Talk:Foundever

Fair use rationale for Image:Sitel logo.gif
Image:Sitel logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Labor Relations
Sitel staff have been making positive and negative statements about their labor relations experiences on internet fora, such as ratemyemployer.ca and JobVent.com.

This was removed as WP:OR. I think the wording was neutral, and presented a NPOV. I'm going to re-add it if there are no objections. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sites are non-reliable sources, and publishing the mentions are WP:OR unless there's a news story about the labor relations available.
 * Also, simply stating "making positive and negative statements about their labor relations experiences" is really adding nothing encyclopedic about Sitel, but rather simply advertising the web forums. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I only noted this because it is an issue in my hometown with this company, it has even been investigated by the NYS attorney general (For another issue). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is ther any reporting in the local newspaper, television station, etc on labor issues - I could see a neutral mention if there's a reliable source providing the information. Also, I would think there should be some reporting on the NYS attorney general investigation, so suspect a mention of ongoing investigation may be appropriate if a RS can be documented.  Plus, the article suffers from a lack of third party references right now anyway - so these would also help the article as a whole. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48739567_new-york-attorney-general-cuomo-stops-debt-collection-abuses-western-ny-company - It's about NAFS (National Action Financial Services) which is a subsidiary, but not labor relations. The only labor relations things I've heard through word of mouth (They're right next door to my office):( Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sitel has been cited many times bu NLRB for unfair labor practices in the U.S. Bingojiggity (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On first pass, I found a 2012 Mountain Xpress article and 2012 Daily Kos article covering Asheville NC call center unfair labor practices complaints and settlement.Dialectric (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reads like a company brochure
See subject. TraceyR (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposing a new draft
I am the Web & SEO Manager at Sitel Group. I would like to share a proposed rewrite of the current article, so that independent, impartial editors have an opportunity to review the draft and provide any feedback. The current article is just a couple paragraphs with no independent citations. In comparison, the proposed would add a more comprehensive warts-and-all history with proper independent references.

Pinging who has shown an interest in this page in the past and appears to still be active. DanSlavov (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up on the talk page. I have reviewed the draft and think it looks good, with solid citations and neutral language. One minor point - 'Sitel is organized into independent self-contained divisions that focus on specific industries or services, such as insurance or technical support' should have a reference more recent than the 1990s.Dialectric (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I removed the sentence you mentioned with the out-dated citation, especially because it is not really quite accurate anymore anyway. It’s been a couple weeks and no one else has chimed in on the proposed draft. Would you like to do the honors of pushing the draft live? Should I be putting it in myself? DanSlavov (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved the draft to become the live article, with a couple of copyedits, and adding back the categories that were in previously in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed updates
and thanks for reviewing the draft I proposed with a disclosed COI a couple years ago. I wanted to add a $2.2 billion acquisition announced this August to the end of the history section as follows:
 * In August 2021, Sitel acquired a public customer service company called Sykes Enterprises for $2.2 billion.

I’d also like to use the same citation to update our headcount in the infobox from 90,000 to 155,000 post-acquisition. Per WP:COI I was hoping one of you might make these changes if you think that’s ok and improves the page. DanSlavov (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Per your request at my talk page I took a peek. The nature of those changes looks fine but if you would like advice on how to get those responses you need it's to have empathy for those who would do it by exactly specifying your proposed edit. Otherwise you are inadvertently asking them to jump in deeper like a regular editor at the article in order to figure out what to do. On your first edit could you clarify exactly where you want it inserted. Since there is no specific "History" section and there are two guesses on where you had in mind.  Also you mentioned changing the 90,000 number to 155,000 but  there is no 90,000 number.  Did you mean to reduce the 160,000+ # (in since early October) to 155,000? I'll watch this page for a month but please ping me to be sure. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like someone already updated the employee headcount in the infobox. I suggest the above sentence on the acquisition be added to the very end of the “Corporate History” section, just after “acquired Sitel in 2015, valuing the company at $850 million.[13]” DanSlavov (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. I just did it.North8000 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
My name is Daniel and I work in marketing for Sitel. Recently, an IP address created a section called "News" with a sub-section called "Involvement in 2022 data breach at Okta". There was a security breach that attracted media attention, however TechCrunch explains Sitel's and Okta's conflicting perspectives, whereas Wikipedia's content relies exclusively on a citation to Okta's website. Additionally, creating a section and sub-section dedicated to the security breach, rather than a sentence in the History section, seems excessive.

I'd like to ask editors to consider removing the section cited to Okta's website and replace it with a 1-2 sentence summary of the TechCrunch piece at the end of the History section. In the alternate, I can take a stab at it and share a draft if preferred. DanSlavov (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging and, who have each helped with my COI requests in the past above. DanSlavov (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the sourcing problems certainly couldn't get much worse......the whole thing is taken from and sourced to the website of one of the involved companies. I'm going to replace the section with a stub derived from the techcrunch article. Then somebody or we could build from there. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did that. It can be built from there. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Also, is it appropriate that the security breach have a dedicated section and sub-section? I see that WP:CRIT discourages dedicated sections for controversies and the manual of style discourages short sections. I didn’t know if you left it in a dedicated section/sub-section because you supported that formatting. DanSlavov (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just left that aspect "as is". I didn't and don't have an opinion either way because I don't have enough knowledge to have such an opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've edited the section, adding a May 2022 cite. I'm not fully convinced that the matter even deserves two sentences - I doubt it has any material impact on Sitel's finances or even their reputation in the business world. At minimum, it would be nice to expand the article so that this security incident is a smaller percentage of the total content, but I realize that news about private corporations tends to be sparse. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I don't have the perspective that would come from jumping in deeper on this, but it looks good to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help with this. I was thinking the "Ownership changes" section could be renamed to "Recent history" with the data breach being a paragraph under that, rather than the security breach having its own section. However, I wasn't entirely clear if you both supported or opposed my requested change to avoid having a dedicated section on the security breach? I wasn't complaining about the content itself anymore (North8000 already rewrote it) DanSlavov (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

My depth of involvement at this article/topic/ it's sources has been just enough to fix an obvious problem and to say that your ideas and proposed changes look OK with me, and those do look OK with me. I'm also happy to make those proposed changes when explicitly clearly defined. But I don't have the deeper involvement in the topic / sources to be intelligently making statements like "I think it should be this.......". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)