Talk:Dell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dell article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Peer review Dell has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives

Contents

[edit] Largest Manufacturer

If Dell overtook Compaq, how did HP take over Compaq three years later to regain the lead as the largest manufacturer of PCs? Is this correct? Salami swami 19:43, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

That's what I first thought when I read it, too. It's probably because I'm not a native speaker. What is meant though is that Dell took the lead from Compaq. So before Compaq had the titel as the largest manufacturer, then Dell did. (Since no one else wrote anything about this since 2004 I guess it's not necessary to edit this and just a problem for non-native speakers ;) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.31.21 (talk)

[edit] Dell Partner Program - Conflict of Interest?

Check out the Dell Partner Program, written by one "ConnectU". It seems to be a fairly blatant case of self-promotion of the ConnectU company, which is cause for removal by the COI guidelines. If we're going to include the ConnectU reference, what is there to stop any other company from including their own? I'm in favor of leaving the section, but removing the ConnectU content. Any thoughts? Matt Gerber (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info

The history section looks a bit messy, so I'm not sure where to put this info - or maybe it can go to the Kanata article.

"In April 2008, Dell announced the closure of one its biggest Canadian call centers in Kanata, Ontario causing the lost of jobs of about 1100 with 500 of those being effective immediately with the official closure scheduled during the Summer. The call center opened in 2006 after the city of Ottawa won a bid to host the call centre creating 1500 jobs in the region. The arrival Less then a year later, there were plans to double its workforce to near 3 000 and the addition of a new building. The rise of the Canadian dollar against the American currency to near parity as well as the high payroll compared to other centers around the world were reasons cited. The company had also announced the shut down of its Edmonton, Alberta office." [1] JForget 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this belongs in the article. It is cited. Otherwise we're showing favourtism. GreenJoe 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dell helping President Bush

This information is not relevant on the Dell Wikipedia page. It would be on the Michael Dell page. "In 2005, Susan and Michael Dell were among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush.[56] [57] [58]" Cestuila 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Is there any doubt as to where the $250,000 came from? The general public should be informed as to where some of the profits of the company are ending up. --Art Smart (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this. It's inappropriate for the company article as it's a personal contribution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's been added back in without discussion. this edit is inappropriate, and unless Arthur Smart can provide a rather better rationale than "the general public should be informed as to where some of the profits of the company are ending up" (as Wikipedia is not someone's gossip blog) it will be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it again, seeing as no stronger rationale was provided. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*Agrees with Chris Cuningham* Cestuila 27 may 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact that Michael Dell, while in his capacity as Chairman of Dell's Board, donated the maximum possible to the Bush inaugural. He knew full well that such a donation would reflect upon the company he founded and whose Board he chaired. Why hide that fact? Self-disclosure: I would never have bought my Inspiron 9100 if I had known about Dell's contribution to Bush, and I wish this article had allowed me to make a more informed purchasing decision. I suggest all other editors likewise self-disclose any employment relationship and/or stock ownership that may affect their interests in Dell's contribution remaining in this article. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Your veiled implication that anyone arguing against you has a conflict of interest doesn't help you, but seeing as the donation was made in the capacity of the company I suppose it's appropriate. I've gone and changed your reference to one which, y'know, includes the word "Dell" in it. It'd be nice if you took the time to reword the section so that it presented the dontaion in a more appropriate way than as a "public service". I'm terribly sorry for your accidental funding of the re-election of George Bush. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No veiled implication intended. I always assume good faith unless/until otherwise proven that it's a misplaced assumption. Everyone should feel free to edit, even those with a conflict of interest. All I ask is some transparency if/when such a conflict exists, which I continue to request. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support putting this in if reliable sources can be found discussing why it's notable. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a list of facts, etc. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see that another editor removed two cited references which clearly show how this edit is relevant. USA Today points out that such contributors, like Dell's Chairman of the Board, were buying access to the president. (Quote from reference 5, with emphasis mine: "[C]orporate America has showered the inaugural organizing committee with money. It has given $25.5 million so far to help pay the costs of a week of parties, balls, receptions and other official functions. The money has come mostly in six-figure chunks from companies and their executives — nearly all of them with business before the government that affects their industries.") That makes it notable. Based upon your indication of conditional support, I'll add the clause back for your review and consideration, notwithstanding personal attacks from others. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are making the argument that the Dell family gave money to the Bush administration to help Dell, Inc. based on two separate arguments: that Dell gave money to Bush, and that this was to help the company. Two of those sources do not mention Dell at all, and none of them make the case presented. This is synthesis of an argument, and is inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. One of the two articles which you claim does not mention Dell does, in fact, have a related link that mentions Dell. Your edit to eliminate the referencing article left the Wikipedia reader with nothing but a list of entities without any background as to what makes them notable. That omission is perhaps what NeilN was objecting to when he wrote, "Wikipedia is not a list of facts." The referencing article clearly states "and their executives", which includes Michael Dell, in reference to Dell Inc. as one of the "companies ... nearly all of them with business before the government that affects their industries". The USA Today writer is noting the creation of a conflict of interest by Michael Dell on behalf of the company Dell Inc., among other such donors. This is not my synthesis, but rather that of USA Today in a verifiable, reliable source. --Art Smart (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, I've just performed a text search through the article "Donors get good seats, great access this week" for the string "Dell" and had no matches. The only mention of Dell is in another article, hyperlinked from there as "related links" - which points to the reference that I left in the article. So again - you are taking a list of donors (one article) which contains Michael Dell, taking a statement in another article that states in general terms that political donations from corporations are "soft money" which can be used as a favour, and inferring from it that Dell gave money to Bush's reelection for political reasons. This inference is perhaps appropriate for a gossip column, or a blog, but it is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Either a direct reference to the inferred statement should be found or it should be removed from the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you not see the "Related link"? That obviously was USA Today's way of including the entire list of donors as incorporated by reference into the article in question. (Think of it as an "include" declaration in software coding.) Otherwise the article would have been much too long, that is, by explicitly listing the 53 donors in the article which talks about them. Let's just agree to disagree on this point, and give NeilN a chance to review the issue. I don't want to overwhelm him with redundant back and forth, and I hope that is not your goal either. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no notability here, nor is there precedent. The information discussed on companies is generally pertinent to the functioning or performance of the company. Unless something questionable happened due to this, its no more notable than any other donation made to any polititican, which is to say, not at all. There's obviously an agenda here, this asking for COI revelations is clearly just a way to accuse others of biased editing while appearing to maintian good faith assumptions.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whining about jobs

There is a bit of a negative tone in this article that compromises its neutrality. It seems to focus mainly on dell terminating jobs or closing down facilities. I'll be making some changes to more neutral terms and tone, as the current phrasing was clearly crafted by someone who takes issue with their policies.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording, replacing "loss" with more neutral terms referring to the termination of jobs. I also removed the reference to outsourcing to El Salvador as there isn't really much in the article referenced to substantiate that, especially since the article seems to be a bit of a biased source, given where the closed facility was.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to the heading of this section (i.e., "Whining about jobs"). In my opinion, such a characterization betrays massive insensitivity to good employees who suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves without a job through no fault of their own. Unlike nearly all other western nations, the U.S. stands alone with a total lack of universal health care. Loss of a job here usually also means loss of all health coverage. Even if/when another job is found, any pre-existing condition goes untreated or undertreated. Therefore, loss of a job can sometimes mean a death sentence for one or more members of the former employee's family. If that is considered "whining", then I proudly allow my conscience to be misconstrued as such. While I could change the heading to a more neutral one, I wish to give whomever originally placed it an opportunity to do so him/herself if so inclined. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinion is usually given more lee-way on talk pages. In this case, the user is rather justified in believing that the article has some problematic WP:WEIGHT issues, and should not be prevented from saying so because it offends the sensibilities of random talk page participants when such comments are made in good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that no one should be "prevented" from saying anything offensive. I just wanted to voice how offensive such language is to me, and offer an opportunity to make the wording less offensive, if the editor is so inclined. --Art Smart (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I will not edit my wording for you, most likely one of the whiners. Based on my observations above you seem to have your own agenda here, and are just stirring the pot to get attention. Please address me if you have a legitimate concern.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, no personal attacks. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to stop being such a hypocrite, you accuse others of personal attacks and then edit the title of a section to make a veiled personal attack of your own(read WP:TALK why don't you).--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In an edit summary you again have personally attacked me by calling me an "irritant". Please cease and desist such attacks. Also, as the father of three young children who consult Wikipedia regularly, I respectfully ask you to remove the F bomb from the DGAF userbox on your Talk page. While I fully realize that Wikipedia does not censor, most of us editors think that self-restraint might be appropriate. Your credibility might be enhanced both by ending the personal attacks and by removing the F bomb. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Take this to user talk pages, please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tried that as a good faith assumption. Didn't work. That "user frequently does not give a f^#& and as such may respond to some comments with apathy." --Art Smart (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 95.000 employees?

Where exactly does that information come from??? Dell states having about 75.100 employees on its web site. If a source is not indicated for this by tomorrow I will change that information and add a footnote to it, something that also isn't there. Alessandro Malfatti (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)