Talk:Broadridge Financial Solutions

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Broadridge Financial Solutions. 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/20120425045325/http://www.newriver.com/Broadridge_NewRiver_Acquisition_8-17-10-1.pdf to http://www.newriver.com/Broadridge_NewRiver_Acquisition_8-17-10-1.pdf

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) 03:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: Infobox
Hello, I'm here to offer some updates to help make this article current, especially since the article is tagged. First, a little housekeeping. I propose these edits on behalf of Broadridge Financial Solutions through my work at Beutler Ink. As I have in the past, I will keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries.

To start off, I've prepared basic updates to the infobox. This is what you'll see in my proposed infobox below:
 * I updated Industry to say financial technology
 * I updated Founded to reflect when the company began as the brokerage services arm of ADP, and when it became an independent public company
 * I added Chairman Leslie A. Brun to Key people
 * I added fiscal year 2017 financial figures and employee figures

Pinging User:SageGreenRider: Since you have added content to the article in the past, I wonder if you would care to review this request. Also pinging User:WestportWiki: You previously updated the logo to the article; I want you to know that Broadridge have provided me with their latest logo, that I will upload soon. When I do, I'll make another specific edit request for that.

I will have a few more edit requests to help update other areas of this article so it remains a useful resource to readers looking for info on Broadridge. In the meantime, can editors please review my infobox updates and make the changes to the live article if things look good? Please ping me here if you have any questions regarding these suggested edits. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to edit request 21-JAN-2018
✅ Infobox changes implemented Both PDF's used for the infobox appear to be identical. Was there a reason for the variegation of that document, or may I consolidate it under one reference entry? Please advise.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   09:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo: Thank you for implementing the edits. As for the PDFs, they are the same. I cited it twice in an attempt to avoid confusion with the page numbers, as the page numbers are reset in the middle of the PDF. For instance, I wanted editors to quickly know that the Revenue and Net income figures appeared on page 19 in the first portion of the PDF, whereas Total assets and Total equity appear on pages 28 and 55 of the second portion of the PDF. Feel free to consolidate if you see fit. Thank you, Danilo Two (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: History
Hello, Below editors will see a draft History section I wrote to be considered as a replacement for the live History. The draft includes all the detail that exists currently, but I have included additional history that is important in understanding Broadridge Financial Solutions. I hope editors will consider this material well-sourced, neutral and encyclopedic.

To highlight some of the additions I'm proposing:
 * Broadridge's history as the brokerage services arm of New Jersey-based ADP created in 1962
 * The launch of the company's proxy services business
 * Other key acquisitions
 * Additional detail on its spin off from ADP

I propose these edits on behalf of Broadridge Financial Solutions through my work at Beutler Ink. As I have in the past, I will keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries. Also as mentioned before, I will have a few more edit requests to add more information to this article so it remains a useful resource to readers looking for info on Broadridge. In the meantime, can editors please review my History updates and make the changes to the live article if things look good? Please ping me here if you have any questions regarding these suggested edits. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply
✅ The proposal is an addition of dates for various moments of change for the company, moments which are covered in the already existing version, now labled as "milestones". The proposal converts the bullets into prose, which is generally favored in Wikipedia. However, it is a matter of debate whether that favoritism extends to articles on businesses, especially when the content is proposed largely by the company itself. Items for inclusion are those that the company deems important, sentinal facts that tell the story of its existence. To others, these details are promotional. To the uninitiated eye, it sometimes all seems the same.

In a few of these cases the favoritism extends towards the bullet points, in that they play a part in balancing the company's need to expand with Wikipedia's need to limit self-promotion. For this particular edit request, my criteria for implementation was for the references to pass both (A) the source is not the subject itself (this includes other sources that mention the item because they were paid to mention it by the subject) and (B) the source is an outside source which mentions the news item along with any number of relevant meta-contexts explaining how and why the item was newsworthy. I put it forward to other editors who may be able to access the WSJ if they could have a look at reference #1 to access the information it would be much appreciated. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * References 2 through 8 did not pass category A criteria.
 * References 13 and 14 passed category B criteria, and were added to the article.
 * References 9 through 12 reference information already present in the article.
 * Reference 1 was unaccessible by me.

Revised edit request: History
Posting a revised proposal for History based on Spintendo's feedback above on sources. He took issue with using MarketLine and the company's annual report as sources for this section, so I have replaced these.

Spintendo also included a Forbes source in his objection, however I wonder if that was done in error. Written by a Forbes staff writer, the article "The Broad Reach Of Broadridge, The Most Important Financial Firm You've Never Heard Of" is a reliable source.

A new draft is below. All the info that was sourced to MarketLine or the annual report in my last draft has been sourced to different references, or removed if no other sources were available. Since not everyone has a subscription to The Wall Street Journal, I included quotes within the references to help editors verify detail sourced to WSJ.

Although History is currently written as a bulleted list with milestones, I have kept my draft in paragraph form, as per Manual_of_Style/Layout.

I propose these edits on behalf of Broadridge Financial Solutions through my work at Beutler Ink. As I have in the past, I will keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries. Also as mentioned before, I will have a few more edit requests to add more information to this article so it remains a useful resource to readers looking for info on Broadridge. Can editors please review my History updates and make the changes to the live article if appropriate? Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply 1-FEB-2018
All of the information in your request is already present in the article.
 * 1) Spinoff from ADP: present
 * 2) Acquisition of NewRiver: present
 * 3) Acquisition of Matrix: present
 * 4) Acquisition of Paladyne: present
 * 5) Acquisition of M&O: present
 * 6) Acquisition of S.Johnson: present
 * 7) The acquisition of Ind. Election Corp: source does not substantiate.


 * Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Spintendo: Thank you for reviewing. There are several details not included in the body of the current article that are in the draft:
 * Establishment of Broadridge as part of ADP in 1962. (Yes, it's true that this detail is in the infobox, but I don't think that prevents it from appearing in the body as well and it's a key part of the company's history that provides context for the mention of the spin-off. Per the Manual of Style: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)".)
 * Launch of proxy service business in 1989
 * Acquisition of Wilco International in 1995
 * Forbes reported that by 1999, the company was "handling investor communications for 90 percent of securities held of record by American banks and broker-dealers" (This is a unique aspect of Broadridge's business and shows how the proxy service grew over time since the company launched it in 1989)
 * Sourcing to verify the 2007 spinoff from ADP (There are currently no citations for this mention in the body of the article)
 * Finally, the Independent Election Corporation of America acquisition is included in the cited sourcing, but I see how you might have missed it, since it is referred to by its initials: "In 1992 ADP acquired Daly's former employer IECA …"
 * I hope you can again reconsider the addition of some of these changes. Thank you, Danilo Two (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes exists as a brand-building platform for journalists, participatory readers and marketers, all existing under the Forbes publication umbrella. Thus, it is not my practice to use them alone as a source.
 * The spinoff from ADP in 2007, in which Broadridge Financial Services became an autonomous actor in its own regard, is mentioned in the lead. Please provide sourcing for the ADP spinoff, which I will place as a reference in the infobox.
 * You are correct, I did miss the acronym usage of IECA in that source. It is my understanding that ADP's acquisition of IECA in 1992 was effected by ADP and had nothing outwardly to do with Broadridge Financial Services. If it were effected by Broadridge acting autonomously, please advise with relevant primary sources published at the time.
 * It is my understanding that ADP's acquisition of Wilco in 1995 was effected by ADP and had nothing outwardly to do with Broadridge Financial Services. If it were effected by Broadridge acting autonomously, please advise with relevant primary sources published at the time.
 * It is my understanding that the launch of a proxy service business in 1989 was effected by ADP and had nothing outwardly to do with Broadridge Financial Services. If it were effected by Broadridge acting autonomously, please advise with relevant primary sources published at the time.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo: It's true that articles and blogs from Forbes' contributors network are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, but the Forbes piece I referenced is written by a staff writer that was published in the November 18, 2013, issue of the magazine, which focuses on the financial industry. This seems like a sufficient reliable source. However, since you specifically asked for a source on the 2007 spinoff from ADP, here are stories from The Globe and Mail and Crain's New York Business.
 * Spintendo: It's true that articles and blogs from Forbes' contributors network are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, but the Forbes piece I referenced is written by a staff writer that was published in the November 18, 2013, issue of the magazine, which focuses on the financial industry. This seems like a sufficient reliable source. However, since you specifically asked for a source on the 2007 spinoff from ADP, here are stories from The Globe and Mail and Crain's New York Business.


 * While the acquisitions you mention and the 1989 launch of the proxy service were indeed made when what is now Broadridge was a division of ADP, is it not relevant to Broadridge itself what that ADP division did prior the spinoff? For example: The proxy business is described in the Forbes piece as a business started by Broadridge, not ADP more generally, and it is now the main business of Broadridge. I would argue that the launch of the proxy service and the acquisition of the Independent Election Corporation of America are inherently important to the evolution of Broadridge today. These are not random facts from ADP's history, they are key moves that created a foundation for Broadridge.


 * I would like to reach out to others for additional input on the main question here: How should we treat historical details for a company that was previously part of another. Thank you, Danilo Two (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for reaching out to me. Dealing with historical details for a company that was previously part of another is like dealing with competition. You must keep it neutral. I agree with you that including ADP helps show the foundation created. You have to however, stay neutral about both. For the Forbes reference, you have to see the credibility in the author. Can you identify any bias? any errors?. Staffers often seem very reliable but be careful. I've never had an issue referencing Forbes. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, lets have another look at the Forbes reference if we can. Is it the claim that "Forbes reported that by 1999, the company was 'handling investor communications for 90 percent of securities held of record by American banks and broker-dealers'"?      Spintendo       06:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88 and Spintendo: Thanks for taking time to review and reconsider. In my draft above, I used the Forbes piece as a source for these details:
 * In 1989, it launched its proxy services business.
 * In 1992, it acquired the Independent Election Corporation of America, which processed proxies, annual reports and other corporate communications.
 * Forbes reported that by 1999, the company was "handling investor communications for 90 percent of securities held of record by American banks and broker-dealers".
 * The company spun off from ADP as an independent company in 2007.
 * $78 million sale price for the acquisition of NewRiver
 * Thanks again, Danilo Two (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88 and Spintendo: Just wanted to check in before the weekend to see if you had any additional questions. Thanks again! Danilo Two (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I see two ways forward with this. Regards,      Spintendo       01:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll accept Forbes or any other reliable third party reference only so long as they are primary sources to these events which demonstrate the importance of these events to Broadridge. What that means is the articles must have been written about these events in 1989, 1992, and 2007 respectively, and they must state at the time that these were important, salient events to the company. If these events were so central to Broadridge at the time, they should have reporting covering them at the time.
 * 2) If your response is "No, there are no primary sources from that time attesting to their importance, because that importance to the eventual makeup of Broadridge wasn't known until later" then that conclusion must be the result of some type of original research or WP:SYNTH which would have been done in order to reach that conclusion. If it is original research it's not allowed per WP:NOR or, if not original, it requires references from different sources which all confirm the exact same findings (i.e., no WP:SYNTHESIS). Please advise.
 * Spintendo: I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, which I think is: you will consider the Forbes article to be acceptable "only so long as [there] are primary sources to these events [described in Forbes] which demonstrate the importance of these events to Broadridge" and said "articles must have been written" contemporaneously with these events. If there are none, you would consider the Forbes source to be OR or a SYNTHESIS on my part because Broadridge was not a separate company at the time of those events.


 * That is how I am reading your response. If correct, I think this is an inaccurate reading of the Forbes piece, and an unfair standard of sourcing:


 * The Forbes article cited in my draft is a retrospective piece about Broadridge, written by a professional journalist for a reliable source who, in 2013, researched the company's history and highlighted what he found to be important events in 1989, 1992, and 2007 that led to its spinoff from ADP and the creation of the present-day Broadridge. Therefore, the information is self-evidently important to Broadridge, more so than to its former parent company.
 * Just because there were not stories published in 1989, 1992 or 2007 about how certain company decisions were important then, let alone were to play out in the future, does not mean that those events are inconsequential, especially if a journalist later found them to be of enough importance to include detail in their reporting.
 * Finally, the request for primary sources in addition to the Forbes article is most perplexing to me. WP:RELIABLE is very clear on its preference for secondary sources, and nowhere does it say primary sources must be provided as well. This appears to be an extraordinary burden placed on what has already been established as a legitimate secondary source.


 * This was a longer reply than I intended, however I felt it was important to be very clear about why I disagree with what I think are your views on sourcing here. I was genuinely surprised to find you objected to it, since it seems like the kind of straightforward journalism work that Wikipedia is supposed to be built upon. Please let me know what you think. Danilo Two (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

______ If the writer of the Forbes piece is the only person making this assertion based on their own research, then is that not the textbook definition or WP:NOR, which is the publishing of writings or interpretations that have not previously been published? What you have is the Forbes writer making conclusions they put together, based on the following: I believe that the line has to be drawn somewhere on what aspects of the past may be claimed by agents of the present. And this hold on business practices which occurred under ADP ought not to be unilaterally appropriated through the words of one Forbes retrospective article. Regards,      Spintendo       11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) If A is true ("Broadridge's current proxy service occupies a unique level of importance to their business.")
 * 2) and B is true ("People working under ADP handled proxy business historically in the past.")
 * 3) then C must be true ("Proxy service is so notably Broadridgian in origin, aspects of it accomplished years ago by employees of ADP should now be re-mentioned as occuring under the auspices of Broadridge, owing their conception and their history to Broadridge, along with everything else Broadridgian under the sun.")
 * Spintendo: I fear this is being abstracted in a way that's unnecessary. This is actually a simple request.


 * The Forbes story shows how ADP set up its proxy business that directly led to the creation of Broadridge.
 * ADP launched its proxy services business in 1989.
 * It then acquired the Independent Election Corporation of America, which processed proxies, annual reports and other corporate communications, in 1992.
 * By 1999, the company was "handling investor communications for 90 percent of securities held of record by American banks and broker-dealers".
 * The business was spun off from ADP as Broadridge, an independent company, in 2007.


 * There are other stories that draw this exact same conclusion.
 * Take, for example, this 2012 story from The Globe and Mail, which writes:
 * Based, believe it or not, in Lake Success, N.Y., Broadridge started nearly 50 years ago as the "Brokerage Services" division of Automatic Data Processing, processing stock trades (a business it still engages in - more on that later). It moved into proxy services in 1989; ADP spun off Broadridge in 2007.


 * This 2007 story from Securities Industry News mentions Broadridge's origins with ADP:
 * Broadridge Investor Communications, formerly ADP Investor Communications, which has about 800 bank and brokerage clients.


 * This 2008 story from Northwestern Financial Review, which was written by an account executive with the Investor Communication Solutions segment of Broadridge Financial Solutions, describes the relation:
 * Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (formerly ADP Investor Communication Services), the industry's leading provider of proxy and related shareholder communications, engaged in one of its largest development initiatives to be fully prepared for the July 2007 launch of the SEC Notice and Access rules.


 * There is also this 1998 story from Newsday, which further discusses the beginnings of the proxy services business, including ADP's acquisition of Independent Election Corp. of America.


 * In no way does this request attempt to attribute to Broadridge everything that was done by ADP. Again, this should be much simpler than you're making it out to be. There is ample coverage of business moves made by ADP that directly led to Broadridge, and that is what I'm proposing to include in this article.


 * I would hope that you reconsider your position. If we cannot come to an agreement, I wonder if WP:RS/N is an acceptable place to get further direction. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is that option or you could try either requests for comments, the dispute resolution noticeboard or one of the other dispute resolution options. Regards,      Spintendo       23:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you have badly misunderstood the original research policy. If a reporter or a researcher does research and comes to conclusions, and then publishes them in a reliable source one with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, then Wikipedia may include those conclusions in an article, because Wikipedia was not the first to publish them, they were published by the source fist. The policy says and later  Nowhere does it say or imply that content for which only one source is cited is OR, nor that the source must be primary, nor that the source must be contemporary with the events being described. It is common for historians and journalists to identify as significant in retrospect things that got little attention at the time, and those conclusions may be included in Wikipedia articles, if they have been published in a reliable source.  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your weighing in,, and I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure what more I have to add, except to ask if you'd be willing to implement the content. If you have any other concerns, I'd be happy to look into the drafted language. FWIW, is away on leave for a few weeks, so I'm here in his place for now, and we'll only have one person involved at a time. I'm sure he'd agree that we'd be thrilled to revisit this if it could result in an expanded section—the  obviously doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to 's request for my input, I'm not sure when the company started using the name Broadridge, but it was my belief that the company was a part of ADP until 2007, and that the additional references provided by WWB (The Globe and Mail, Nexus) all indicated that the firm was known as ADP up until 2007. It was also my belief that the Forbes reference, in using the term Broadridge, was referring to the part of the company that was ADP up until 2007. I thought that all of this meant that the information regarding the company's activities pre-2007 at least belonged in the ADP article under that company's past activities, and that the process of applying all of this information to a company which officially began in 2007 needed an extra look to ensure it was correct. 0.82em 01:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing Business segments section
I have a new section to propose for this article, which is badly in need of expansion and new citations. I must note: I have a financial COI with the topic, being that I am here on behalf of Broadridge Financial Solutions. (For anyone watching this page previously, I am stepping in for Danilo Two, who is off-wiki for the next several weeks.) The proposed section aims to give the reader a clear understanding of just what it is that Broadridge does:

In hopes of finding knowledgeable editors to review this proposed section, I will ping a couple of folks who have self-identified as contributors to WikiProject Finance & Investment, as well as affixing the template. I would be more than happy to answer any questions a volunteer editor may have about this section, so please ask if you have any. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am here in response to your edit request. I am a bity concerned that all your suggested sources seem to derive directly from the company itself. The  Form 10-K is obliviously created by the company. Bloomberg profiles are known to depend in most cases on data supplied by the company, and are not independently vetted. The story in The Street takes the form of an interview with the CEO, and in any case reads like a press release, and so canno be considered independant. Is there any independent source tht can be cited for any of this? And is the Form 10-K published and available to a randoem reader wishing to verify facts cited to it here? If so, where is it published? if it is online, please provide a link. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, in the section above, it seems an earlier request was held up by what I think is an incorrect understanding of our policy on original research. I will look into that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for commenting. I wish I'd found stronger secondary sources, but my thinking was this: the Bloomberg profile is used for limited information at a very high level—describing the company's primary business activities—so it is unlikely to be wrong. Meanwhile, the 10-K is prepared for the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) so it must be factual, subject to penalty under U.S. federal law. (It's already included in the current article, and is available here.) According to WP:PRIMARYCARE, a company's own website is acceptable for "for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities" and so I assumed these sources should work for what they are being asked to do. Finally, the information verified by TheStreet.com is from the summary before the interview, so I think this one is still a secondary source. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, The opening sentence of the article from The Street quotes Rich Daley, the company CEO. So does the 4th paragraph. The rest of the intro sounds like a lightly-digested press release. i would not count this as an independent source. However, the content does not seem to be controversial and so an independent source is not strictly required. However, if anyone challenges this, a truly independent source would be needed. I'll get back to this later today, i hope. If I do the edit, i will cite the form 10-K with a link. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is actually much better to get company reports from SEC Edgar (the search page is here) The 2017 AR (the 10-K) is here.  It is better to get them from edgar a) because the link is stable (companies shift their websites around and take down older reports) and b) it is far less spammy-seeming to link to the SEC.  I agree very much that SEC submissions must be factual by law so are reliable.  Companies still spin things in them but they are bound with respect to how far they can go. It is always better to use independent refs but I use SEC filings not infrequently for factual things (when an acquisition was made, for example).
 * I avoid The Street like the plague - it a stock-chasers blog and people post things there trying to drive stock prices up and down; not good for trying to get information of enduring, encyclopedic relevance. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then, to save time, please take the material as challenged, – anything a paid editor is trying to add to Wikipedia should be treated as controversial, as such editors are here to line their pockets and not to improve the encyclopaedia. Neutrality is one of our five pillars, and someone here with an agenda is – rather obviously – not neutral. Wikipedia is built on what is reported in solid independent reliable sources, and cares little or nothing for what people or organisations choose to say about themselves – as we know, companies lie just as much as anyone else, and more than many of us (tobacco giants, Olympus, VW, take your pick). If there is not much information about this particular company in reliable secondary sources then that would seem to be a strong indication that it is not notable, particularly now that we have a much improved notability guideline for organisations. AfD would seem to be a realistic option here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I will treat sch content as pe-challanged, so to speak. However, the question in my mind was whether there was enough sourcing to make a particular edit, not whether there is enough to establish the notability of the company as a whole. I think that is quite well established, and I think an AfD would promptly result in a KEEP outcome. I Understand your point about paid editors, although I have encountered paid editors who are meticulous about following our policies ( comes to mind). After ally WP:NPOV does not require that editors be neutral, only their writing in articles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up,, and good feedback,. It does happen that the SEC filing actually can be used to verify everything that the Bloomberg link was supposed to (ctrl-F "investor communications" and "global telchnology", especially on page 4) so I've updated this in the new version below. FWIW, the live Wikipedia article already refers to the company's "main fields of work" without any source—surely a primary source is better than none at all. I'm also removing the information and citation from TheStreet.com, as there's clearly not support for including it.

What do you think? Better to include all the 10-K page numbers, or not? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A ping here for and —it's now a bit more than a week since I offered a revision to this section based on your feedback. What do you think of this now? Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What you did there was basically copy bits of the 10-K. The capitalization and wordsalad are corporatespeak that is not encyclopedic. Please summarize the company's business and customers in plain English. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. So, my goal here was to be accurate, and as you can imagine, it's impossible to describe a financial services company without some reliance on business-speak. A question, : the capitalization here is only to describe the two primary business segments as proper nouns, which is how the company describes them in the 10-K. Are you saying you're fine with these phrases, just not capitalized? Also, I went looking for a similar company in the list of GAs, and came back with the Operations section of Apollo Global Management. It also uses specific all-caps wording borrowed from the company's S-1 to describe Apollo's business lines. Does this example seem useful for our purposes? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * pointing to other stuff that exists is almost never effective in these discussions and you should know that by now.
 * I do not favor using corporatespeak in Wikipedia and I cannot understand why anybody would think this makes sense in a general purpose encyclopedia meant for everyday people. I will never implement that kind of proposal in Wikipedia. Maybe somebody else will.  If they do I will probably work it over to make it into plain English. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pointing out a random page; I was looking specifically to one that has passed GA. That should count for something! In any case, I will try to rewrite the section, and am marking this request declined for now. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A new draft and revised approach
Well, hello again! After discussing the prior edit requests with Broadridge, and reviewing the draft they were based on, I decided to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. And because there has been so much discussion about how sources were used, I have also prepared a few drafts for review. These are in my userspace now:

→User:WWB_Too/Broadridge_Financial_Solutions →User:WWB_Too/Broadridge_Financial_Solutions/sources_quoted →User:WWB_Too/Broadridge_Financial_Solutions/deprecated
 * 1) The draft which I would suggest can be copied over, provided you find the information and sourcing to meet Wikipedia's guidelines:
 * 1) Another draft identical, except that it also includes a verbatim quote for each usage in every citation, so you can compare it to the material I've written:
 * 1) For a point of comparison, I have also posted up a full version of the earlier draft, which I now think was not nearly careful enough, and I won't allow again:

Among the numerous issues discussed earlier this year which I believe have been addressed:


 * The proposed material no longer relies upon the annual report or 10-K for anything but to fill infobox parameters, per WP:ORGSOURCE, and I've been otherwise very careful about relying only on general interest and financial publications as citations; for example, the description of the company's divisional structure has been omitted, because I couldn't find this outside of company sources
 * Overall, specific information included has been more judiciously selected, using the most up-to-date figures available, and has been streamlined to just a few paragraphs grouped into related topics
 * I have carefully revised the description of how the modern Broadridge relates to the division of ADP, with special attention to Richard Daly, who was instrumental in forming, and leading, both; this was a point of contention early in the process, so I think this is now much more clear
 * If indeed this draft is moved over, please note that the categories in the draft are disabled so as not to appear on those category pages, will need to be re-enabled

As always, happy to answer any and all questions, and I look forward to your replies. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I wonder what gave you the idea that anyone might want to copy paid content into Wikipedia? Since there seems to be a real risk that content commissioned by a person or body in order to publicise the same and inserted here under the guise of a neutral article written by disinterested volunteers could fall under the definition of native advertising/deceptive advertising (two different descriptions) as defined by the FTC, and thus be illegal under United States law, that is not something anyone is going to undertake lightly. We don't have any policy on this yet, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in wanting to err on the side of caution in the meantime (comment, anyone?). As I understand it, that means that while the underlying facts of any change you propose may be considered on their merits, the actual text – the form of words – probably will not.
 * We're trying to write an encyclopaedia here, so have rather less than no time for cosmetic massage of the corporate image of this business – Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. However, if there is some some significant error or omission of fact that you wish to have corrected, please specify it here, together with the independent reliable sources that support it. A good request might read something like "The date of foundation is incorrect: it was not 1492, but 1942, as shown in the [reliable source], on page [n]"
 * The article does certainly need to be substantially rewritten – a section headed "milestones" surely has no place in an encyclopaedia. But the most serious problem is that of notability – where is the in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate that? It certainly isn't in the article now (three self-published sources, three news releases and one site blocked by the GDPR). If there are solid sources that discuss this thing it'd be good to list them here; otherwise I'll probably nominate it for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would hasten to add that while some editors may not approve of them, there is nothing inherently un-encyclopedic about the use of milestones. A milestone section — which is essentially an embedded list — is used frequently in articles, even having its own set of guidelines. Wikipedia uses an entire page to relay its own important milestones. Milestones are asked to do a lot of hard work in a minimal amount of space, something I think they do very well in certain circumstances.   spintendo   05:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, JLAN. The WP:COI guideline instructs me to do exactly this; it is not illegal, otherwise there would be an update to the guideline and the Terms of Use on this point. I am very aware of the risk you describe, which is why I don't edit articles directly, and why I've taken extra care to make this proposed draft as transparent as can be. I agree the current article is bad, which is why I'm offering this new draft with reliable sources as a solution. If you're not interested to help, that is OK; I am happy to work with others and will be patient in waiting on their input. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, JLAN. The WP:COI guideline instructs me to do exactly this; it is not illegal, otherwise there would be an update to the guideline and the Terms of Use on this point. I am very aware of the risk you describe, which is why I don't edit articles directly, and why I've taken extra care to make this proposed draft as transparent as can be. I agree the current article is bad, which is why I'm offering this new draft with reliable sources as a solution. If you're not interested to help, that is OK; I am happy to work with others and will be patient in waiting on their input. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, JLAN. The WP:COI guideline instructs me to do exactly this; it is not illegal, otherwise there would be an update to the guideline and the Terms of Use on this point. I am very aware of the risk you describe, which is why I don't edit articles directly, and why I've taken extra care to make this proposed draft as transparent as can be. I agree the current article is bad, which is why I'm offering this new draft with reliable sources as a solution. If you're not interested to help, that is OK; I am happy to work with others and will be patient in waiting on their input. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Request to remove See also links
The current article includes two links in the See also section which don't really make any sense here: List of companies in the United States and Software industry in Telangana. The simple reason is that neither article mentions Broadridge, nor is there any indication in the article why those pages would be especially relevant here. As noted in discussions above, as well as the template up top, I have a financial COI here and will not edit the page directly. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. —  Newslinger  talk   10:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to trim warning template
I'd like to suggest slimming down the problems identified in the template, as I believe two are plainly out-of-date. These are and. When this template was in early July, these were more appropriate, but since another editor made  later in the month, these no longer apply. At present, the company's annual report is cited only in the infobox, and the rest are all third-party sources. Meanwhile, the Notability of this company has never been seriously contested, and many RS sources can be found in the proposed draft I had first offered here in late June. As before, I have a financial COI with this topic, so I will not be editing the article directly. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Danski454 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to remove warning template
The request I posted last week was about trimming the warning template on the article, and this was done. Upon further consideration, I believe the remaining template warnings are misplaced on this article as well, and should likely be removed. Most clearly, states the article "needs additional citations for verification", but following 's edits last month, every paragraph in the body of the article has multiple citations. Additionally, is itself quite outdated, especially since the article now includes information regarding the company's activities in 2016. As stated before, I have a financial COI here and so will not edit the article directly. If you read this and agree these templates do not describe the current article, I hope you will consider removing the tags. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal of the remaining hatnote templates, but I'd prefer to let another editor do that, as I already trimmed off some of the hatnote items. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . It's been a week since the request went up, so here is a quick ping to and, who answered requests on this page earlier in the month, in case one or the other is willing to consider this one as well. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  Newslinger  talk   16:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)