicious purposes", the Fox News clip does indeed back that up. My entry doesn't assert that AMDOCS as an entity or elements that had penetrated AMDOCS itself were involved but rather that its products and their behavior and/or output may have been used as part of attack and/or penetration vectors; the potential malfeasants using AMDOCS gathered data for their nefarious activities would be covered under that. Also, I put forth that the Counter Punch article is well researched and well done.
 * I hope your having a good start to the week. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi RangersRus, good morning. May I ask why you find counterpunch.org and israelpalestinenews.org unreliable? Also, why should the Fox News report not be considered good enough as it was, contemporaneously, a major news organization that had well resourced operations and significant sources within the United States' government and civil society?
 * I hope your having a nice week so far. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to give a third opinion. Based on your response, I've opened an edit request below. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wikieditswithnuance: Counterpunch is listed as generally unreliable on WP:RSP. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ARandomName123, thanks for pointing this out to me, I did not know that. There are many that should be on that list that are not but lol, what can we do?. I think the article I referenced is good, but...
 * I'll look for more direct sources and reach to the author of it to see if he can get me some, and I'll look for FOIA requests related to it that have hits in return. I'm not sure I have the time or inclination to do any FOIAs for this myself, but I'll think about it.
 * I hope all is well with you ARandomName123, and that you and you friends and family are all okay. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just added another reference, this one is from an official DEA report that mentions the matter.
 * I hope all is well. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV Improvements
Hello, I'd like to request the following changes, per the third opinion given by User:RangersRus in the conversation above on the Controversy section:
 * Move the first paragraph of Controversy into the History section.
 * Reasons: As noted in RangersRus' third opinion, this paragraph is not a controversy. Per WP:NOCRIT, this section is creating bias. Since this paragraph is supported by a reliable source, moving it to History will improve the article's NPOV.


 * Remove the second paragraph from Controversy.
 * Reasons: As noted in RangersRus' third opinion, the sources are unreliable and do not verify this content. Per WP:OR and WP:NOT, this content should be removed from the article to improve balance and NPOV.


 * Remove the third paragraph from Controversy
 * Reasons: This content is speculative, is not about something the company did, and was not widely reported. As noted in RangersRus' third opinion, this section is not a controversy. This change will improve the article's NPOV and balance.

I'm happy to answer questions. As a reminder, because of my COI I do not make direct changes to this article. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello BINK Robin and all others involved,
 * Firstly, I want to express my gratitude for the thoughtful considerations and the third opinion provided by User:RangersRus. It's this collaborative spirit that enhances the quality and integrity of Wikipedia.
 * Regarding the suggestion to move the first paragraph of the Controversy section to History, I understand the perspective shared based on RangersRus' input. If the consensus leans towards this relocation for the sake of maintaining a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), I'm supportive, provided we ensure the context remains clear that these events have been significant in the company's narrative, even if not strictly controversial.
 * As for the recommendation to remove the second paragraph from the Controversy section due to questions about source reliability, I'm in the process of reviewing additional references that could uphold the veracity of the content. I believe that with better-sourced information, we can address the concerns while retaining crucial aspects of the company's history that users find relevant.
 * Concerning the third paragraph's proposed removal, I agree that speculative content without substantial backing does not serve the article well. However, before concluding on its removal, I propose a brief period to explore if more concrete sources exist that could provide a more balanced view, ensuring that we're not omitting content that could be significant to a comprehensive understanding of the company.
 * I'm keen on continuing this dialogue to reach a consensus that upholds Wikipedia's standards and serves the interests of all users seeking accurate and balanced information. Your feedback and further discussion are welcome.
 * With warm and hearty regards, Wikieditswithnuance Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While you're looking for sources, what do you think about implementing these changes for now to meet Wikipedia's standards, per the discussion above? If you're able to find new sources, at that time we could discuss what's appropriate to include from them. Does that seem fair? Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * HI Robin. Well, the third party said the Fox News clip was ok, he would just like to see if we can find more to add to it.. As for the other two, would you like to propose a way to present them that acknowledges that the third party doesn't find them reliable? Also, would you like to propose a retort to the paragraph, to give it balance with your perspective?
 * I hope your having a nice night. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just added another reference, this one is from an official DEA report that mentions the matter.
 * I hope all is well. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the source you've added. Per WP:VERIFY, the source needs to specifically verify the content it is supporting. In this case, the source confirms the company's president at the time, that Amdocs is a US-based Israeli company, its stock symbol, some outsourcing agreements, and that Amdocs had petitioned someone to work in the US. None of that information supports any of the claims made in the paragraph. I'll also note that the document has personal information about possibly living people, which may be problematic. I'd invite User:RangersRus and User:ARandomName123 to weigh in here since you've both participated in this discussion.
 * Thanks, BINK Robin (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I only read the cited passage (p.13), but I concur with Robin's assessment. However, I'd like to point out that there's no consensus on Fox News' reliability outside of politics and science. Additionally, I disagree with RangerRus' assessment of the israelpalestinenews.org article, since it seems to be a translated version of a Le Monde article, which is an RS under WP:NEWSORG. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to moving the first paragraph out, I've gone ahead and done it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, and making that change. At this point, the Controversy section is still taking up a good amount of real estate to essentially levy unconfirmed allegations, which it concludes with saying there's no evidence linking Amdocs to anything. In addition to the sources not verifying the information in what is now the first paragraph, the third paragraph received very little coverage. As it is, the section strikes me as being WP:UNDUE, since it's speculation about how data from Amdocs could have been used, not actually about anything Amdocs did, and didn't receive coverage in mainstream media beyond brief mentions. I'm curious to hear what you think. Appreciate you taking the time to review and discuss. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin, Wikieditswithnuance: After a bit more research, I agree that all the art student related sources, and the content they support, should be removed. It has been dismissed as an "urban myth", per the Washington Post. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Robin. That DEA report I had as reference on its own disproves that the art students were an "urban myth." And that WaPo article is refuting that espionage was done by them, but it wouldn't matter whether or not nation state type espionage was being done by them, the suspicions related to AMDOCS products being used as attack vectors were related narcotics trafficking investigations, not intel agencies doing spying. I hope your having a nice night. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The WaPo article specifically mentions the art students DEA report. For now, I've removed the controversy section, and moved the SA portion to history, and added a brief mention about possible misuse. I hope this is agreeable to all. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The WaPo article confirms the authenticity of the DEA report, I do not agree with the removal of the section. Do you have any suggestions for improving the section? You and Robin seem to just want it gone, you aren't proffering any suggestions for how it can be improved or what sort of sources you would like or how it should be reworded... Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The WaPo article explicitly states that "The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage." We can not just assume that the draft memo last year was the DEA report, we need an RS to confirm it.
 * Please provide a reliable source to support the inclusion of the information. Any primary source, which includes the DEA document would need a secondary source to make any interpretations. Forming our own conclusions based solely on a primary source is not allowed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that simply states they had no information regarding espionage, the discoveries of compromised communications system made by law enforcement officers were related to narcotics trafficking investigations, not espionage.
 * Why I ask why "forming our own conclusions based solely on a primary source is not allowed"? What type of secondary source for interpretation would you find acceptable? Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY: ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  01:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And that WaPo article seems to actually verifies the DEA report's authenticity when it write: "DEA spokesman Thomas Hinojosa said that multiple reports of suspicious activity on the part of young Israelis had come into the agency's Washington headquarters from agents in the field. The reports were summarized in a draft memo last year" @BINK Robin @ARandomName123 Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant paragraphs do not assert that AMDOCS was personally involved in any intentional sense, it states: "Although direct evidence linking Amdocs to espionage activities was not established, the complexity of these allegations indicates that Amdocs' products may have been used by individuals for malicious purposes." It did receive much more news coverage, but it was over 25 years ago and would likely require using a paid service to find the coverage. I hope all is well. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wikieditswithnuance: I left a brief mention of possible misuse when moving stuff out of the controversy section. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the possible misuse that you are referring to? Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just going off the fox news report. Probably the same thing you're referring to when you said "suspicions related to AMDOCS products being used as attack vectors were related narcotics trafficking investigations." ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But what would be the misuse there? Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The mishandling of data. I guess it's not that clear with the way I've worded it, so I changed "misuse" to "mishandling." ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Why was the Fox News report not a good enough reference on its own? Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, the Fox News is currently being used as a reference, on its own. Admittedly, it's not the best (see WP:FOXNEWS) but I think its sufficient for the brief sentence.
 * If you're talking about why the large paragraph was shrunk down, that's because of WP:DUE. Since Fox News seems to have been the only RS to cover Amdocs in this way, outside of the student art case, we don't give it much text. The less coverage something receives, the less text in the article it deserves, in most cases. Hope this helps. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. If I find other large news outlets that covered it contemporaneously, can we restore the paragraph? How many would you want? Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as it verifies the information, just one or two RS is fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. So if I find one or two more RSs to add along with the Fox reference, then I can restore the paragraph? Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can restore the paragraph as long as the RS verifies the information. However, unless "reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms", please leave the paragraph in the history or a differently titled subsection. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll work on it and try to schedule some time next month for extensive source searching. I hope you have a good rest of the winter and a great spring. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for carrying on this discussion. ARandomName123, your changes all make sense to me. I will mark this request closed. Appreciate everyone participating. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll research on my own and see if I can use one of those pay-for-research services to fins more RSs, but that will likely be later in the Spring as my schedule is quite packed in the near term. Its been nice conversing with the two of you. I hope you both have a good Spring and lovely Summer. Wikieditswithnuance (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm glad we could come to an agreement. Thanks and you too! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Image update
Hello, I'd like to request a change to the image in this article's Infobox. The current image is out of date, as the company has moved its offices in Ra'anana. Amdocs has donated this image of the new location. Would editors be willing to replace the current image with this image of the new facility?

I am making this request as part of my work for Beutler Ink, on behalf of Amdocs, and do not make direct changes because of my conflict of interest. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . The water reflection taking up half the image isn't exactly my favourite, but it's a definite improvement over the generic office building the article previously had. Thanks for the photo. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BINK Robin (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction changes
Hello editors, I'd like to propose some changes to the article's Introduction. I suggest replacing the current introduction with the following:


 * Reasons: This consolidates the company description at the start, removes "with support and development centers located worldwide" since that seems a bit promo for the introduction, and changes Chesterfield to St. Louis to match the article body.

Let me know what you think, I welcome any thoughts or feedback. As always, because I am making this request as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of Amdocs, I will not make direct edits. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * tagging you here since you’ve reviewed and implemented other requests for this article. Your feedback is welcome if you’re interested in taking a look. Thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin: How about this, where the nationality is in the first sentence, as is standard, and the year of founding is mentioned:
 * Amdocs (אמדוקס) is an Israeli multinational telecommunications technology company. Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, the company specializes in software and services for communications, media and financial services providers and digital enterprises. Amdocs was founded in 1982 and is publicly traded on the Nasdaq stock exchange. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  22:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those changes make sense to me, thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * as discussed., for future reference, the Reply to and other pinging methods will only work if your signature is added in the same edit. As a result, Special:diff/1215565530 failed to produce a ping. Please see the template linked above or WP:MENTION for more info. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)