Talk:Oliver Wyman

Eskom-McKinsey scandal

This is a spinoff of the "History clarifications" discussion, where Timtempleton wrote that I "added four paragraphs of an incident involving Wyman to their services section as Oliver Wyman#2015 Eskom-McKinsey scandal. You called it "2015 Eskom-McKinsey scandal" - why not put something in the Eskom or McKinsey articles instead, or in addition to? Why just add info to the Oliver Wyman article, when they were a consultant, and not a major part of the incident? Four paragraphs about this here violates WP:UNDUE. Why not fork a new article if you think it was such an important event? And it doesn't belong in the services section - it should be in the history or a new section called notable engagements. Instead, someone looking up their services section will see that it involves scandal."

My answers to the above questions are as follows:

(1) The Eskom and McKinsey articles both already have information about this scandal- see [[1]] and [[2]]. So there was no need to add information there.

(2) Oliver Wyman is a major part of their incident- they wrote the report that ultimately incriminated McKinsey and were credited by South African government officials and international media organizations [[3]] [[4]] They were also propositioned by Trillian. [[5]]

(3) I found the situation complex and difficult to describe in less than four paragraphs. The key events are: OW being propositioned to by Trillian and refusing, OW being commissioned to investigate the McKinsey contract, the South African government forcing handover of the Wyman report, and charges being filled on the basis of said report. If you're able to describe these events more concisely you are welcome to edit. Forking a four-paragraph article seems rather silly, especially since the paragraphs are <5 sentences. It would be more of a stub than an article by itself.

(4) I believe the 'History' section is about the history of Oliver Wyman as an organization (e.g. corporate/executive decisions, reorgs, acquisitions, mergers, etc) and 'Services' is about individual notable projects. I view 'Services' as functionally the same as 'Notable Engagements', so if you prefer the name 'Notable Engagements' you are also welcome to edit and change that.

(5) I don't want to give the impression that Oliver Wyman was involved in the scandal (obviously they didn't do anything wrong, just wrote a report), but the report is about a scandal. I called this section Eskom-McKinsey scandal because that's how it is referred to in the media. [[6]] It is also sometimes called the Trillian-Eskom-McKinsey scandal, or just the 'corruption scandal' when the context is clear. Again, if you have an idea (for a better name that doesn't include the word scandal while accurately describing what the Wyman report was about) and a source, you are welcome to edit. Pereneph (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This is a spinoff of the "History clarifications" discussion, where Timtempleton claimed I "created the entire controversy section full of your additions, contrary to WP:STRUCTURE. That's not right and will have to be cleaned up." I created the controversy section after Timtempleton accused me of having an external relationship with Oliver Wyman.[[7]] and told me that "editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted."

I had previous created a "Services" section which documented both positive and negative work by the firm, but after hearing these accusations, I became concerned that the article had a positive bias. I therefore created a controversy section, in line with the articles of other consulting companies such as Boston Consulting Group [[8]]. However, Timtempleton has now accused me of "painting the company in a negative light". I have temporarily reverted the article to its previous "Services" structure, and am opening a discussion as to whether negative work belongs under a general "Services" section, a specific "Controversy" section, or another section entirely. Pereneph (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Founding Date

This is a spinoff of the "History clarifications" discussion, where Timtempleton claimed I "put in something from 1983, before Oliver Wyman even existed, and made it look like it was an Oliver Wyman incident." I believe Oliver Wyman history goes back to at least 1970, as documented on their corporate website [[9]] Some sources even put the founding year of Temple, Barker & Sloane as 1969 [[10]] Pereneph (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

History clarifications

Recently the bulk of this article's history section was deleted and moved to either Mercer (consulting) or the Marsh & McLennan pages, seemingly arbitrarily and in contradiction to the sources cited. I've restored it for a few separate reasons:

1 - I wasn't able to find any evidence that Temple, Barker & Sloane (TBS) was a part of Mercer Consulting. It's not mentioned on Mercer's history page but is mentioned on Oliver Wyman's. This indicates to me that the TBS section should be on the Oliver Wyman page (and probably removed from the Mercer Consulting page)

2 - As mentioned in the Washington Post source, Strategic Planning Associates was not integrated with Marsh & McLennan (MMC) as a whole but rather specifically with its consulting arm. Tom Wylatt, the managing director of consulting at MMC, is quoted as saying that the merger combined TBS and SPA. It makes no sense to move the TBS section to one Wikipedia page, and the SPA section to another- this only splits up information about the merger and makes it harder to find on Wikipedia.

3 - "Mercer Delta Consulting" was not part of "Mercer Consulting". I put the names in quotes for clarity. "Mercer Delta Consulting" was acquired in 2000 by "Mercer Consulting Group" led by Peter Coster (https://www.hrhub.com/doc/mercer-consulting-group-plans-acquisition-of-0001). In 2005, "Mercer Consulting Group" was split into two business areas, one that was considered "core" human resources consulting which was run by Brian Storms and another that consisted of 5 "speciality" management consulting groups run by David Morrison (1. Mercer Strategy & Operations, 2. Mercer Oliver Wyman, 3. Merger Delta Consulting, 4. Lippincott, 5. NERA Economic Consulting). Storms' group, with its focus on HR, is Mercer Consulting today. Morrison's group (a.k.a. Mercer Speciality Consulting Group), with its focus on management, is Oliver Wyman today. They are not interchangeable - see MMC press releases on the split in 2005, and the distinct "Mercer Specialty Consulting Group" in 2006.

4 - Finally, regardless of your understanding of MMC's corporate structure, there's no reason to delete the majority of content in the history section here. If you believe some information also belongs on the Mercer Consulting or MMC pages, you can add it to those pages without deleting the information on the Oliver Wyman (OW) page. All of the firms mentioned here are listed on OW's history website, that's a primary source for their significance to OW.

Pereneph (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pereneph: I reverted your edits. The sources I found clearly say that Mercer and Marsh & McLennan were the acquiring entities. I left the stubs with main templates to give readers the opportunity to read the fuller info at the articles of the companies that acquired them. Please see the three items below.

In 1987, William M. Mercer Inc. acquired the consultancy Temple, Barker & Sloane.

In 1989, Washington, DC-based international management consulting firm Strategic Planning Associates merged with William M. Mercer Inc parent Marsh & McLennan.

In 2000, William M. Mercer Inc. acquired Delta Consulting Group for its organizational development and change management expertise.

References

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I reverted your edits, the sources do not say that. TBS was acquired by Marsh & McLennan but you moved their section to Mercer. SPA and TBS were merged into a management consulting subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan, today the management consulting subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan is Oliver Wyman. It was split from Mercer (a human resources consultancy) in 2005 as stated in the above press releases. Here is an additional source re: Delta Consulting Group, which states that "In 2000 Mercer Consulting, the predecessor of Oliver Wyman (in 2007 MMC rebranded its various management consulting operations as Oliver Wyman) acquired Delta Consulting Group" Please engage with the sources I mentioned above, and start a discussion on the talk page before deleting large sections of the article in the future. An appropriate course of action for long articles is to split them into more readable sections, not delete the majority of the content. Pereneph (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pereneph - Before I make my case for a more intuitive organization of the Oliver Wyman history, I have to clarify for you and anyone coming late to this discussion that I didn't delete any content - I simply moved it to other articles where it makes more sense, and left shorter summaries and main templates to guide readers. The content is duplicated and sits in two places now that you restored the moved content here. (And I originally incorrectly moved some info to Mercer, but after you pointed out a source I corrected the destination to Marsh and McLennan.) My content reorganization strategy may not have been clear, so let me explain why I think it's better to reorganize the Oliver Wyman history the way I tried to. It's obvious that we each want this to be right - let's do this together smartly.

Here's the situation. Your preferred content organization is to take all the information about Oliver Wyman's predecessors and put it into the Wyman article, regardless of the path those entities took before becoming Wyman. My strategy is to put the founding entities' histories into the articles where it would have appeared in the first place, and not move it. Let me explain why that is better, focusing on Temple, Barker & Sloane (TBS) as an example. That firm was acquired by March and McLennan (M&M) in 1987, where it only lasted three more years before in 1990 it was merged with Strategic Planning Associates (SPA) to form Mercer Management Consulting (MMC). This is all in the M&M history, where it would be had we been editing Wikipedia in 1990. (I might have first made a standalone TBS article but that's a different discussion, as is what info to add to the Mercer article to reflect the formation of MMC). MMC sat as part of M&M for 17 more years, before being merged with Mercer Oliver Wyman with Mercer Delta Consulting to form Oliver Wyman. So the largest chunk of TBS's history in this context was as part of M&M. That's why I moved the TBS info from the Oliver Wyman article to M&M's with these diffs ([[11]] reducing the info in Oliver Wyman's article, and [[12]] beefing up the info in the M&M article). TBS hadn't existed in any form for 17 years when Oliver Wyman was formed - its remnants were still in M&M. You can see that I originally left a shortened summary of the TBS and SBA info, but pointed readers to M&M for the bulk of the info. The largest chunk of info should be in M&M's article. Another way of looking at it. Most articles aren't gutted when a company sells off a division that may have many complicated acquisitions in its history. It's just easier to put in a shortened summary in the new article but point to the main info that stayed behind in the original article. Just because we're building this history way after the fact doesn't change how it should have been structured in the first place. Imagine moving all of AOL's info to the TimeWarner article, only to then move it all again to the Verizon article. History would be lost. Instead, shorter summaries are moved to the new owner's articles. Does that make sense? Lastly, the reason I did all this in the first place is the way you organized it is a bit confusing. You split the history into history and growth sections, but put most of the history in the growth section. There you explained the mergers, and then went into dedicated sections about the historical entities, but it doesn't flow right. By shortening the info, it's easier to make the history chronological, and easier for newcomers to follow. You've been working this a long time with many dozens of edits, and obviously have a strong interest in the company, but sometimes that means you might have a harder time communicating the info to newcomers who don't already have the chronology clear in their heads. Thoughts? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Timetempleton, thanks for responding. I think this is an important discussion to have, particularly in consulting where companies are acquired and retitled often. But you're misrepresenting my position and what happened here: you did delete content from this page, move it to the wrong page, and then cite a source (which I added to begin with) claiming it said something different than what it actually did. I reverted your edits because it was clear you hadn't read the sources that you were talking about. There seem to be two main points of disagreement which I'll try to address: the first is about how much of the Oliver Wyman article should be moved to Mercer (a different unit of M&M), and the second is about how much of it should be moved to Marsh & McLennan (the parent of both)

1 - I'll start off by saying that it shouldn't really matter what my position or your position on this topic is: Wikipedia isn't a place for either of us to air our opinions, it's an encyclopedia which should reflect reliable, external sources (not the opinions of individual editors). And simply as a matter of fact, modern-day sources refer to TBS, SPA, DCG, and MMC as predecessors of "Oliver Wyman", not "Mercer". If you read the references from Harvard Business School, Consultancy.com, Consultor magazine, Management Consulted, even the company websites themselves, they all reflect this reality. And so if you want to delete all the DCG content from the Oliver Wyman page and move it to the Mercer page, I think you should find a source that says "DCG is a predecessor of modern-day Mercer", just as I have found sources that say "DCG is a predecessor of modern-day Oliver Wyman." Your opinion on how Wikipedia articles should be structured is not as important as how the information is actually structured in the real world by journalists and organizations etc. You can't diverge from the history clearly written on Mercer and Oliver Wyman's history pages because it doesn't align with your "preferred content organization strategy." So I have to solidly disagree with your edits there.

2 - M&M is the parent company of OW, so naturally OW history is M&M history. This is definitely a bit more questionable- you're certainly correct in saying that, when M&M acquired TBS, OW didn't even exist as a company. But I think you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about what 1990 Wikipedians would have written- the fact of the matter is, this article was written in 2020 and you're the one gutting it for M&M. Even humoring the 1990 perspective: M&M was predominantly an insurance company and TBS was a relatively small acquisition in a different industry at the time. TBS wouldn't have even been notable in 1990- it only became significant later on, because of the mergers with SPA and DCG and ultimately Oliver, Wyman & Company. I'll offer you an analogy: Alphabet acquired JotSpot in 2006 which became Google Sites in 2008. Does that belong in Alphabet's article or Google's... or both? It's true that Alphabet initially acquired the company. But the company was not notable by Wikipedia standards as JotSpot- it became notable when it evolved into Google Sites. In my opinion, there should be a short sentence or two in Alphabet's article about JotSpot and then a longer subsection in Google's article about Google Sites. Similarly, I think there should be a short bit in M&M's article about TBS' acquisition and a longer subsection on OW's article. Of course this is a judgement call, if you think it should be longer in M&M, that's fair and I respect that even though it's not what I would do. What I don't understand is completely deleting the section from OW and copying it word-for-word to M&M.

The reason I did all this is because I think all the articles involved are worse off with sections chopped off from OW. It's all horribly inconsistent- Mercer is described as a human resources consultancy in the lead, but you threw in a ton of management consulting history; MMC is a 14 billion dollar professional services firm whose article is now dominated by management consulting history even though that's never been more than 5% of the company's revenue; Oliver Wyman is left gutted and information about key mergers that shaped the company is split up in different places.

I agree with your feedback re: the growth and history sections as well as the confusing chronology. I disagree that deletion or removal from this article is the right solution. History & Growth could be combined and trimmed; years could be added to the subsection headers to clarify the chronological order; a Controversies section could also be added and split from Services to make the negative aspects of the company more clear, etc etc. Probably all things I would work on if I wasn't annoyed at being called a shill. Pereneph (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't call you a shill. I asked you to disclose your conflict of interest, which you denied. Despite your denial, your editing history suggests a deep connection with the company, so I simply asked you again to disclose if you had a connection, per WP:COI. Between January and July, you've made over 340 edits to the Oliver Wyman article, and six total edits to other articles. This is odd. Also please show me diffs where I deleted significant content rather than moved it, as you say. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It's really interesting how you word that, "I asked you to disclose your conflict of interest". Your sentence literally presupposes that I have a conflict of interest. If you asked me to disclose *if* I had a conflict of interest, I would say (as I have already told you multiple times), I don't. Since when does writing an article mean you have an inappropriate affiliation with the subject? Yes, I made lots of edits- I added more than 200 third-party sources to this article; documented numerous controversies including the time Oliver Wyman recommended the worst bank in Ireland, proposed displacing indigenous tribes in the Middle East, and worked with numerous government figures that consider their company to be a waste of money; as well as writing about their troubling employment practices such as promoting a notoriously low number of women partners, delaying start dates for new hires, and overall susceptibility to recessions. Do you actually have an issue with my content or do you just dislike the fact that I made a lot of edits? Clearly this discussion is not actually about MMC corporate history, but rather your personal problem with the number of edits I made and "preferred content organization strategy". Things that are actually odd: (1) your decision to move the TBS section of this article to Mercer without reading any of the sources, which clearly stated the acquiring entity was M&M, (2) your constant references to William M. Mercer, Inc, including two false claims about acquisitions they made, (3) your deletion of SPA history from Wikipedia. Things that are not odd: I edited an article.

Taking your edits in the best possible light, it is clear that you really want the history of companies to be neat and chronological. While I agree that would be nice, the reality is often messier- especially when it comes to companies that go through multiple name changes, mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations involving other entities. Many of your attempts to "clean up" articles are historically inaccurate/misleading. I see that you added subsection years to the Mercer article, for example, but they've only made things confusing: there's no real reasoning provided for why 1959 was the end of the "early years", William M. Mercer, Inc. did not acquire TBS (M&M did) or DCG (Mercer Consulting Group did), you don't acknowledge the 2005 split into Mercer Speciality Consulting and Mercer Core Human Resources Consulting at all, and include details on post-2007 acquisitions made after the group had left Mercer in a section labelled 1959- 2002. I'm not gonna get into another edit war over that page but I really think it would benefit from more sources, fewer arbitrary time period subsections. Pereneph (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pereneph (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pereneph A Wikipedia pillar is to assume good faith, so I'll take you at your word that you have no connection with Wyman or a competitor, the massive number of edits notwithstanding. I'm going to be doing some cleanup of the info you added and you can see what the issues are, rather than my typing it all out here in advance to explain. And I think I found a way to simplify the history by displaying it graphically. Then we can discuss again. If we can't agree, rather than getting into an edit war, I'll post a request for comment, and let other neutral parties come and weigh in. And I'll ask you again to provide diffs of info you say I deleted, which you're now calling SPA history info. BTW - when I first cleaned this up in 2017, I left it with a simple concise history [[13]]. I'd argue that it's bloated now, and the additional info and split history sections only serve to confuse, adding little to an understanding of the company. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Timtempleton A graph sounds interesting and a neutral party could certainly help resolve any further disagreements. Here is a link to your edit removing the bulk of the Strategic Planning Associated section, which you're now claiming you didn't delete: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Wyman&oldid=974542277. It also documents your removal of the Temple, Barker & Sloane and Strategic Planning Associates sections from this article.

I appreciate you (finally) assuming good faith, after accusing me of violating WP:COI repeatedly. On the topic of Wiki guideline violations- your proposed actions would violate several. WP:REMOVAL states that "When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal. If you boldly make the removal, and it is then reverted by another editor, it is especially important that you discuss it prior to making a second removal." If you wish to remove content from this article, you will need to type it all out here in advance to explain and get consensus. Removing content from articles for the purpose of reducing length is also contrary to WP:TOOLONG. Please also read WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE, which points out that "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public... generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is."Pereneph (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Pereneph I had no indication that you would oppose me correcting and simplifying the history. My edit summary [[14]] clearly stated what I did. Also, my edit summary for March & McLennan [[15]] clearly stated that I was moving (not removing) the content to a better spot, and that's considered proper attribution per site guidelines. I moved the info, and left a shorter summary in the Oliver Wyman article, pointing readers to the correct place. There was no net removal. You can see easily see that in the editing history without misrepresenting what I did. The only edit I had to correct was putting the acquisition of Oliver Wyman's predecessors into the Mercer article, when it was Mercer's parent Marsh & McLennan that originally bought them. They were then made part of Mercer. There was a source [[16]] that said they were part of Mercer, so an honest misunderstanding. You've created a lot of history that doesn't belong here, with a long confusing series of edits removing, moving and adding content back, and it's going to take a while to fix. For example, with this edit [[17]] you put in something from 1983, before Oliver Wyman even existed, and made it look like it was an Oliver Wyman incident. You also created the entire controversy section full of your additions, contrary to WP:STRUCTURE. That's not right and will have to be cleaned up. With this edit [[18]], you added four paragraphs of an incident involving Wyman to their services section as Oliver Wyman#2015 Eskom-McKinsey scandal. You called it "2015 Eskom-McKinsey scandal" - why not put something in the Eskom or McKinsey articles instead, or in addition to? Why just add info to the Oliver Wyman article, when they were a consultant, and not a major part of the incident? Four paragraphs about this here violates WP:UNDUE. Why not fork a new article if you think it was such an important event? And it doesn't belong in the services section - it should be in the history or a new section called notable engagements. Instead, someone looking up their services section will see that it involves scandal. With the structure and placement, you've ventured into WP:POV territory, which is why I asked repeatedly about your COI. It's not shilling - it's painting the company in a negative light. Doing this right requires a neutral perspective, which I'm not seeing. In the meantime, I see you properly combined the history sections, but the bulk of the info about Oliver Wyman's predecessors is still too confusing. I think a tree chart would be helpful. I haven't done one before but it doesn't seem too hard. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Timtempleton, I oppose you removing content from this article. You claim that you are "correcting and simplifying" the history, but your edits so far have been ahistorical, inaccurate, and explicitly for the purpose of reducing the length of this article, which goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Please read WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE, WP:TOOLONG, and WP:REMOVAL which explicitly discourage removing content from articles in the manner that you have done (without discussion, without consensus from other editors, without adding sources, etc). Wiki guidelines apply to removal of content from individual articles, not just "net removal". Of course, adding content is always welcome. If you would like to add a chart, there is a great example in the History section of the featured article on BAE Systems [[19]] This discussion is getting pretty long and off topic, so I will start new sections about the other issues that you've raised. Pereneph (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable alumni & Offices sections

Are those included in Notable alumni section truly notable? Furthermore, I would suggest the removal of the Office section which I find of questionable relevance to the article.---Now wiki (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If the alumni do not already have articles written about them they are probably not notable. Dormskirk (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I left a few who are not covered by Wiki articles as I can find them mentioned in a few places like Fortune.---Now wiki (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the page with several more alumni. If they don't have Wiki articles themselves, I've included citations where they are mentioned in news headlines. There are many more notable alumni but it'll look clunky if they're all added here. For now I've kept the list to people who have Wiki pages + C-suite (or higher) execs whose organizations have Wiki pages. Maybe a new page should be created for alumni in the future. Pereneph (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Oliver Wyman

Cyberbot II has detected links on Oliver Wyman which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.tspllc.com/information-management-consulting/

  Triggered by \btspllc\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oliver Wyman. 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/20111001050131/http://www.thepost.ie/themarket/comment-50923.html to http://www.thepost.ie/themarket/comment-50923.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001050120/http://www.thepost.ie/newsfeatures/100-ways-to-spend-the-anglo-25000000000-51081.html to http://www.thepost.ie/newsfeatures/100-ways-to-spend-the-anglo-25000000000-51081.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Short description of Oliver Wyman

Hi – I am an employee representative of Oliver Wyman.

I would like to propose an amendment to the short description of Oliver Wyman as “an American management consulting firm”. While the firm was founded in the US and is headquartered there, this description does not accurately reflect the business’s international footprint.

The short description on this page previously described Oliver Wyman as an “international management consulting firm” until 23 August 2020, when it was changed to “US” by User:Onel5969. This in turn was changed to “American” on 4 July 2022 by User:Felida97.

Neither of these descriptions are accurate. Oliver Wyman operates in 32 countries around the world (SEC filing, February 2022). The firm’s non-US work is frequently covered by international press (Financial Times January 2023). And “American” is not the description typically used by media outlets from around the world when writing about Oliver Wyman. For example:

“Global management consultancy Oliver Wyman” – Reuters (September 2022)

“Consultant Oliver Wyman” – South China Morning Post (January 2023) “Management consulting firm Oliver Wyman” – Wall Street Journal (January 2023)

“Consulting firm Oliver Wyman” – Australian Financial Review (May 2022

“Global management consultancy Oliver Wyman” – Al Arabiya (February 2022)

Please let me know what you think of this proposed change. 168.168.43.230 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)