Talk:G4S/Archives/2013

Controversies

Wikipedia policy is to avoid sections like this which almost by definition are criticisms -see Wikipedia criticism -Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". I suggest we move them into the main article. Comments welcome. JRPG (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the "controversies" content in this article has grown to an undue and excessive length. Were it to be merged with the history section in its current form it would swamp it.

The section on the Olympics in particular should be drastically cut back and many of these "controversies" reduced to just a line or two. They could then be included in the main History section. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Think there are hints of wp:recentism AND wp:undue in the Olympics section which could be reduced to a third of its size maintaining all rliable source references. There may be particular interest atm as HMG is considering subcontracting much police work to G4S which may figure in the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 on 15 November. This isn't the only article on my watchlist which has a large controversies section and will be difficult to restructure. JRPG (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The controversies sections of company articles frequently grow to be recentist and of an undue size and efforts to cut them back are in my experience often painful. BP is a particularly bad example.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Think it would be a good idea to leave as it is for a few days to see if there are any more comments. If not, summarise the Olympic event -leaving references, citing this discussion and wp:brd. Hopefully painless! JRPG (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Can any of those more enlighted advise? Should an event which happend at a company before g4s acquired that company be included in the history or controversies section of the g4s page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.118.38 (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My view would be that it should be included in the article on the company being acquired (if it is notable enough to have an article). Best wishes.

Nothing is said in the article about G4S providing ambulance services in the UK. Most recently, there's a new controversy involving a death through negligence as a man was being delivered to a hospital: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amputee-dies-in-g4s-ambulance-due-to-insufficient-staff-training-8527221.html Wildespace (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to read the debate about the Controversies section. Should controversies mentioned throughout the article be relocated under the Controversies section?
To avoid accusations of COI I'm declaring that G4S is my client. Feel free to contact me on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism applies. I generally prefer that criticism is scattered throughout the article ..but includes fair coverage of the right of reply which all UK newspapers must include. This is more difficult with older articles. I've no problems working with editors with very different viewpoints who fully understand the rules -and are working to produce a better encyclopedia article not just for a client. See Wikipedia:No paid advocacy Regards JRPG (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I should have said that if you feel you should not be contributing yourself, I would welcome any link to a wp:Suggested sources that you provide. JRPG (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

JRPG - Thanks for getting back to me. There is obviously a need to mention criticisms of G4S in order for the article to be balanced, however it does seem sightly unreasonable to include criticisms throughout the article and have a dedicated Controversies section. By my estimations just over 50% of the article is wholly dedicated to criticisms of G4S. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

More work than I'm prepared to do but I would suggest you delete the criticism section & move criticisms & references to appropriate sections in the article. Bad news sells newspapers. You are in a good position to give enhanced statistical info e.g. no of prisoners escorted, estimated police savings etc. -which anyone looking for an encyclopedia article would want. If your going to do it -refer people to this discussion & quote WP:BRD ..but I wouldn't expect a problem if you are improving the article. JRPG (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have had a go at doing this. I have only left in the controversies section those issues which are spread out over a period of time and therefore look better in one section. Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Dormskirk. One thing that I have noticed is that the company's response to criticism -which UK papers are obliged to publish -seems often to be missing. Any response which significantly mitigates concerns should be included and Vivj2012 may want to suggest areas. JRPG (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback JRPG and Dormskirk. The Controversies section can remain, but I'd like to make a start at moving all criticisms under this section. Once this has been done, I plan to review the Controversies section to see if the quality of the content is up to the standard of the rest of the article. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that the controversy section is as small as possible -containing only things which as Dormskirk says are spread out. Even then they may be extracted under subheadings e.g. Wackenhut. Responsibility for ensuring wp:npov rests with the main editors though you are of course welcome to draw attention to particular aspects -or even to contact Wikipedia. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case I'd like to start reviewing the negative content included in the article. Is it best to post my findings on the article talk page? Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You may be in a good position to find references quoting positive aspects ..but these must be public domain sources. JRPG (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Further issues

Global Solutions Limited

In January 2008, an Aboriginal man from Western Australia died of heat stroke after being transported in a Global Solutions Limited (GSL) van without air conditioning or water. Criminal charges were never laid despite a GSL company spokesperson admitting there were "grounds for concern". This came after GSL had already been criticised in 2005 for their handling of Australia's detained immigrants in a report undertaken by former Head of Queensland's Corrective Services Keith Hamburger. GSL, a provider of outsourced justice services, was acquired by G4S in May 2008.

Regardless of the fact that GLS is a subsidiary, this article is about G4S. While GLS doesn’t have its own article, a passage of this length shouldn’t be in the article of its parent company – there should only be a maximum of one sentence. The problem is probably that the sources used to support this section say ‘GSL (now G4S)’, and ‘GSL, which is now known as G4S’ (with certainly one, and possibly both, these inaccuracies seemingly originating from a piece in the Weekend Australian) while elsewhere in the article it is substantiated that GSL was in fact acquired by G4S in 2007, see here.

I am not aware of any wiki guideline which would require this to be limited to one sentence. Dormskirk (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In October 2012 G4S was part of the “administrative bungle” that jailed German-born Australian Cornelia Rau for 10 months. In a statement, another detainee at Baxter described how GSL staff abused Rau, including “one of the officers [who] struck her on the chest and threw her on her back on the floor of her room.” The company is also in line for the contract to run Australia's controversial Manus island refugee detention centre.

As with the other Australian story, on which one of these sources comments, there seems to be confusion over GSL’s relationship with G4S – clearly one editor has added this content while another has made it clear that GSL is a subsidiary, with neither spotting the contradiction. As above – this should warrant one sentence max.

Again I am not aware of any wiki guideline which would require this to be limited to one sentence. Dormskirk (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If not one sentence then this is still surely too much content on two isolated incidents relating to a company that is not the subject of the article. Furthermore, it's supported by sources that incorrectly imply that GSL and G4S are essentially one and the same. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I accept that GSL and G4S were different companies at the time and have therefore removed the section. That said they are one and the same now as GSL has been fully integrated into G4S. Dormskirk (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Västberga helicopter robbery

The Västberga helicopter robbery occurred on 23 September 2009 in Sweden. Both G4S's own security and the police work were criticised.

Chronology seems to be the only rationale behind these two sentences being here – they are shoehorned in with no context and without explicitly stating that there's another Wiki article devoted entirely to the incident. Most importantly, the BBC source used here makes no mention, either in the copy or the accompanying video, of any criticism levelled either at G4S or the Swedish police.

Point taken and proper context now added. Dormskirk (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the sentence "Both G4S's own security and the police work were criticised." is not supported by the source. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed sentence now removed. Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Security lapses at Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratory

On 24 January 2012, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported that a Wackenhut security guard slept while on the job at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and had also used an unauthorised mobile telephone while inside the high-security facility. Photographs of the incidents were distributed to the publication, as well as the lab, Wackenhut and the US Department of Energy, which oversees the plant's operations. The facility houses approximately half a ton of Uranium 233, enough for nearly 250 improvised nuclear detonations, etc.

Given that there is already a substantial section on Wackenhut in the Controversy section, in terms of structure the presence of this section here gives undue weight to this issue and looks like an attempt to position negative content at regular intervals throughout the article rather than to keep it in one place and in proportion to the quantity and quality of the third party sources available to support it.

Now moved back to controversies section. I think it was you who suggested dispersing the controveries information. Dormskirk (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I never made that suggestion. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Apologies - I don't know who did. Dormskirk (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Failure to meet London 2012 Security Contract

This is a very large section, reflective of the quantity of news coverage this story attracted last year, but arguably relying on transient news – using quotes and as many available articles as possible to construct a ‘he said, she said’ account of G4S’s handling of the games that is not encyclopaedic and should be condensed.

Sarah Hubble comments now removed. Dormskirk (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Operations

Activities

G4S' core services include 'Manned security services' – where it provides trained and screened security officers. The company also provides 'Security systems' such as access control, CCTV, intruder alarms, fire detection, video analytics and security and building systems integration technology. etc.

The authors of this article seem to have manipulated the Wikipedia convention of structuring articles: Intro, History, Operations, etc by cramming the History section with as much negative content as possible with the result that the reader has to scroll to the bottom to find any meaningful information about what G4S actually does. This is a WEIGHT issue as well as being contrary to Wikipedia’s goal as an encyclopaedia.

Again I think it was you who suggested transferring the negative material out of the controversies section. I moved the material into the history section because that was the obvious alternative place to put it. Dormskirk (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I never suggested moving negative material out of the controversies section. Neutral information about G4S's operations and core markets is currently way too far down in the article. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. There may be a case for moving some of the negative material back to the controversies section. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine

This is clearly a very sensitive issue as it involves disputed West Bank settlements, but in any case language like ‘maintain and profit from’ implies bias. Most importantly, however, this section should of course make clear G4S’s decision to quit these contracts, see here.

Both issues now resolved. Dormskirk (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The FT source doesn't support the statement that they have withdrawn from Israel. It talks about "key contracts", "contracts covering Ofer, the checkpoints and the West Bank police headquarters when they terminate in 2015" (which are not in Israel), "aim to exit the contracts which involve the servicing of security equipment at a small number of barrier checkpoints, a prison and a police station in the West Bank area" (also not in Israel), "will continue to service security systems in commercial and government sites inside Israel, including jails housing Palestinian inmates, after 2015", and so on. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am not a subscriber to FT.com so I accepted the comments from Vivj2012 in good faith. I have now reverted my own addition. Dormskirk (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Me neither, and it looks like archive.org isn't able to capture their content. But for the time being you can see a Google cached version here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland no one said the FT source says they've withdrawn from Israel (I'm well aware that these facilities are not in Israel!), but the FT article does confirm that G4S "said it would exit the contracts covering Ofer, the checkpoints and the West Bank police headquarters when they terminate in 2015." That should be reflected in this section. Also, the last sentence begins, "In April 2012, G4S released a statement detailing its activities in Israel..." and then goes on essentially to duplicate the details of those contracts in the West Bank. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My comment "The FT source doesn't support the statement that they have withdrawn from Israel" referred to this edit, which has subsequently been removed. It was unrelated to anything you said or know. It was about the content not complying with WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wackenhut subsidiary

Main article: G4S Secure Solutions

If there’s a main article, then the vast majority of this and other content on Wackenhut should be migrated to that article as per Wiki guidelines, leaving a sentence or two max, along with this link to that article.

I am not sure on this one. Personally I am not keen on articles about subsidiaries. After all you could write a large number of articles about all G4S's subsidiaries. Dormskirk (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You could, and given the level of detail about Wackenhut you could start by spinning off a lot of this material into one on that company. I think this is an area where opinions differ – some would argue that a parent company's article should contain information on the activities of that entity only and minimal information on its subsidiaries. Certainly I think there's a lot of info on this one subsidiary which could be elsewhere. Let's wait for some other opinions on this. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Once consensus has been reached on these points, we should discuss the overall article structure. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Refugee detention in Australia

In October 2012 G4S was part of the “administrative bungle” that jailed German-born Australian Cornelia Rau for 10 months. In a statement, another detainee at Baxter described how GSL staff abused Rau, including “one of the officers [who] struck her on the chest and threw her on her back on the floor of her room.”

The date attributed to this incident is incorrect. The article referenced is from October 2012, but as this article substantiates, it actually occurred in 2005, three years before GSL was acquired by G4S. This sentence should therefore be removed as per the reasoning outlined above in the discussion with Dormskirk. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Dormskirk (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)