Talk:Monitor Deloitte

Response to financial crisis
I'm going to be sailing close to 3RR soon. If the IP posters have sources for the information they're adding, it'd be welcome. Hypnotist uk (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Economist link, which is both WP:V and needed for WP:NPOV. Deleting it was not a minor edit. Hypnotist uk (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested
Hello, I'd like to ask for assistance with this article. Because I know there are guidelines about contributing when there may be a potential conflict of interest, I want to disclose (as on my user page) that I am posting here in affiliation with and on behalf of Monitor Group, the subject of this article. It has come to my attention that this article has been edited significantly since March, when Monitor’s work with Libya re-entered the news. I'm under no illusion that information about this will be removed, but I do wish that it be even-handed and accurate, as the best Wikipedia articles can be. I do not think it is that now. I aim to follow all the Wikipedia guidelines, including those for COI, and I would like to seek help from impartial editors to improve the page in this regard. I believe that there is definite room for improvement on the current article, but I am wary of making edits directly due to my working relationship with the company. Here are some things that stand out:


 * Most of the key section "Work for Muammar Qadhafi Regime" relies on a report by Mother Jones and a single primary source from their website. This section would benefit from making greater use of reliable secondary sources than it does now, including a March 4 report by the Boston Globe.
 * The section currently relies only on very recent sources (Mother Jones and after), creating the impression that Monitor’s work in Libya was not publicly known until this year. However, there are a number of secondary sources from 2006 and 2007 citing the firm’s presence in Libya. I would suggest using these sources, including an Associated Press article from March 16, 2007, an NPR report from September 1, 2007 and a New Yorker article from May 8, 2006.
 * This section states that Mother Jones "has obtained internal company documents" and "produced internal company documents" when in fact (as the section also states) these were released by a Libyan opposition group in 2009.
 * The section now quotes Mother Jones' statement that Monitor "had been retained 'not to promote economic development'" but this is not true. As the Boston Globe reported, and the Monitor Group statement has explained, the bulk of the work in 2006-2008 was focused on encouraging economic and democratic reforms. The 2007 NPR report also states that Monitor was hired for these purposes. As written, this is one-sided and inaccurate. I suggest more information from the Globe, NPR and Monitor’s statement be included.
 * The section includes a fairly long and somewhat confusing blockquote (it begins "According to the proposal...") taken from the primary document, including a typo not in the original. My suggestion is it be summarized in the document.
 * The section currently does not mention that the majority of Monitor's work was in 2006 to 2008. This is supported by several sources, including a Businessweek article on April 6, which states that “between 2006 and 2008, when Monitor said it did the bulk of its work, the country's trajectory seemed positive."
 * One more thing: someone has posted the full Monitor statement in this section. I am glad it is available here but I recognize the full quotation is inappropriate. I would rather see it used in context, so I suggest it can be removed and incorporated throughout the section.

Because of the sensitivity involved, I do not wish to edit this page directly. Please let me know if you would like to get involved, and if you have any questions that I can answer. I would appreciate any help that other editors can provide as there are a lot of improvements that can be made to make this a much better article and one that better reflects Wikipedia's guidelines. Please leave any messages here or on my talk page. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern and caution. I'll take a look at this.  If you'd like to propose a draft of the section on this talk page, that's fine too.  We can discuss it and edit it if necessary. Ocaasi c 15:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I've created a subpage at Talk:Monitor Group/LibyaSources to collect some more links to articles. Ocaasi c 16:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest, Ocaasi. I will review the list of links you have created to see if I can add more. Although I am cautious about suggesting actual draft language, with your invitation I will see what I can come up with. I will check with you on your talk page when I am ready to propose something. Meanwhile, can you explain the section copied below? It is still in the article, yet I am confused about what to make of its inclusion on this page now. Thanks again, and I look forward to working with you on this. CanalPark (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The links were from a pretty exhaustive Google news and archives search between 2005 and today.  Frankly, there are probably way more than are necessary.  Ironically, Mother Jones isn't among them.  But feel free to add any, especially if you have print sources which Google does not index.  The purpose of the draft below is so you could make or propose changes without them being 'live'.  You could adjust it so it says exactly what you think it should, and myself and others can give you feedback and make edits ourselves--all without disrupting the main article until we're finished.  If you'd rather not do that, you can just leave it.  Ocaasi c 20:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I see now. I've added in the first section now, too, since that requires much work as well. I have also added a couple of new links to the workpage you have created, but I agree that there is already plenty to write a more neutral section from. That will be my next plan. Thanks again for your help. CanalPark (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I have written and posted above a new draft of the Libya-related material, inside the second "collapse box", for review and comparison with the existing two sections covering the same topics, now located inside the first collapse box. Whereas the current treatment of the material begins in 2011, this new version begins in the more logical time, when Monitor began its work for Libya. All of the same material is covered, including the documents posted by the Libyan opposition group, the involvement of U.S. and British academics and the LSE, and covers the breadth of Monitor's activities. The new version is shorter but covers the same publicly reported allegations in what I think is a reasonable, even-handed manner. To Ocaasi or another experienced editor, please edit this as you see fit and if one agrees it is better for the main page than the two current sections, I hope you will replace it. I will be available to answer questions if that will help. Thank you, CanalPark (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating this. I invited User:Rangoon11 who is familiar with articles about both corporations and the UK to help out.  We'll give you some feedback this week. Ocaasi c 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds great to me. I have this page watchlisted so I will respond as in as timely a manner as I can. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now read through all of the above and my initial thoughts are that (1) I agree that the current treatment of these issues in the article is in need of improvement, and is unduly long; (2) I broadly support the new text in terms of length, structure, tone and sources and am happy for the above draft to form the basis for a replacement section on these issues; (3) I would however like to see some adjustments to the proposed text to more strongly emphasise certain points. In particular I would like to include that (i) the Monitor statement described the abortive book project as a "serious mistake on our part" rather than merely a mistake; (ii) that Monitor has been alleged to have received a fee of least $3m (£1.8m) per year for its work for the Libyan regime; and (iii) that the proposed price for the book concept was $2.45 million. I would also like to include these three articles as additional sources:, and . Tomorrow I will post a propsed revised version of the replacement section for discussion, but I welcome a response to these initial comments. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rangoon11. I am glad to hear you agree with the points I have raised about the sections, and with the general direction of the draft I provided. Your suggestions sound reasonable to me, and I am eager to see the latest version when it is posted. Thank you, CanalPark (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am creating a third draft section on this talk page, based on CanalPark's initial proposal. Rangoon, can you add your changes there so we have a new draft as well as record to which we can compare?  I also think your suggestions are very on point, though I'm still sorting through the various commentary.  I'm up through the 2009 sources but have not yet covered the 2011 renewal of debate and criticism. Ocaasi c 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A few preliminary additions to Rangoon's comments. The draft should include wikilinks to Michael Porter, Joseph Nye, Benjamin Barber, any other major individuals or organizations, and LSE Libya Links. Ocaasi c 03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting up the new draft box, I will add in my proposed additions, as well as the proposed above WP links, a bit later today.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now put up a revised draft in the box above. The text is now broadly as I think it should be, although I still need to add in the new citations and check that the existing ones are now in the right place. However it would be much appreciated if comments could be made at this point so that they can be fed in before more work is done on polishing the text. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good, and I think it's definitely ready to replace what was there before. My main criticism is the understated mention of Porter's role.  I've read every source I could find linking Monitor to Libya from 2005-2010 (Haven't finished the 2011 sources), and Porter is at the center of almost every single one.  He was the competitiveness expert who Saif wooed early on to come and help; he was there for the 2007 New Dawn kickoff speech; he seems to have been the lead figure behind the strategic planning and the definite connection to Monitor and Harvard Business School, if not the mastermind of the whole thing.  We can work with that once the draft is added, as well, since it's not like I see any problems with the most recent version.  Ocaasi c 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Re Porter I'm happy to more strongly emphasise his role here, particularly as he is a Senior Partner and Academic Director of Monitor, as well as a co-founder. A detailed description of his involvement should in my view go in the Michael Porter article however, where bizarrely there is no mention at all at present.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ocaasi and Rangoon, I've read the latest proposed version, and it appears factual and straightforward to me. I'll be interested to see how you plan to describe Porter's role, but insofar as they accurately reflect what has been publicly reported, I would support it. Really, I have no changes to suggest here; it will undoubtedly be better than the current version. I am very grateful that you have both taken the time to do a thorough job, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the new section posted. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is not finished and this is a major improvement, I'm going to add it now, especially given the topicality of this... topic. It's still pretty newsworthy, we so might as well get the cleaned up draft in the main article while page views are through the roof.  Expansion or revision can still happen while it's in the main article, of course.  It's been great working with you, and I hope you write a note about it for the company bulletin, seriously!  It's important that one of the world's most prominent consulting (and PR?) companies finds the world's most prominent collaborative reference encyclopedia to be respectable and workable.  So spread the word!  If you like. Ocaasi c 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have been pleasantly surprised how quickly this process has worked out, and your editorial judgments I believe have been quite sound. And you are correct, speaking at least for my immediate colleagues, we certainly respect Wikipedia as a unique and important platform. Ironically, now the best-written part of the article is the one we probably wish did not have to be here at all. I would like to try proposing improved versions of sections about other aspects of Monitor's work, which has often also received significant notice. I understand the importance of privileging third-party sources and striving to focus on notable aspects of the business without being promotional. It will take another week to do that, but if you're willing to review that when I am able to present it, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments and very happy to have helped out. I for one would also be happy to review any proposed new content or improvements to other sections of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

FARA
Following from our above discussion regarding the Libya section, there has been a small development that seems appropriate to include here. I would like to request a small update to the section, replacing the final sentence (beginning "In March 2011...") with the following:


 * In May 2011, Monitor announced it would register some of its past work in Libya with the U.S. Department of Justice in accordance with FARA. The company said it would also register for work with Jordan.



I would appreciate another editor's input in reviewing and making the edit, due to my potential conflict of interest on this subject. To Ocaasi, Rangoon11, or any other experienced editor, please edit this addition as needed and make the replacement if you feel that it is suitable. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, the proposed text above has now been inserted. Please note that I have not deleted what was the last sentence of that paragraph however as I think that the detail regarding the internal investigation is still relevant. Happy to discuss of course if there are good reasons why you think it should now come out. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's fine, I understand why you say that. I'm still working on a draft to help improve the "Organization" section so I will share that when it is ready. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Organization section
Following from the above discussion, I would like to ask for some further assistance with this article, in particular with reviewing proposed changes to the "Organization" section. As noted in my original request, I am seeking assistance with this on behalf of Monitor Group, and as such have a potential conflict of interest with editing this article. Therefore, I would prefer that disinterested and experienced editors review and, if appropriate, make any edits that I propose.

The current "Organization" section offered a flawed view of the company. I have provided an alternative in the collapse box, below this note.

What I changed:
 * The first paragraph is better explained by who founded it and where. The current first paragraph isn't very useful.
 * The long second paragraph explaining the firm's practice areas is now more accurate, based on the same sources.
 * I cleaned up the information about the award for Monitor's pro bono service, and provided the name of the parent organization, with a press release from the Corporation itself.
 * I made some minor changes to the language in the last paragraph, about the 2008 financial crisis.

What I added:
 * Several prominent individuals in the firm have written business books that inform and are informed by Monitor's work, and these are included here.

What I removed:
 * I removed the Consulting Magazine reference because I thought it didn't add anything concrete.
 * I removed the Fast Company award co-sponsorship because it has not been held for several years.

Due to my potential COI (as mentioned above) it would be most appreciated if Rangoon11, Ocaasi or another editor could review this draft section and make the replacement, if appropriate. Please make any edits to the draft that are required and if you have any questions, I will reply as quickly as I am able. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The draft is an improvement in several areas. I have a few questions, comments and tweaks:
 * Reword 'consulting practices:' to consulting areas/groups/departments, as 'practices' generally describes behaviors
 * Consider using a comma before the final 'and' in Pricing and Sales, and Social Action. This is a style choice, but I prefer it, especially in long lists and lists with 'and' outside of the final list item
 * Rephrase 'development of intellectual property' to be more plainspoken. Does this mean Monitor has its own publications?
 * Try and limit colon use if possible (minor)
 * Sentence about repeat clients is a bit of a non-sequitur in that paragraph. Move elsewhere or develop into a full paragraph about clients.
 * Why remove the part about Monitor's corporate reputation, i.e. 'known for being different'? I'd expand that actually.  Or best move it into the Reputation section.
 * Why remove the coverage of Monitor's non-profit work?
 * Suggest order of subjects, founding and history, current organization--departments and offices and management, clients, reputation, employees, competition. Each of those areas could have its own level 2 section and be expanded.
 * Nice work though. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasit 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ocaasi. Really quite helpful. I have made a couple of small edits now. First, in the main article I have moved the "different" quote to "Reputation" and I have also put quotation marks around it. I had suggested removing it because it seemed like a minor thing, but it fits better now that it's properly quoted. I also brought one additional detail from the current text back to the section about Monitor's non-profit work. It was not my intention to remove anything, but to tighten it up, especially in light of the "citation needed" now there. As for the "non-sequitur" about repeat clients, I think it works fine at the end of this sentence, though it would take me some time to add more, but I would definitely like to. And I agree the article could be developed further, though this is as far as I have got now. I sense that you're supportive of moving this new version over, but I'd like to give you a chance for feedback once more. I am glad you agree that this is generally an improvement, and I'd like to see it reflected in the article soon. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ocaasi. Based on your indication of qualified support, I've gone ahead and moved the above draft into the article. I know that it is not exactly as you think it could be, so please make any changes that you think are necessary for the integrity of the section. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Comparison
There needs to be a section praising how quickly Monitor Group owned up to its errors on Libya. Can there be a contrast with organisation that have worked with Syria, Iran, North Korea, or going back to Franco and Stalin that have not been so quick to admit mistakes. Else profile will becomes unbalanced and biased against Monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.156 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source, a published article in a newspaper, magazine, or expert blog, which discusses Monitor's quickness to respond, then we can consider including it. Otherwise, it's just an observation from a reader.  Can you help? Ocaasit 13:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monitor Deloitte. 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/20080331103114/http://www.newprofit.com/about.asp to http://www.newprofit.com/about.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015214604/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2007/apr24a.html to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2007/apr24a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520085218/http://bx.businessweek.com/monitor-group to http://bx.businessweek.com/monitor-group/

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) 15:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)