Talk:Wipro

TalkTalk?

How come there's no talk of the TalkTalk break-in? Is this a different company than that one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.6.134 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What does Wipro stand for?

The lede states that it "more recently, [stands for] Western India Products Limited" but the next section "History" under "Early formative years" states that the company was originally formed as "Western India Products', later abbreviated to 'Wipro'" with no mention of Western India Palm Refined Oils Limited.

So which is accurate? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Company ditched 'Western India Palm Refined Oils Limited' decades ago. Now it is only Wipro. I tried to change it with reference, but admin rolled it back. Arajc (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary accurately says "Generally not improvements -- variously over-promotional and/or incoherent" I still think that the current version is a little ambiguous, but your changes didn't improve the article. And as an aside - @MPS1992: is not an Admin, but a regular editor just like you or me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

So how do you think we can improve the contents of this page? Arajc (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Shareholdings don't add up to 100%

It's fine that it doesn't, but the way the table is formatted it makes it seem like it should. The format also seems a bit messy; if someone could fix it that would be great. Thanks. Trialeditor (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the table to reflect the latest share holder split as displayed on the Wipro website Shiunu (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Repetition of company name in the lead

Creating this section to discuss whether the company name should be repeated in the lead preceded by a 'known generally as'. WP:LEAD clearly says Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.

As a result it makes no sense to repeat the company's name when it's apparent that it is a legal suffix. No other page does this, see Google, Walmart, JPMorgan Chase, Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagen Group, BP etc. All of them provide the legal suffix in the lead quite clearly and do not repeat it without said legal suffix. I request that anyone who disagrees with this conclusion come forward and adds to this discussion expeditiously. Prolix 💬 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

pinging Atlantic306 since they had an issue with this. Prolix 💬 07:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Prolix, Agree. No point in including the name twice in the lead in the same sentence. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 09:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Prolix, ok I Withdraw my objection, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

BSE

Wipro is not a constituent of the BSE index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.66.149 (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Heads-up on recent expansion of Criticism section

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear editors,

Just to let you know, I've gone ahead and expanded the "Criticism" section. The previous version was very sparse for a company of this size, which created a significant WP:NPOV issue due to bias by omission. An encyclopedia article can't be whitewashed; it needs to reflect what reliable sources are actually reporting.

To help fix this, I added a few well-documented points, making sure to use only high-quality, reliable sources like NDTV, The Economic Times, and The Financial Express.

This first set of edits is focused on correcting the existing bias by omission. I haven't started adding more recent positive developments or other neutral corporate history yet, but that is also necessary for true NPOV. For now, this addresses the most glaring gap in the article.

Full transparency as required by WP:COI: I am a former Wipro employee. I'm being upfront about this so my edits can be reviewed with that context. My goal is purely encyclopedic: to build a balanced article, and that starts by addressing the existing omissions.

I am open to any and all feedback on these additions.

Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

US H1B and UK Intra-Company Transfer abuse needs to be in the criticism section. 92.40.216.189 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

As true as it may be, additions to a Wiki article for BLPs have to be substantiated with references from top publications. Let me know if you can find the news sources and I’ll get the info added here. If APJ is not mentioned, it will have to go to the WT page.

Cheers,

Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

This page is not a BLP. Also, don't include minor controversies without considering WP:WEIGHT and relevance. I've replaced a minor relieving letter controversy with a major embezzlement case, which you had originally added to Azim Premji's article last month. Yuvaank (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Unlike Infy or Narayamurthy's pages, this page and APJ's page have relentless whitewashing attempts. Tweaking verbiage is one thing, but deleting anything remotely negative is concerning. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not whitewashing anything. Think twice before you cast aspersions about other editors here. Yuvaank (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yuvaank - Maybe you or other editors could take a closer look at APJ's page. How can someone have such a clean page like a PR article? You'll be surprised to see the talk pages - anything negative is quickly reverted instead of having a balanced, neutral view based on top publications. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you avoid referring to Azim Premji as APJ? Most people associate that with Abdul Kalam. I've already cut down some fluff on that page. Yuvaank (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yuvaank - Sure. Let's stick to Ajim Premji.

What you call as 'fluff' and 'not whitewashing' is removal of around 1 lakh bytes of data recently. It wasn't even modified, but anything negative is removed. Sorry if it's not about thinking more than once, but that data record is clear. If court cases are involved, and news published about it, Wiki readers deserve to know about it, don't you agree? Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't care if my edit summaries and the cited policies aren't clear enough to you. That's a you problem. The removal was not 1 lakh bytes either, not even close. I'll again point you to WP:WEIGHT and direct you to Wikipedia:Helpdesk for any further policy related queries. Yuvaank (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yuvaank It’s a BLP and has to have a balanced view, at least in Wikipedia. I’m not getting into an edit war or taking it up with Helpdesk. The info is already on the Talk pages for a discerning reader or editor to see. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful, nothing more to discuss here then. Yuvaank (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The discussion has moved to Azim Premji’s talk page. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)