Talk:Bain & Company/Misleading content related to so-called Bain India incident

Misleading content related to so-called Bain India incident
There is a section in this article that makes very little sense, and has been introduced after the efforts of multiple people to delete it. The section alleges a Bain & Company connection to India's anti-corruption movement. A large sub-section entitled "Relationship with the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement" has nothing to do with the subject of the article and should be moved to articles related to the India anti-corruption movement.

The source alleging a connection between Bain & Company and the anti-corruption movement, reference #19, is "^ Unattributable source under Chatham House Rules." References to unverifiable sources should not be allowed. In addition, there are proper references, in the sentence below, but they do not justify the claims being made.

"In response to client demands from mounting PR pressure, Melgiri's campaign resulted in the replacement of Bain India's MD and Country Head as well as other re-organizational changes to Bain's New Delhi and Mumbai offices;[23][24] the next day, Bain released an article on implementing more "bias-free" HR practices to the Indian financial daily The Economic Times.[25]"

Sources 23 and 24 are simply announcements of the changes to Bain & Company's organizational structure, but have no linkage to mounting PR pressure or client demands. Similarly, The Economic Times article ([25]) is a commentary authored by a Bain & Company author and is unrelated to any change in the firm's HR practices.

Because this exact same content has been added repeatedly, with literally 100s of edits since early September, some assistance or suggestion on how to address this misinformation problem would be really appreciated--Thanks! NJmeditor (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What you do is to paste a copy of text that you do not like on the talk page. Mark the bits that you don't like with strikethrough .  Have indented paragraphs explaining why you don't like the bits you have struck through, and what you propose to replace them with (if anything).  You should also list the citations, and say why they are inappropriate.  I suggest that you sign each paragraph, as other people will add their comments on your comments.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the two instances of 'citations' to an "Unattributable source under Chatham House Rules", as mentioned above.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of March 2011 - The Bain India incident involving HR corruption
I agree with NJmeditor's deletion of the following: The citation was to an article that talked about Ashish Singh being appointed as chairman of Bain India in response to the continued growth in clients demand. It did not mention HR or corruption.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bain India incident Background Subsection
I have moved the following section from the main text to the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement that: "In March 2011, several partners and employees in Bain & Co.'s New Delhi, India office were evidentiarily implicated in corrupt HR practices through a global board-level disclosure campaign backed by American anti-corruption philanthropist Dr. N.D. Melgiri" is not supported by any sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement that "In response to client demands from mounting PR pressure, Melgiri's campaign resulted in the replacement of Bain India's MD and Country Head as well as other re-organizational changes to Bain's New Delhi and Mumbai offices;" is not supported by any sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement that "Bain released an article on implementing more "bias-free" HR practices to the Indian financial daily The Economic Times." is supported by the source. However there is no support from sources for the innuendo that the appearance of this article was anything to do with the previous two statements.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the sources don't match up to the statements, at all - The references for the small text don't add up, either. (I was just about to remove this section myself! ) Avic ennasis @ 11:27, 20 Elul 5771 / 11:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bain India incident, Ties with the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement Subsection
I have moved the following section from the main text to the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statements above may well be true, and supported by the sources (though I have not checked this), but it is not obvious from the text how they are relevant to a section on "The Bain India incident".--Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bain India incident, The ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption
I have moved the following section from the main text to the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source makes no mention of any connection between Bain & Company and the Indian Prime Minister's ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Further Revisions
Unfortunately, many sub-sections have been added back to the main article after being moved over to talk for further discussion. That discussion is not resolved, but I still maintain that the sources do not support any of the claims made about Bain & Company and do not establish a connection.--NJmeditor (talk) 19 September 2011, 15:14 (UTC)


 * In his edit summary of 06:41, 20 September 2011 Mediasource2011 said that: "all facts are supported by the references; go through them one-by-one and put them all together in context; use your intelligence".


 * There is a point by point discussion of these in the sections above. As far as I can see, what Mediasource2011 says is not correct.


 * I have now done 3 reverts of attempts to add back the same unwarranted material in 24 hours. I cannot do any more reverts for 24 hours.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see Johnstonemba has once again re-added the questionable material. I have reverted for now and warned Johnstonemba.  If  and  want this to remain, they will need MUCH better references from reliable sources (newspapers, TV, etc. - places with fact checking journalists) which actually show a link.  Simply highlighting a coincidental timing, and a tenuous family link is unwarranted synthesis and is prohibited by one of Wikipedia's core policies.  Continuing to ignore the policies will result in further warnings and may lead to a suspension of editing privileges.  Astronaut (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

D3swooshg's proposed deletions
D3swooshg deleted several sections at 16:26 (UTC), 21 September 2011. The deleted sections were: He says: "I would like to point out to all these retarded editors out here that I have been deleting this sabotage for 2 weeks, and I'm the one they keep on blocking. I've been a member of Wikipedia for 7 years. This is disgusting."
 * The Guinness affair
 * The Value Partners case
 * The Bain India incident
 * I have put a message on his talk page asking him to explain why these sections should be deleted.


 * I checked the first citation of the section on the Guinness affair, and unlike unlike some of the stuff that I deleted, it really did talk about criticisms of how Bain worked. I have therefore temporarily reverted D3swooshg's deletions.  I think we need to discuss these deletions.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, there needs to be a valid reason given for the deletion, and should be discussed here first. -- Marek  .  69   talk  17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Bain India Incident" content seems the most egregious. The sources do not establish any connection at all. None of the sources describing the events in the table are connected to the subject of the article. Previous edits, asserting HR corruption, PR pressure and client demands, are completely unsupported, and seem to be some sort of vandalism or effort to promote one or more individuals' agenda instead of documented, verified facts. There is also a very cryptic note about an "N. D. Melgiri" but there are no external sources verifying who that is or any of the claims about him/her, and no clear sense how the claims tie back to Bain & Company aside from asserting former employment. NJmeditor (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to deletion of the "Bain India Incident" section on the grounds that you state.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protection and dispute resolution
The multiple reverts in both directions on this issue have led to the page being protected (I initially flagged the two users who kept reinserting the synthesis for violating the three-edit rule). This gives us the chance to come to a good agreement on what needs to happen next. My position is that this article should have no content on India's anti-corruption movement. Each inclusion, as previously written, falls under the policies against synthesis and original research. I have found no external sources that validate a connection between the topics.


 * The current version offers no connection to the subject of the article whatsoever. It is a list of events which are better suited for the actual [2011 Indian anti-corruption movement] page. They can only be included here if there are specific sources that spell out a linkage between Bain & Company and the events listed.
 * An earlier statement asserted connections between changes to Bain & Company's organizational structure and the anti-corruption movement, but cited no sources other than the bare facts of a change in Bain India's managing director. Claims of HR corruption, mounting PR pressure or client demands seemed to be the fabrication of the contributor, and cannot be sourced.
 * A biographical note regarding a Dr. N.D. Melgiri did not have a clear place in the article. It mentioned Melgiri's former employment at Bain and McKinsey, but there is no argument for mentioning every former employee of these several-thousand person firms without a clear and newsworthy tie. The note does not belong in the article.

I realize that several of you have weighed in already, but I'd like to help develop a speedy resolution here. Any comments pro or con on the points above are welcome. NJmeditor (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the "The Guinness affair" section

 * Support D3swooshg has tried to delete this section on 16:26 (UTC), 21 September 2011
 * Oppose. At least one of the sources cited (the first one) really does back up what is said.  I am not convinced that there is a case for deleting this section.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons Toddy points out above. Astronaut (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the "The Value Partners case" section

 * Support D3swooshg has tried to delete this section on 16:26 (UTC), 21 September 2011
 * Oppose The source does indeed say Bain & Co took over the Brazilian offices of Value Parters and was involved in a court case. Astronaut (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the "The Bain India incident" section

 * Support D3swooshg has tried to delete this section on 16:26 (UTC), 21 September 2011
 * Support on the grounds listed above. All the parts that I have checked were unsupported by the sources as discussed above.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, again for the same reasons discussed above. That is unless a reliable source is discovered that actually links Bain & Co with the people involved in the Anti-corruption movement AND goes on to say that this is controversial in some way.  Astronaut (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from NarayanDMelgiri, 25 September 2011
Please remove my name from this page. I have no comment on the veracity of the statements included on the page, but the "Bain India incident" section would give an average reader the impression that I'm:

1) a wealthy person (when, in reality, I'm just a simple teacher) and 2) affiliated with the consultancy Bain & Company (an institution I really don't care to be publicly associated with)

I would appreciate your help with this.

Thank you.

NarayanDMelgiri (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted a question about this request on the user's talk page, and we await a reply.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Request disabled pending clarification. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

When editing the article becomes possible again, I suggest that we edit the list of Bain & Company: Mr Melgiri does not have a biography on Wikipedia. --Toddy1 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If a person listed has a citation for him/her working at some time for Bain - keep
 * If a person listed has a linked biography on Wikipedia that mentions him/her working at some time for Bain - keep
 * If a person listed has a linked biography on Wikipedia that does not mention him/her working at some time for Bain - delete from the list
 * If a person listed does not have a linked biography on Wikipedia - delete from the list

Leaked memo regarding Bain India incident
The attached memo was just leaked to my e-mail account by an unnamed source under the Chatham House Rule. It provides the backup for my previous edits to this page. What young journalists these days should learn is that just because an event is not found in the daily headlines or on the nightly news broadcast, that situation does not necessarily entail that the event did not occur or is inconsequential. I would argue the most important news is made in private. Throwing my two cents in, I think most of these so-called Wikipedia editors are young computer-addicted cyberpunks with no formal training or work experience in journalism. Try living through the Vietnam War and the tricky Dick years - you might learn a thing or two about how the world actually operates.

Mediasource2011 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no backup for the stuff you wrote regarding what you call the "Bain India incident" on Bain & Company. You and your friend wrote about corruption, and backed it up with citations to sources that did not mention corruption. You wrote about Bain influencing things, and backed it up with citations to sources that did not mention Bain. You wrote about an anti-corruption campaigner, cobbling together information that seems to be about several people of the same name, and adding to it information not backed up by any of sources you cited.

The document you have just posted on Talk:Bain & Company has not been published by a reliable source. Wikipedia cannot use it.

Please stop posting nonsense on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the so-called "leaked memo" was deleted. Citing the Chatham House Rule only states that it was given to you anonymously and confidentially (and apparently on the very date that it was sent, as one could read in the now deleted document). "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed." The consensus has been to remove all content alleging a connection between the subject of this article and the Indian anti-corruption movement. It does not meet the basic, core standard of being published by a reliable source. Please respect that consensus.  NJmeditor (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)