Talk:Kroll Inc./Archives/2013

Stunned

"I was stunned", said Abrams. This also sounds like an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.209.102 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Having an influential person speak highly of a subject does not make it an ad. Just like having an influential person speak lowly of a subject does not make it a hit piece. An ad would be if the text describing the organization itself called it "stunning", as if Wikipedia said it, instead of Floyd Abrams. --David Shankbone 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

{{Request edit}} I am an employee of the Corporate Communications department at Kroll, and am looking for help from some experienced editors to clean up this page. Content that is not cited / verifiable should be removed. I can assist further in adding appropriate and relevant content, but would like to avoid conflict of interest issues. KR-Communications (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any items you wish removed as a matter of priority? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits thus far. I would note that the Abrams quote contains an error ("Jules Kroll" was the CEO of Kroll Associates, not "Matt Kroll"). Also, any additions of Kroll's general corporate information, history, services, and/or notable cases, are appreciated. (see About Kroll) The scattered information currently in the entry does not accurately represent Kroll's business. KR-Communications (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that error. I agree the article is little more than a collection of scattered facts right now. I hope someone will take some time to write a better article. Obviously, we cannot simply cut and paste your copyright material. Regards - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks again. KR-Communications (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a section called "Ontrack and Electronic Data Recovery" that has a "citation needed"
If you look for ONDI (Ontrack Data International old NASDAQ symbol) you can find all sort of articles referring to the merger. If you are looking for patent citations here are a few:

• 6,347,375
• 6,145,088
• 7,103,602 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.130.119 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious

To admins: why is this corporation worthy of an article but not it's founder. The previous data on its founder was a list of data. Such a list of facts can not be copyrighted and is covered by fair use. You need to modify your bots if this obsession with copyrights is not going to get completely out of hand and stifle the spread of knowledge and information. This is public information, such public information has not been , is not and cannot be copyrighted. Nunamiut (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'd like to propose that the Jules B. Kroll article is merged into this one. Now the copyrighted material has been removed from that article, there's precious little left that couldn't sensibly be mentioned here instead. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now redirected Jules B. Kroll to Kroll Inc.. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Hybrid Ponzi / Identity Theft Front-Company

Is this the same "Kroll"? I am pretty sure it is.

I spoke with someone that introduced their self as a "Kroll" representative, and a whole lot didn't make much sense regarding their business plan nor their motives. It came across as simply a Ponzi scheme that doesn't even pay out with the intent to simply collect information from a planned hiring interview that actually plays out as a business venture opportunity ending with strict request of payment into the system before a confined deadline.

This is just what I gathered from such an individual claiming to be represented by the company and being firsthand research doesn't seem to play into usage on Wikipedia articles, but does seem relevant within a talk page pertaining to testimony per the legitimacy of such an article's appearance within the wiki.

I feel the supposed company and its supposed founder doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia's content-base due to lacking any foundation in other areas of public information other than what appears on the surface to simply vector from a single source.

I feel the article(s) require removal from Wikipedia until there is evidence such an article has the correct intentions of proper foundation for research and verifiable factual basis in place. TRK (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

I oppose the proposal for speedy deletion. There is indeed material on the page which reads like an advertisement. However, were this removed, a useful stub would remain. - Crosbie 12:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help clean up the article, though I'm somewhat limited by my interest. KR-Communications (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal for speedy deletion. There are way too many uses of references to company sources, and many unreferenced statements throughout the article. One might even be tempted to conclude that the writer(s) of these unsourced statements were fed this information by the company itself, rather than merely being sloppy about referencing information that would not be considered to be "common knowledge." If someone wants to come along in the future to re-edit the article from scratch using good published sources and with a NPOV, then I'd have no problem reviving the article at that point. There are already too many corporate ads in Wikipedia. Last of all, I would point out that the opposing user, Crosbiesmith is the original creator of the article. Did he/she edit in the advertisement-like material? If so, why did he not write it from a NPOV in the first instance? I'll leave it to others to make of that what they will.--Lorifredrics (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why speculate? Use 'View History'. - Crosbie 21:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Revenue

Odd figures for revenue are given. A figure of $60,000,000 for 1997 is easy to believe. Then the revenue is said to be a very high $1,000,000,000 for 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.136.120 (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that each employee is paid about $300,000 a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable Absences

This whole article is odd. It definitely seems to have some serious copy-paste issues, and there's no mention of Wikileaks publishing their Kroll Report. The report doesn't show any wrongdoing on Kroll's part (quite the opposite), but it was prepared by Kroll for the nation of Kenya. It was a major scoop, changed the Kenyan election, and the course of Kenyan politics. While that might not seem like a big deal in Manhattan, it was a major event in East Africa. ♥GlamRock♥ 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)