Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burke Group

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Burke Group[edit]

The Burke Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An article assembled from tidbits of news coverage, almost all of which is dominated by opposition to the company's union busting activities. OTRS ticket 2008041410037191 applies. The main editor tried to improve the sourcing, but acknowledges that it is "is a hard company to get information on, precisely because they want to be secretive". Absolutely correct. But WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV means we need to be sure that if a company is hard to get information on, we are not blazing the trail in correcting that, especially when we only have polemical sources on which to draw. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence confirms that this is the world's largest union avoidance/busting firm. That is verified by its own website - and all those newspaper articles. Newspaper articles are not tidbits, but reliable sources. There are no newspaper articles that cover its non-union busting activities because it is a union busting firm. I expect anybody who reads this page will not go away thinking anything they have read is 'unreliable' or 'unverifiable' - if they would, where and which sentences? The sources are not polemical. The article is one hundred percent neutral, because all significant views are represented, per WP:NPOV. In terms of media coverage, EVERY significant view that can be found - and I challenge anybody to find anything further - is on that page.
In short this is a significant page, on an important firm, that is well documented, and it should stay. It is a misplaced proposal for deletion. Even if it were non-neutral, that would mean a neutrality tag should be placed on the page, and the specific complaint, the specific sentence described on the talk page. Deletion is completely uncalled for.
It should also be recognised that this is precisely the kind of firm which does not want coverage about its conduct, and exactly the kind of company which wants to be secretive. The idea that the article should be deleted runs contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for, and I would suggest that anybody who thinks otherwise should wonder why they are here.
Once again, the page is reliable, verifiable and neutral. Even if it were not, that would mean it should be changed. But nobody has said what should be changed and where. There is no case for deletion. Wikidea 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Guy, on your page when I say it's hard to get information on this company - I mean in the positive sense, in the magazines like Forbes or Business Week which you suggested. You know you're taking my words out of context. There's loads of info about this firm, and most of it's cited in the article. Wikidea 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an obvious dearth of neutral analytical independent impartial sources. Which does not mean, I think, that we should use polemical ones instead. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your conclusion it seems is to pretend the company doesn't exist! I think that the BBC, the Independent, the FT and the Guardian (except for one comment is free reference) have written entirely neutral, analytical, independent and impartial sources. You've failed to say why they are not. And besides, you've got the policy on deletion entirely wrong I'm afraid. It's a neutrality tag you're after. And I think you're wrong on that too. What you really need to do is chip in and improve the article rather than relying on admin status to threaten deletion. Wikidea 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is adequately referenced. --Eastmain (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article suffers a bit from inadequately broad sourcing, but that is easily rectified. There's no question they have been substantively covered by reliable and independent sources and are touted as one of the largest union-busters out there (in the US, if not the world). They are thus unquestionably worthy of coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequately cited and notable. It may be hard to get information on the company itself, but its activities are pretty well covered by sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Impeccably sourced. Their web page is sufficient for the general orientation in their own words. I'd add a quote for their claimed successes. [1] We have enough problems with BLP for notable individuals who do not like it that people know about their relevant biography and public activities. One article is currently is being opposed on the basis of not hurting the feelings of the family. Extending this to a firm of consultants is ridiculous. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that says what the subjects want to hear. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is biased and inappropriate and should be deleted. It is a private business in the management service industry.....not an organization.....not a membership....not a political affiliation....not a government agency and not a marauding army of consultants devouring unions. There are hundreds of management service industries like this one who are employed at the behest of clients. This appears to be a piece about union busting written by a pro union advocate rather than an analysis of this form of service industry. This posting appears to take exception at the success of The Burke Group’s management of election campaigns. Would you write with same vitriol about the success of union organizing campaigns? There are employees who do not want to join a union and there are those who do. Why is it wrong for the former to have a voice? IF employees vote no....isn’t that their right? Why is termed “misconduct” on the part of The Burke Group if they are successful? Some want a union and some want to remain union free but this posting demonizes the latter. IF a union employed persuasive tactics to get employees to vote YES and wins......would this author write about that as equally as misconduct? There is nothing in this posting that explains the union free position so how can this posting be deemed a Neutral Point of View? The Pro and Cons of both sides of the issue are not discussed so I say again this is biased and totally non neutral. This company is employed as a service by a company generally AFTER being targeted by union organizers and not the other way around. How is it termed a “union buster” before there is an elected union? Isn’t that why these companies call their service “preventive” labor relations? It appears they assist management and its employees with information about their rights and obligations during union organizing. What’s the problem? According to its website, The Burke Group provides a myriad of services to both union AND non-union clients. Yet this article focuses only on “union busting”. You intimate TBG provides no other service because of a lack of evidence in news articles of the contrary. When is it newsworthy to cover a management audit, or supervisory training, or compensation analysis (other services listed in the TBG website)? BORING! When was the last time anyone read a news story about a routine accounting audit at the London School of Economics? Get real! There are things that are newsworthy and things that are not! A union, when organizing has a right to disseminate information to employees about an employer. It is often negative in nature in order to convince voters that the union is the only option. An employer has the right to disseminate information about a union as well! But they are strictly prohibited from the certain activity under the ERA, CAC and NLRA and need professional consultants and solicitors to guide them thru the mine field. This article discusses only union options but none of the rights of an employer. The citations and notes, once examined, are largely papers written by Dr. John Logan and/or publications that have extracted passages from them. It gives the appearance of lots of sources but they are actually many of the same sources cobbled together. I vote to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note another one of these mysterious unregistered users taking exception to this article. I would note that Dr Logan's report came out in 2008, and most of the news stories are from before that. Also, most of the in-line citation sources in the article are from TBG Labor's own website. This user is probably one of those people in America that are always decrying the "liberal media" bias. It's a bit sad, really. Wikidea 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by another mysterious unregistered user? I am logged in and registered. I am quite new to this. Do you want my address and telephone number? Are my comments less valid because you want be outed? ?Why don't you address my questions about neutrality rather than attack me as some "American decrying liberal media". Surprise.....I'm not American!! Where was there any mention of liberal media? I pose valid and neutral objective questions hungry for intellectual dialogue. Stay on point and address the issue at hand. The issue is bias and neutrality. John Logan....is this you? Are your students the ones who are writing in support of your post? Talk about breaking the rules!!! Are they also mysterious unregistered users.....why don't you all come out in the open and get honest about your post. Unions would be insulted by your fear and loathing of The Burke Group as though they are so weak and scared. They are not. Unions are strong. They have membership far greater than The Burke Group has employees yet you write as though they are left in the wake of The Burke Group. This is actually funny. The Burke Group has ...what.....25 employees? Most trade unions have hundreds of organizers in numbers far greater than union busters have employees and thousands if not millions of members. Relax.....why are you so threatened? Unions continue to win over 50% of their organizing drives. Regardless of your socio political bent......this is supposed to be a neutral unbiased forum. Not an attack dog or a vehicle to defame based on weak data and misplaced emotion. Get objective and print fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, before Guy prematurely deleted the page before, there were two other mysterious users who blanked the page, one called Mymomishot and another with some letter/number jumble.
Yes, I wouldn't mind your address and telephone number. Please, do put it up! No, I'm not Dr Logan, and I could not pretend to be nearly so well informed or have so much academic integrity.
But once again, I think your comments are a little sad, and I think they would fit right in with people decrying the liberal media in America, and I could not actually care less. That said you obviously have something to contribute. Can you cite a page which says there are 25 employees? That is a useful fact Everything else you have written, however, is a rant. Including that stuff on the page. I'm glad this new exciting topic has brought you to Wikipedia for the first time; but I think this goes to show for everyone, that this is not a deletion issue in the slightest, and if anything there will be a neutrality dispute. Therefore,
  • Keep and stop wasting time with a deletion debate Wikidea 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To John......I have added some edits to your post that are neutral and unbiased as well as researched and offering differing points of view and should be judged by the Wikipedia "delete staff" accordingly. Remember you started this post and it is about a private enterprise in the conduct of business for its clients which is comparable to the work performed by organizers for their clients.....the unions. Both are hired for specific reasons and both should be accorded equal time, respect, and consideration. Both have equal rights under the law. Where did you find it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the difference between fact and opinion, the user may find some schooling in misrepresentation law helpful. Though that will not do much for the writing method. Wikidea 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with many of the changes made by the prior contributor in an effor to make the article "neutral." The original artical was more of a one sided attack, rather than a neutral discription of the business. This was most evident under the "Operations" heading. I see that the prior contributor noted several good questions and I would like to add that the fines levied against the Chinese Daily News went back to 2000, prior to their employment of The Burke Group. However, this piece is written in such a way as to infer that the litigation was a direct result of The Burke Group's involvement. Ilikewiki11 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Ilikewiki11striking SPA's statement[reply]

Another mysterious unregistered user, who doesn't want to show an IP address. Boy these anti-organising people are organised! Wikidea 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete: I still don't know what you mean by unregistered user. I am new to this. I have no idea who the others are but welcome their input. But back to the original posting.....it is written in Wikipedia rules that postings are to be neutral and unbiased? If this post is intended as a slam on a private company because you differ with them, it is an improper posting. If it is an attempt at an unbiased analysis of a consulting company then it is proper. Please don't resort to name calling. It is unproductive. The additions of content are written with citations and research. What is your intent on this posting? If you oppose union free environments you should write a posting called "union free" or add to the "union busting" section in development. You've cited things under "operations" that are uncorroborated. I am curious why you post the amounts of money allegedly earned by TBG but don't post what is earned by the unions? You say TBG lost one case. OK, so the union won....correct? What did they spend to win? IF the company spent money to remain union free then the union spent money equally to organize them and win.....correct? Either way the employees have the result they want based on their vote. Why don't you post what cost is now to employees now paying union dues upon losing their bid to remain union free? You see.....all I'm trying to illustrate is there are two sides that need to be presented in order for this posting to live and be deemed a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.85.165 (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 striking SPA's statement

To Wikipedia editors: I just closed my comments above and went to the posting and noted that all the edits I added last night, "neutral" points of fact with citations, outside links and articles were all removed in their entirety and the posting has been put back into its original content. I did not delete the original...merely "added" to it and removed comments posted as fact that were opinion. As participants to this conversation, are we not allowed to make edits? Is this posting "owned"? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia postings was to invite other points of view and "add" to the conversation. I noticed there is now an "organized labor" portal attached to the original page? Does that not make it pretty clear that this is NOT neutral and is, in fact, VERY biased? Why does this user insist on posting the name and address of the CEO of The Burke Group. Is that not a security breach for that person? If this is the way Wikipedia operates, it is very very wrong. I am going to remove the name and address once again. If this posting cannot be edited, it is a mere defamatory slam piece put up by union organisers and presents a legal concern? I'm very disturbed by this. The person controlling this posting needs disciplinary action and should be blocked. This posting needs to be removed OR the edits that were saved last night allowed back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 April 2008
  • Strong keep. Company is obviously notable, and there is encyclopedic content in the article. A union-busting firm is in a tough, politically charged line of business. It's somewhat odd, to the point of incredulity, that a business in that line of work could be so thin skinned as to be offended that negative but true information about them comes out, when it's all over the press. We don't owe it to a business to ignore the controversial side of what they do. Avoiding POV does not mean ignoring controversies. They are in the business of helping management stop unionization drives. That's a very significant issue, and an understanding of the labor movement, labor practices, etc., in the US and the world is to cover these companies. They do it, it's notable, we should cover it. It's that simple. If there is a problem with citations, POV, accuracy, etc., then we improve articles rather than delete them. Deleting articles because a company doesn't like how it's covered would set a very bad precedent. Incidentally, there are some things in there that look like violations of BLP, WP:V, and POV, and ought to go for sure. Not to mention stylistic issues. Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the writer of Strong Keep......have you been reading the protestations? The company is not thin skinned. It's not about negative truth, its about lies. Yes, I agree the work is notable and should be covered, but not by biased contributors who have no interest in truth. I also agree that the spirit of Wikipedia is to IMPROVE articles rather than delete however ALL the improvements have been deleted! We aren't editing because we don't like it, we are editing because it is untrue. If there is no interest in truth, improvements or edits then it should be deleted. If you are going to print stories about David Burke then print that he is a decorated DISABLED combat veteran of the 1st Infantry Division (Vietnam) and earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart after 2 years of service and 6 months of hospitalization. Hardly thin skinned!! He is also a former member of the United Furniture Workers of America and Shop Steward with Retail Clerks now United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). If you are going to profile The Burke Group then print what preceded founding The Burke Group. Living in government projects in abject poverty supporting his immigrant grandmother he was called out on a 13 week strike for higher wages with no strike benefits. Upon return there was no increase but the union bosses never missed a check. His grandmother died and he has no money for a head stone. That soured him on unions because he learned there was no benefit to being a member except to the union bosses who took his dues. There are 1,000's of stories like that and that is why unions are losing membership. You demonize David Burke but worship Martin Levitt who is a 3 time ex con with felony convictions such as arson, insurance fraud, theft, and battery (public record San Francisco and Cleveland). No consulting firms would hire him so he wrote a book (which you cite) demonizing them. Is there something wrong with this picture? You say he impedes an employees right to form a union......not true. What about an employees right NOT to join a union? Either allow edits or delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETEWhat's really going on here? This is clearly a biased, poorly disguised attempt by "union organizers" to use Wikipedia as a tool to advertise for labor. If you're going to profile this group, it should be fair. Don't just show the one-sided view. How could this company have been in business so long and have so many clients all over the world if they are nothing but bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laborfriend (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC) whose only edit so far is this one striking SPA's statement[reply]

STRONG DELETE I was in a union and HATE them and applaud that this company protects and assists us against the thugs that come into our workplace to disrupt and wreak havoc just to take our money. Who are you kidding? I'd like to know more about this company. If I was trying to understand the differences between Democrats and Republicans would I go only to the DNC and allow no input from the RNC? I don't think so. That little box on the main page called "labor portal"? That's a dead giveaway your nothing but a bunch of paid organizers. This site does not meet with the neutrality requirements. That's one point. But it also does not allow edits. That's bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.223.137 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) striking SPA's statement[reply]

Keep. Seems a notable company. And if new users and anons are so keen to see it deleted, then clearly it must be kept! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE This entire dialogue questions the integrity of Wikipedia itself. Clearly, the initial entry of this article is biased and, therefore, should be considered for immediate deletion. Terms such as "union busting" are non-neutral in nature and will only veil a negative connotation upon the described party. Note: No where within the associated company’s website do “they” classify themselves as such. This term is only used by opposition with a biased position. From my general understanding, the involved company is a privately held enterprise. Hence, we should not expect them to divulge their business structure, financial stability, and/or staffing levels. The company has rights and I personally feel much of this proposed propaganda is opening the door to slanderous activity. As defined by their principals, it is Wikipedia’s duty to maintain unbiased and neutral definition of all stated entries. IF such language is acceptable, then we can look forward to seeing such definitions as; Mr. John Logan: a contributor to Wikipedia who is a known supporter of crime, corruption, embezzlement, and violence associated with organised labour unions. Mr Logan has a “proven” track record of authoring fictional editorials based on hearsay and personal opinion in lieu of factual evidence. Mr. Logan believes in the hindering of employee rights, allowing organised labour to plague of the ignorance of the uninformed for financial gain. All said, the end disposition to this dilemma is up to Wikipedia’s administration. What direction do you wish to pursue? How much weight do you wish to put upon your institution’s integrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionfree (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — Unionfree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking SPA's statement[reply]

DELETE: Your opinions should be posted under the category "Union Buster" which pre-existed this site. If you are going to "target" one specific consulting firm, and allow no additional opinions or countering opinion the it is USELESS to a reader researching or trying to understand the dialogue of the pro's and con's. This site is pointless and embarrassing to the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdelosrios (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — Mdelosrios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cripes, these meat puppets are talking like their jobs depend on it! :) Wikidea 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming they're made of meat- they seem similar enough to me to be socks. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an important article, on an important subject that affects the careers and work lives of many thousands of individuals. Richard Myers (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a WP:DEL#REASON to delete. I don't understand the assertion that only polemic sources exist: of the thirteen citations, seven are to the company's web site, the BBC, and The Independent. It's clearly notable on the web and in the news. I think the best thing both parties could do is WP:CITE every statement that's made, using more WP:RELIABLE sources and perhaps request WP:ARBITRATION. HausTalk 13:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and keep Needs a lot of work, but is not unsalvageable. Jtrainor (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is an international company and certainly notable, covered by such reliable sources as the BBC so we have a kernel of verifiability for the article to sprout. The obvious POV-pushing should be addressed by editing, not article deletion. JGHowes talk - 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Burke_Group&oldid=1143900286"