Talk:The Saint Consulting Group

NPOV
The article reads like ad copy. The Publications section needs to be re-written or dropped. The current version sounds like publicity from a company website, not like an encyclopedia entry. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the publications section to the talk page to be discussed and reworked as the current form really didn't work:

{{cquote|

Publications
In February 2009 Forbes Magazine reports, “Small groups are getting smarter about keeping big projects at bay. Thanks to Saint Consulting, corporations are wising up, too.” The article discusses Nimby-ism and the role Saint Consulting Group can play in the process.

Also in February 2009, Sioux City Journal reports on the methods The Saint Consulting Group uses. This particular story discusses an oil refinery project in South Dakota.

According to Consulting Magazine, in 2008 Saint Consulting ranks fifth among all small management consulting firms specializing in strategy. In August 2007 Inc Magazine named the Saint Consulting Group one of the 5,000 fastest-growing private companies in the United States. With a growth rate of 25% from 2003 to 2006, The Saint Consulting Group was number 3,152 on the list. www.inc.com }} ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it is ad copy. The tip-off is the "©" symbol. Companies who own the copyright or trademark on a term are effectively required to use the symbol every time they use their trademark. So when you see those symbols, that's a tip-off that it was written by the company.--Nbauman (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WSJ story
I added the WSJ story, which is just what this entry needs. Rival Chains Secretly Fund Opposition to Wal-Mart, Ann Zimmerman, Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2010.

I would remind the Saint employees who are undoubtedly reading this of WP:COI Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, and also WP:NPOV, and I would recommend you look up the story in one of the media magazines, I think Ad Age, of why it's a dumb idea to write Wikipedia entries about yourself or your clients -- basically people on WP will recognize it, and fill it with balanced material, including all the stuff you would rather not talk about. It's an even dumber idea to try to censor WP articles to delete unfavorable material about yourself. People here take great offense at that. Streisand effect

For the record, I think unions should organize to oppose non-union supermarkets. I do believe WP entries should follow WP rules, however. --Nbauman (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

--
 * Response to NBauman:


 * I am an employee of The Saint Consulting Group.


 * With respect to your comment on revisions history page (paraphrase: "we'll see how long it takes for Saint to take this down") you can rest assured that as long as the material on this page is properly cited and from a reasonably reliable source, we will not attempt to modify the material. In the case of your recent additions, it's quite clear that you are attempting to maintain a NPOV and are simply quoting/paraphrasing the article, and that's completely appropriate.


 * Your point with respect to the article in Ad Age is well taken and we are well aware of the risks of having a presence on Wikipedia; our only concern is that the material posted here be balanced and presented with NPOV. The vast majority of the material on this page was posted by non-Saint employees, and just about all of the revisions as well. We have no interest in engaging in a propaganda or public relations effort on Wikipedia, only an interest in making sure that we are treated fairly and reasonably by posters & editors.


 * I frequently monitor this page, and as you can see from revision history, I only make contributions or revisions in cases where information posted is either non-factual (in which case I'll correct and provide appropriate backup) or blatantly libelous/defamatory vandalism. Also, to this point, if you review the revision history, you'll see that several revisions made circa late-July and early-August 2009 were removed by WP admins. I requested an investigation because those revisions were false statements, had no citation, and were frankly libelous; the Admins concurred and struck them from the record.


 * Further info (totally not suitable for the main article, but possibly interesting to readers of the talk page) is that the WSJ article isn't telling quite "the whole story" - it neither discloses the fact that the "documents" it reviewed were stolen intellectual property nor that the "former employees" were disgruntled and were seeking to harm the firm. File under: another cost of doing business in America.


 * In any event, I am fully aware of WP:COI and WP:NPOV, and as I said, that's why firm representatives pretty much leave this page alone except in cases where false or defamatory information is posted. I will monitor this talk page in case you wish to discuss.
 * Carge77 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)carge77


 * StaciFlag (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)In regard to your claim that the documents that you claim were intellectual property, it seems that the judge may disagree:
 * Rubloff Development Group, Inc. v. Saint Consulting Group, Inc., No 10 C 3917 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2011).


 * This case involves documents that Defendant claims Plaintiffs do not have the right to possess, or that should be under a protective order during this litigation. Plaintiffs had plans to build retail developments in Mundelein and New Lenox, Illinois (hereinafter, the “Developments”). Supervalu, Inc. (“Supervalu”), is a national grocery store chain that operates Jewel–Osco stores in the Chicago area. Defendant is a political consulting group that specializes in land use issues. Defendant’s work includes generating and supporting community movements that oppose developments which include large-box retailers, such as Walmart stores. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary is granted in part and denied in part, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order is denied.StaciFlag (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Saint Consulting Group → — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

- Recent revision by Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (on good faith basis) asserts that name of company does not include word "The". This is incorrect. I refer you to Massachusetts Corporation Database, where you can search on Corporate ID No. 042865634; you will find that the proper name does include the word "The" Full disclosure: I am an employee of The Saint Consulting Group. Carge77 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the assumption that we didn't start article titles with words like "The", so that's why it was moved; just following what I thought was established guidelines on naming articles. Anyway, I don't really have solid feelings one way or the other, but if consensus by other editors want it moved back, it will require an administrator to do so, since there's a redirect page currently located at The Saint Consulting Group. I can't move it back myself. WTF? (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support It's never as simple as that on Wikipedia!  The guidance is at Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), where it states When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it. This includes the names of companies, where this has been widely discussed: The Hershey Company; The New York Times Company; The Travelers Companies; The Washington Post Company.  Generally, the rule is given that If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.  It looks to me that, in this case, the definite article should be included.  Skinsmoke (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revision on 9/29/2011
Disclaimer: I am an employee of The Saint Consulting Group.

The revisions of 9/29/2011 were undertaken mainly to bring this page back to what we believe was a fair treatment / NPOV state, as existed prior to the July, 2011 revisions by StaciFlag. I also fixed some "citation needed" requests by adding verifiable citations and added some internal and external links, as well as cleaned up and added some new references.

We strongly believe that the revisions made by StaciFlag were not in good faith and did not adhere to NPOV standards. Further, Ms. Flag inserted factually incorrect and un-verifiable information (employee numbers was one example) and falsely attributed that information to articles that did not substantiate her text. While we do not dispute - and have left in - text and references to articles that don't paint our firm in the best light, we believe that Ms. Flag's efforts were meant solely to create a negative bias against our firm.

Ms. Flag didn't bother to format her revisions appropriately, reference or cite her insertions correctly, place her material in appropriate locations in the article, and in several cases merely copied & pasted paragraphs taken from blogs and opinion pages (rather than newspapers or other legitimate media) and presented those statements as facts. Ms. Flag has apparently created this account specifically for the purpose of making revisions to this page; she has neither contributed nor edited any other page on Wikipedia; given that, and her willingness to misattribute incorrect data to make it look credible, leads us to conclude that Ms. Flag has some kind of negative agenda or ulterior motive against our company.

As I've stated previously, we will only make edits to this page when we believe information (or opinions or creations masquerading as fact) have been added that do not create a NPOV. Thus, we've removed her additions to this page.

I monitor this page and welcome any commentary or discussion.

Carge77 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

History section
It reads like a history section for Mr. Saint and not The Saint Consulting Group, which is the focus of the article. Feelings on changing the section to reflect this? Dreambeaver (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, maybe a title like Saint Biography, but history is to vague.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)