Jump to content

Talk:GEO Group/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Quality of Operations

The Quality of Operations section is lifted entirely from the Geo Group's 10-K statement. Financial statements represent only a company's POV and as such are not neutral sources.

Re-write this section to include other, more neutral sources. Or edit the sourced information present now so it presents a neutral POV.

Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing tool. Presenting only the company's POV in many sections of this page amounts to a using Wikipedia as a marketing venue. (February 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.243.207 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Geo Group HQ

http://www.thegeogroupinc.com/images/locations-na.jpg is the image of the GEO Group HQ. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement?

″As a leading provider in the industry since 1984, we offer our clients high-quality, cost-effective services with state-of-the-art designs, innovative programs and ground-breaking treatment approaches. http://geogroup.com/index″ John richard leonard (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Proposal Given that the content of this article is the subject of several news stories and that significant vandalism has taken place over the last couple of days, should we go ahead and protect this article from editing by new users for a week or so? Rklawton (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. GEO has been editing the page for years, often using IPNs only. They have been consistently posting promoting PR materials and deleting what they feel is negative info. Activist (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well, for the reasons stated. Protect it. Cerberus™ (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
+1 for protection. Gophergun (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree for protection. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Old References

Currently references 3 and 4 are dead links to the company's own website. Does anyone have updated ref's for this important information in the lead? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the dead links and provided one updated link to their website and a more accurate address. Anything anyone else anyone can find would be appreciated as well. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Hello! Just a reminder that per Wiki style guidelines, articles should reference the subject. Wikipedia articles should not reference itself or its processes. The place to talk about this is in the aptly titled "Talk" page. In this vein, I deleted a reference to an accusation that a GEO Group employee deleted unflattering material from the Controversy section. Furthermore, it is apparent to me that the accusation was based on circumstantial evidence, hardly fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I welcome discussion on this matter. Thanks! JerseyDem

The Controversy section was absolutely unsourced. I have removed it. If you want to re-add it, then source it. AnyPerson (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some research, edited the article to include a new and sourced controversy section. 69.107.93.92 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous hacks US prison contractor's website - http://anonops.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.205.217 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No one's contributed to this issue of sourcing or POV in two years. There are sources in the article now. Can we take that message down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisdetermined (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Article on the attempted whitewashing of this entry, is this worthy of the controversy section? http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/2/21/4011532/geo-group-fau-football-stadium-name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.176.194 (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely worthy of inclusion and what better place for it? Activist (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is really fishy. Read: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/10072122058/prison-sponser-tries-to-delete-wikipedia-information-after-sponsoring-ncaa-football-stadium.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.186.52 (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No, it's not worthy of inclusion and it shouldn't be shoved back in while this discussion is underway. it is true that they purchased naming rights. The only "controversy" here seems to be about wikipedia editing. I'm not convinced that the naming rights mention, which is notable, belongs in a controversy section. This smells of an agenda.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Niteshift36 brings up a good point. Is the naming rights deal a controversy involving the primary business activities of the GEO Group, or really with the University? This should be explored further. JerseyDem (talk)
  • Frankly, much of that section smacks of agenda to me. Just because a company gets sued doesn't make the entry relevant to the article. I bet GE has been sued tens of thousands of times, yet we don't list them all. Only really major ones. A guy with a cavity that didn't get treated isn't exactly encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove reference to editing of article page?

I'm inclined to think that the reference to allegations that a GEO Group employee edited this article at the end of the Controversies section should be removed per WP:SUBJECT. The reference checks out, but it doesn't seem to me to be material to an encyclopedic entry about the company itself. -Thomas Craven (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be, since it made actual news that an employee tried to whitewash this page.68.55.56.171 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that it should. This is but one more conclusive piece of evidence of how the corporation tries to keep its sordid operations far from public scrutiny. Activist (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The subject's possible involvement makes it on-topic. But that could change. If sources agree someone other than the subject was responsible for the edits, then you'd be right, WP:SUBJECT applies. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If you look back to the second 50 edits, you'll find Pablo Paez, the GEO flack, posting and deleting over three years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the Controversy section, but it's worth repeating here: per Wiki style guidelines, articles should reference the subject. Wikipedia articles should not reference itself or its processes. Also, it is apparent to me that the accusation was based on circumstantial evidence, hardly fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I welcome discussion on this matter. Thanks! JerseyDem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerseydem (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

First, please remember to place your comments in the correct location (the bottom of a discussion), indent it correctly with colons, and sign your post with four tildes.
Second, several editors feel that the content should be included so removing it before discussing it with those editors is uncalled for.
Lastly, WP:SUBJECT specifically states that there are cases where the article can refer to itself. Other editors here have agree that it should and sources have been provided to show that Wikipedia isn't actually referencing itself, but referencing news sources that note that GEO Group was editing the article. In my opinion, this is exactly the reason that WP:SUBJECT states that an article referencing itself is acceptable if "it is relevant to the topic of the article itself".
I'm not 100% on board with including the event in the article per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT but we'd need to have a discussion about that before sourced content is removed. OlYeller21Talktome 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree to include the content per WP:SUBJECT. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
While a case can be made for inclusion in re WP:SUBJECT (I still disagree), I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer with regards to the fact that the assertion that a GEO Group employee edited the page is based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. I do not believe that conjecture, even it's attributable to a news source is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. In the end, it's not supported by fact, just guesswork on the part of the author. Thanks! JerseyDem —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted but I disagree with you. OlYeller21Talktome 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's been removed, at any rate. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 16:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this is a case of WP:UNDO. Not enough sources cover the incident, I have no trouble believing the press can be duped by a joe job (GEO has no shortage of enemies), and the one IP that does trace back to GEO could have been used by some low level employee without authorization. That is to say, we have no way of knowing if this reflects corporate policy - and by logical extension, neither does the press. So until we've got more sources, this just isn't reliable enough or significant enough for inclusion in the article. The fact that I *want* to believe this is true and would enjoy sticking it to GEO has no bearing on my desire to see Wikipedia to remain a neutral and reliable encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this to be the right course of action. Rklawton articulated my opinion better than I could have. Jerseydem (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Jerseydem, that was barely similar to your argument that only cited WP:SUBJECT.
Rklawton, I agree with you, assuming you meant to cite WP:UNDUE as opposed to WP:UNDO. Thank you for presenting a coherent argument. OlYeller21Talktome 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Er, yup. WP:UNDUE. I screw that one up all teh time. Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am satisfied with this resolution until there is verifiable evidence to support the charge. Jerseydem (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out Cohen has fessed up about who controls the account created in his name[1]. So that rules out a joe job. Rklawton (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is where WP:UNDUE gets tricky as there really is no metric or scientific way to show that an issue or subject is being given due weight. A Google News search shows that there were close to 100 articles written about the incident. Outside of that incident, a Google News search and a Google News Archive search produce around 300 articles. I haven't looked into AP/Reuters duplicates or erroneous hits but that would seem to indicate that this incident played a huge part in their overall coverage by secondary sources. Does this mean it should be included? I'm still not sure, but it's the closest I can come to anything resembling a scientific evaluation (without going through hundreds of news article links). Thoughts? OlYeller21Talktome 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this is the key language from WP:UNDUE: ″An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.″ I do not believe that this really speaks to any of GEO Group's core business activities. It is common knowledge that most large firms will try to influence Wikipedia articles, albeit with more finesse. I think relevance to the firm's business activities is a better and fairer standard than "which companies were dumb enough to get caught." Your thoughts? Jerseydem (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't really disagree with you. When looking at the big picture, over a period of years, it's hard for me to say that this situation will play a large role in the identity of this organization. Obviously, that's just an opinion which is why I generally despise undue weight discussions, but if I had to !vote right now, I can't convince myself that this is an incident that will stand the test of time. If, with proof from secondary sources, it can be proven that this is a long term issue with this organization, I might be on board with including the issue in the article. OlYeller21Talktome 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ACLU Notes "series of highly unusual edits" to this WP Article

There was an interesting blog post by the American Civil Liberties Union today at http://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights-criminal-law-reform/private-prison-company-doctors-its-own-wikipedia-page-and, noting how representatives of the company have attempted to manipulate this page. Is this WP:Notable and, if so, how should it be incorporated into the article? Rorybowman (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Blog posts are not notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Dubious" references and overlinking

Niteshift36, is there any reason to remove the internal WP links that used to be there? Is there any specific WP policy about overlinking? If you or anyone else has thoughts on this, they would be welcome, otherwise I will replace the internal links soon. Also the Democracy Now reference was tagged "Dubious". What is the reason for this? They were the first to report the incidents discussed, which were subsequently reported on by other media referenced, like the Sun Sentinel. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I answered overlinking question in another article where you asked the same question. Generic articles (like "Australia") or common words (like "prison") shouldn't be linked. For more, see the other place you asked the identical question. Second, it doesn't matter how many sources report something, it doesn't make a dubious source credible. If the info is found in indisputably reliable sources, then why not just use them?Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    WP:OVERLINK covers this topic, specifically. OlYeller21Talktome 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Alright thanks. About the sources, Democracy Now was the first to report it, and the other two references cite them. I still don't know why you labeled Democracy Now dubious. But you seem to be saying that if the Sun Sentinel is more reputable, we should just take out the Democracy Now reference, even though they were the first to report it? Thanks, Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter who was first. Take the National Enquirer and John Edwards. They reported his affair long before the other sources. When the mainstream finally caught up, it was them used in the article because they are more reliable. The simple practice here is that if you have 5 sources that all report the same thing, it's a better practice to use the 3 that won't be challenged as reliable sources than the 2 that could be questioned. Why create controversy where there need not be any? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I see your point, thanks. I'll take out the DemocracyNow ref and the dubious tag, and keep the other two refs. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bold template

Because this article has been the subject of some controversy with the Huffington Post story, I figured it would be a good opportunity to boldly place a template that has been incubating for several months, primarily on a BRD basis to instigate any objections/criticisms over the template. CorporateM (Talk) 19:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

From the discussions, it sounds like the COI edits have been going on for some time. Your friendly advice seems appropriate. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Restructure controversy section

Undue weight was the rationale for removing all mention of the company's Wikipedia editing, while leaving the sentence about the stadium without context. I think restructuring this section (as with Template:Criticism section) can help. I could start by splitting off a short section on the company's public relations activities. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • All companies are the subject of controversy, so I don't follow the logic of PR not being unique enough to be a replacement for the controversy section. My concern is that controversy and criticism sections so often become magnets for bad press and result in undue weight. I'll just make the edit and hope it improves neutrality. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • First off, controversy sections tend to give too much weight to negative. Negative items may belong in an article, but a special section highlights it over the neutral or positive. The other issue here is that many of the entries weren't that notable. Listing every minor thing (especially in a special section) is an undue weight issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have again diffused the stadium deal from the controversies section because it does not belong there. There's no indication in the current edit that the stadium naming is in any way controversial; that context was deleted several edits ago.
  • I agree with you that having a "controversies" section is problematic, for exactly the same reasons. You didn't like my attempt at a fix, so instead of reverting to a version you know is flawed, how about you take a crack at improvement? Once you've got a new structure down, then I can see about trimming down the overweighted stuff. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There are two issues: 1) You address two or more contentious parts in a single edit and 2) you tend to use the actual article as a sandbox. I'd ask you to not do that. How about if you give the proposed edits here, we discuss, then make a change with consensus instead of using the live article as practice. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Would it be okay to diffuse the 1st paragraph, on the New Castle riot, to the history section? It's part of GEO's history, but after checking the sources, the controversy was never really directed at GEO. It seems out of place. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I would say no. It doesn't really matter who the media "direct the controversy" at; it is our job as encyclopedia editors to draw logical conclusions from available sources. The sources here for the New Castle riot, and also some from New Castle Correctional Facility, clearly say that the transferred prisoners and their families were not made aware that they were being transferred at all, and were thus also not aware of the differences at GEO's facility. The sources also state that the facility could not immediately handle the riot because it was under-staffed and that the staff that were there were under-trained. All of these things were GEO's responsibility, as they were contracted to run the facility two years prior. It therefore counts as a "controversy" here. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"it is our job as encyclopedia editors to draw logical conclusions from available sources". Meanwhile the policy at WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". I haven't made a detailed comparison yet, but it sure sounds like what is happening here.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point, I may not have worded this well. But all we're talking about here is whether the New Castle riot was a controversy for GEO. They organize and run the place, so it was their responsibility what happened before, during, and after the riot. It is not synthesis to call this a controversy for GEO, as opposed to just a part of their history as a company. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, I haven't had the opportunity to look at the sources in depth, but do the sources say what is being said in the article? And again, I renew my concern about having a separate controversy section. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the sources say what the article says. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't see the controversy. I see the fact that an incident happened and that some company things contributed, but the state DOC was very clear in saying "no credible evidence to suggest that staff action in any way caused the disturbance," . The first two sources show only an activist complaining as anything close to a "controversy". A single person complaining is hardly a major controversy. The third source, which purportedly would show that controversy is strangely behind a paywall. So where is the controversy? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right that the Indystar ref is not helpful, I'll take it out if that's alright with everyone. But from the Washington Post ref, you are selectively quoting. It's true that the DOC said that blame "ultimately lies with the inmates". But also: "The report said that the transfer of inmates happened too quickly, and that the prison did not have staff trained to handle the influx. The side of the prison occupied by Arizona inmates had never been used or staffed before...The transfer of inmates from Arizona remains on hold until officials can implement the report's recommendations...The report recommended that programs and job assignments for inmates be better coordinated to reduce idle time." So actually, the "activist's" comments you mentioned are basically just what is detailed in the DOC report. Also, this[2] makes similar comments, and quotes "Indiana Department of Correction Commissioner J. David Donahue" as saying that "he has delayed the transfer of 600 more inmates from Arizona until authorities can reassess the condition of the prison." I think the correct thing to do is to delete the Indystar ref, use the NBC ref I just quoted from in its place, and expand the paragraph to include some of these quotations, so that this event's "controversial" character for GEO is more obvious. Thoughts from Niteshift36 and anyone else? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's face the fact that we're both "selectively quoting" from the source and not act like only one side if this discussion is doing it. Again, I believe you're making assumptions. Yes, Donahue said there we're enough trained staff, but he took responsibility for that, stating it was his fault that they transferred them too soon. Should we be making a "controversy" over the fact that a state agency demanded that they do more than they were originally tasked to do without enough time to prepare? And yes, the activist may be parroting a report, but his is still the only loud voice of "controversy". Again, I'm seeing that things happened. I see that mistakes were made. What I do not see is a genuine controversy. I'm not convinced that 1) we should have a controversy section and that 2) this incident belongs in the article at all, let alone as a lasting "controversy". Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see what you're saying. State corrections issued a mea culpa over New Castle, but GEO wasn't totally uninvolved. So, aside from tone, the New Castle paragraph isn't 100% out of place in the controversy section.
Still, I'd rather see it in the history section, not as a function of whether GEO is to blame or not (a call I'd prefer not to make), but simply as part of an ongoing diffusion of the controversy section. Currently, it reads like a criticism section with the associated problems, such as being an easy target for COI section blanking.
Ew, that indystar cite was me? How embarrassing. It must have been late. I didn't even format it right. I'll delete it as duplicative of the other sources. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Matt, I'm not saying GEO was uninvolved by any stretch. But just because something bad happened doesn't make it a "controversy". Where is that controversy? Where is the widespread coverage of more than one person saying that GEO group is to blame? This would be like having a 40 car crash that was mainly caused by fog (represented by the Indiana DOC) and having the crash report mention that had Chevy (represented by GEO) equipped the 4 Chevy's involved with better brakes, the crash may have had less injuries. Well yeah, but that the main factor here was the fog. Then we turn around and try to make that singular incident where 4 of 40 cars were Chevy's into a "controversy" and try to put it into the chevy article. If you had a couple of incidents where number of personnel were the issue, then a reliable source discussed it, this might be better and make a stronger case for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if we're phasing out the "Controversy" section anyway, then it doesn't really matter if it was a controversy I suppose. I do, however, still think that everything currently in this section should remain in the article, perhaps some paragraphs re-worded or expanded. What are some ideas as to what this article should look like when the Controversy section is gone? From a cursory glance at articles about prominent corporations who are often steeped in controversy, it does not appear that WP has any standard way of doing this. Morgan Stanley, for instance, has a long "Controversy and Lawsuits" section. ExxonMobil has a shorter "Criticism" section, but many other problems the company has had are contained within various parts of the article, like "Environmental Record". For Dow Chemical Company, despite the company having an extensive record of controversy and problems, there is no controversy or criticism section. Most of their notable problems are worked into the "History" and "Environmental Record" sections. Are any of these decent models for this article? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't really run on precedent. What one group of editors may agree on can be entirely different than the editors in another article and both can be within policy. A big factor is often how extensive the ccontroversy actually is. We actually have articles about those criticisms, but that's usually if it is extensive and well sourced. Most of these aren't that controversial. Those that are notable could easily be integrated into the article. Nobody is censoring relevant stuff, but we shouldn't highlight it unnecessarily either. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for constructive solutions. I am fine with keeping the article the way it is. If other people think it should be restructured, how so? I can see the first paragraph of the Controversy section being moved to the History section. As for the rest of the Controversy section, "Most of these aren't that controversial" just won't do. The paragraphs are about people dying because of lack of medical attention, cancelled contracts because of "deplorable conditions", GEO employees taking inmates off grounds for sex and getting caught, and GEO employees engaging in drug smuggling with inmates. These facts are well-sourced, and, I think, constitute controversy for GEO. If people want to restructure this material into the History section or some such thing, then fine. But, again, I do not support deleting any of it. What are some proposals? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, "most of these aren't notable" WILL do. It is incumbent on you to show why these incidents merit inclusion and are not being given undue weight. Simply because they happened isn't good enough. What we have to show is a signifigance in the company history. A guy dying and blaming it on lack of dental care isn't one of those things. Allow me a parallel example: Over the past few years, Wal-Mart has had incidents at stores during their Black Friday sales. these are well documented. It might be reasonable to mention that this has happened, but to list every incident is not reasonable. In the overall sense of the company history, it's not that big of a deal. Since you like looking at other articles, the Walmart article doesn't mention the Black Friday incidents, nor does the article Criticism of Walmart. Consider that many more people shop at Walmart on Black Friday than find themselves in a GEO Group run prison. Of the incidents mentioned, which ones can you show either a lasting media coverage for or significant impact from? The ones we've removed haven't had those. Of the remaining ones, I'd day the Walnut Grove incident is undoubtably notable. The New Castle one is borderline since the state blames themselves more than GEO group and there were only minor injuries. The TYC one is also borderline. The whole mention of former employees being the monitors is problematic. It implies that there is some conspiracy. We're giving a lot of weight to that unproven conspiracy because otherwise, this incident is very unnotable. The Hill correctional one is problematic as well. It says there were lawsuits. It never tells us if they were successful or not. Simply saying they were sued and never telling us whether or not the courts agreed gives the implication that they were wrong. Have the suits been adjudicated? What was the result? Just being sued isn't that significant. The Broward Transition one is probably notable, but it is being trumped up as well. It needs pared down to facts, not hype. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your condescending reply, yes I "like to look at other articles". And again, I'm looking for constructive solutions. About the controversies, in order:
  • 1) I am fine with moving and/or changing the New Castle prison riot controversy. Either way, New Castle Correctional Facility will have to be overhauled, because it is terrible.
  • 2) I have updated the Hill Correctional Facility controversy with the information you thought was relevant, and I agree. GEO often gets sued for wrongful death, and they usually settle. I think this is significant.
  • 3) Your concern about the TYC controversy was that mentioning the fact that the monitors were all former employees of GEO was "implying a conspiracy". Well, that or something like it is a conclusion someone might come to reading the article or the sources cited, but is not included in the article. The article just says what the sources say, and those facts are pertinent to the issue. Therefore no change here.
  • 4) You think the Walnut Grove controversy is notable, and so do I, and I think it is decently written in its current form. Therefore no change here.
  • 5) I have pared down the Broward Transitional Facility controversy to just important facts and sources, as you said.
Any ideas about what a better version of this article would look like would be appreciated. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That wasn't condescending, but if you want to see condescending, I can do that for you. My response was actually constructive. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so. 1) I don't care if New Castle is terrible or not and, in Wikipedia terms, you shouldn't either. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for social justice campaigns.
2) You didn't "update it", you added a bunch of POV material. Being sued doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Similarly, most people are aware that large companies will pay off claims as a cost saving measure. This practice (one that I personally detest) is so widespread that claiming that there was a payout is no longer evidence of wrong-doing. In fact, many such settlements specify that there was no proof of wrong-doing. You can't just put part of the info in, only the biased part, and claim it's ok.
3) Again, the source may say something, but that doesn't mean it gets a free pass to be put in. The ACLU is an activist organization trying to make a point. Salon is selling a story. Just because it's true that they were former employees doesn't make the allegation of a conspiracy true. Presented in the manner it currently is plants the notion of a conspiracy that was never proven, put there by a magazine that failed to follow up on it.
5) I pared a few more things down. First, complaining about how long they are detained is irrelevant. ICE determines how long the people are detained. Using it as a complaint about GEO doesn't make sense. Similarly, claiming that most of the detainees have no criminal record doesn't make sense. First, they committed immigration crimes to get there and more importantly, GEO doesn't decide who goes there. ICE decides. GEO is paid to run the facility, nothing more. I also pared down the letter thing. We don't need a running tab on two letters. Letters were written and ICE hasn't responded. Nothing else needs said.
Now you can start squabbling about what you think is condescending or stay on discussion the issues. So far, I think we've improved the article. I think there is more to do. You decide which direction you want to go with the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
About New Castle, actually I meant that the article about the facility was terrible, not the facility itself, sorry for that confusion. And about Hill Correctional, you mentioned that the article doesn't say what the results of the suits were, so I put what information I could find from the sources I could find. But then you said settling is what companies usually do, so it's not relevant. But it is how the suits ended, so why is it less relevant than if they had been found not guilty or guilty? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Since these are civil suits, there is no "guilty" or "not guilty". That's important. When a billion dollar company pays out to cut expenses, that's not an admission of anything. In other words, if they pay out 100k to avoid expenses, so what? Now if a jury found them liable and awarded a plaintiff a 8 figure award, that might sound significant. Actually, I might even buy into it more if the settlements were bigger, but amounts like these aren't that drastic. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph is especially troubling to me. It appears that the situation is still unresolved, especially from the last sentence. I personnally feel that controversies have to be notable and, to as great of a degree as possible, settled. I must reiterate that Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a conduit for news. Most of these controversies would not hold up to that standard. I suggest deleting paragraphs 3 and five. Paragraph three is sourced only by the ACLU and a slanted piece by Salon. Your thoughts? Jerseydem (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

About the Texas Youth Commission issue, I have been working on getting better sources, so I don't support deleting it yet. I'll show you what I have now so we can consider how to make it better.
Here's the report from the TYC itself about the conditions at the facility.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/10-07/1006tyccokeaudit.pdf
And here are a couple more things about the facility during the time GEO ran it. For instance, the beating death of an inmate in 2001, a court's decision about which meets NiteShift36's "8 figure" criterion. Not necessarily good sources themselves, but they may be helpful leads to better sources.
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2009/04/riots-deadly-beating-filth-plague-geo-group-facilities-courts-and-state-regulators-find/
http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/%5Bcatpath%5D/court-upholds-47-million-verdict-against-geo-group-de-la-rosa-murder-case
I realize this particular murder is not currently a topic in the article; it may, however, be more notable than the issue of monitors at the TYC possibly being former GEO employees, a fact which I have not been able to corroborate with anything besides the Salon piece. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Indeed a $47 million verdict would be notable, provided it hasn't been overturned. Unless someone shows that it has been overturned, I'd say it is significant enough to merit inclusion. I'm also pretty sure there are actually reliable sources that covered that. The second source (texasprisonbidness) is hardly a reliable source and the first is questionable. As for the TYC report.........I'm not sure how the presence of a report makes the incident more notable in the history of the the company. Maybe you can explain. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I thought the issue with TYC was the questionable sourcing, Salon and ACLU. I have some better sources for that now, I'll get to that, and the issue of notability, below. But I'll go in order, since the $42.5 million decision was for a murder in 2001, at a different facility in Texas.
The murder of Gregorio De La Rosa Junior by other inmates happened at a GEO facility in Texas in 2001, the Rio Grande Detention Center, still run by GEO. GEO was found negligent and liable for wrongful death for $47.5 million. GEO appealed, and the 13th court of appeals upheld the ruling except for $5 million, reducing the liability to $42.5 million. I have three decent sources that mention this, and also have the original appeals court opinion, which is available from the site I linked previously. But, if I understand WP policy, the pdf of the opinion would be a primary source and therefore doesn't belong on WP? Here are the links.
http://www.pro8news.com/news/local/42646502.html
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_c31846b6-27e2-5a00-a591-17a1b66815b1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/cheney-gonzales-indicted-texas-prison-case/
http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/files/De%20la%20Rosa%20v.%20The%20Geo%20Group%20-%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20Opinion.pdf
And about the TCY issue. I think what happened at the Coke County Juvenile Justice Center (not yet specifically mentioned in the article) is notable because of the findings of sexual assault by a registered sex offender employed by GEO, the lack of maintenance, sanitation, medical care, and education at the facility, and the fact that the TYC ended its contract with GEO because of these things. It is also notable because this is not the only time that GEO has come under public criticism for very similar circumstances, e.g. Walnut Grove. The problem with sourcing this material is that much of it was reported by the Dallas Morning News, but their older stories are now behind a paywall. But it is possible to find copies of those stories. So I have four decent sources for the TYC issues, plus the original report that I linked above, although that is a primary source too I guess. I'll give a brief description of each.
This is about the fired TCY monitors. It mentions that they were formerly employed by GEO, and also quotes a congressperson addressing that issue, who himself states a belief about a "close relationship" between those TCY employees and GEO. So while this of course doesn't warrant any conclusions in the article, I think it warrants a mention of the fact, something like what's already there, but with this source, originally the Dallas Morning News.
http://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2007/10/12/3009957.htm
Here are two articles about TYC's report, the closing of the facility, and the end of the contract with GEO.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-legislator-starts-probe-of-TYC-contractor-1653029.php
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2007-10-26/554296/
And here's a story, originally the AP, about the employee sex offender who assaulted inmates at the facility who GEO subsequently fired, and various suits that were brought against GEO because of him. Although someone will say that it doesn't mention how the suits were decided, which I haven't been able to find anywhere...
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Juvenile-inmates-suit-alleges-abuse-by-guard-1825027.php
Not saying I think we should use all these sources, or include all these facts necessarily, just putting some options out there that I think are reasonable. I could draft two paragraphs about these issues and put them here for people to look at if people want. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are my drafts for an additional paragraph to the Controversies section which will appear first, and a revision of the third paragraph, which will become the fourth, with better references.

  • In 2001 an inmate was murdered at GEO's Rio Grande Detention Center by two other inmates. In 2006 GEO was sued by the man's family, indicted, and held liable for $47.5 million for destruction of evidence and negligently causing the man's death.[brownsville herald ref][pro8news ref] In 2009 GEO appealed the court's decision. A court of appeals upheld $42.5 million in damages but reversed $5 million intended for the estate of the man's father who had passed away before the 2006 trial; his estate could therefore not collect damages as a wrongful death beneficiary.[cite text of decision from http://caselaw.findlaw.com]
  • In 2007, the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) fired seven employees after discovering inmates at the Coke County Juvenile Justice Center living in "deplorable conditions." An inspection by the TYC found the facility to be understaffed, ill-managed, and unsanitary. The TYC also ordered that all inmates would be transferred elsewhere. GEO had run this facility since 1994, and the TYC terminated their contract with GEO after this inspection. The fired quality assurance monitors had failed to report the conditions to the TYC, and prior to working for the TYC three of them were employed by the GEO Group.[dallas morning news ref][austin chronicle ref]

The Salon and ACLU references can be deleted after this. Here is the text of the court decision

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1074279.html Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind, let's do one at a time. Easier to keep our comments straight.Let's start with the Rio Grande one. I'd cut out the part about the father's estate. That's a legal issue, not GEO's issue. So "In 2001 an inmate was murdered at GEO's Rio Grande Detention Center by two other inmates. In 2006 GEO was sued by the man's family found liable for $47.5 million for destruction of evidence and negligently causing the man's death.[brownsville herald ref][pro8news ref] In 2009 GEO appealed the court's decision and a verditct of $42.5 million was upheld." would work. I removed "indicted" because it doesn't fit. Indictment generally refer to criminal charges, not civil. There may or may not have been criminal charges with the original case, but since we're not including them, we shouldn't be only telling part of the story. The "indictments" came years after the fact, by a politically motivated prosecutor that was making a statement about privately run jails. He even tried adding the former VP and AG of the US. They came AFTER the verdict and the appeal. As you can see, the bogus indictments went nowhere. So, with the Rio Grande one, are we substantially in agreement? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, two things though. First, I would say that the bit about the father's estate IS GEO's issue; when they appealed the decision, they specifically said that there were $5 million that they did not owe because it was meant for the murdered man's father's estate, who, they pointed out, died before the trial started. They of course appealed most of the rest of the money as well, but this $5 million was the only money the judge ended up reversing. If GEO had not appealed this specific amount for this specific reason, it likely wouldn't have been reversed, which is why I say it is pertinent to GEO, rather than being only a legal issue. Should the text of the paragraph make this more clear?
Also, I am still wondering if it is appropriate or not to use official court documents, government reports, etc., as references on WP. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it just seems to me to be far more relevant that there was no small amount pay-off here. This went to a jury, they were held liable and it survived appeal. The $42 amount is much more the point thatn saving 5 and adding it just muddles the point and makes a good, NPOV account look like someone trying to make a point. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK well, I respectfully disagree, mostly because I as a reader would be curious how/why after 3 years, only ~10% of the damages got reversed. Why not most of them? Why not none of them? But if no one else has any thoughts on this, I'm OK with doing it this way. Any other thoughts before we draft a final version of the paragraph?
Also I ask again, should we use the court decision text as a ref? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You might be curious, but I think most people accept the fact that awards get adjusted from time to time and that a 10% reduction isn't a huge deal when you're talking about still getting over $42 million. As for sourcing, is there a source beside the texasprisonbidness website? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I linked it above. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1074279.html Eflatmajor7th (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK final draft of an additional first paragraph for this section, I'll make the changes in 24 hours or so if no one has anything else to say about it. Then we can move on down the list I suppose.
  • In 2001 an inmate was murdered at GEO's Rio Grande Detention Center in Texas by two other inmates. In 2006 GEO was sued by the man's family and found liable for $47.5 million for destruction of evidence and negligently causing the man's death.[brownsville herald ref][pro8news ref] In 2009 GEO appealed the court's decision and a verdict of $42.5 million was upheld.[cite decision from http://caselaw.findlaw.com] Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK here is a draft of a new, better-sourced version (sources above) of the fourth paragraph of this section.

  • In 2007, the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) fired seven employees after discovering inmates at the GEO-run Coke County Juvenile Justice Center living in "deplorable conditions." An inspection by the TYC found the facility to be understaffed, ill-managed, and unsanitary. The TYC ordered that all inmates be transferred elsewhere, terminated their contract with GEO, and subsequently closed the facility. GEO had run the facility since 1994. The fired TYC monitors had failed to report the conditions to the TYC, and prior to working for the TYC three of them were employed by the GEO Group.[dallas morning news ref][austin chronicle ref][TYC report pdf] Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not bad. I still, however, have an issue with the "3 of them worked for GEO thing". 3 of 7 is less than half, meaning that the majority of those who overlooked the conditions were never employees of GEO. So why are we highlighting the 3 over the others? It implies a conspiracy and ignores the fact that often people simply stay in an industry because that's where their experience is. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I still disagree. Wikipedia would not be "implying" a conspiracy, it is the quoted state senator in the source who not only implies it, but suspects it. I therefore think it is reasonable to include this fact (a FACT, not an implication of something) in the article. A conspiracy, by the way, is not some theory, some abstract grand plan hypothesized about evil-doers behind a curtain. It is just two or more parties acting together toward a common goal. Happens all the time. And if we keep this last sentence, we are not even implying that there WAS a conspiracy, we are only including a sourced fact, the implications of which OTHER people, included in the source, have speculated about. I hope this is clear. Does Niteshift36 or anyone else have anything to say about this? I would like to upload this new paragraph in the next 24 hours. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, we've been civil enough so far, there is no reason for you to start defining conspiracy for me. Like I don't have a dictionary or common sense. I'm more aware of the legal definition of it that you might know. However, I used the phrase "conspiracy theory", which is slightly different than you definition of a single word in the phrase. Just because someone said it doesn't give an express ticket to inclusion. Including it does imply that the former employment of a minority of the inspectors influenced the outcome. There is no evidence of this. Since most of those inspectors are likely to be living, we may even be treading into a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually you never have said "conspiracy theory", always "conspiracy". I figured you meant the legal definition, and I disagree that there is no evidence for it in this case; there is some, namely that the fired monitors who formerly worked for GEO were lying about the conditions at the Coke County facility. I know this is not conclusive evidence of course, but it is why I think the fact still warrants a mention. By what the Dallas Morning News ref says, this was going to be among the topics of the investigation once they closed the place down, but I can't find any outcome of this particular question anywhere. Can anyone else find anything like this, and/or does Niteshift or anyone else have anything else to say about this? Somehow I get the feeling there are not a whole lot of people watching this talk page. I'll upload the paragraph without the last sentence in the next couple days if I don't hear anything. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

News-Sentinel quote missing citation

The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel reported that "Authorities were investigating whether the six-hour fracas that involved about 500 offenders started Tuesday afternoon because some of the newly arrived prisoners from Arizona were upset about their treatment at the medium-security men’s prison."

{{cite news|last=Morris|first=Leo|title=The riot's cause|work=[[The News-Sentinel]]|date=01 May 2007}} might be the source, but that would be an editorial. Can anyone check this out? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I've replaced the text using an equivalent source, though I'm not opposed to restoring the above text with a citation. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Investment risks deleted yet again

This has been posted and deleted several times. The most recent deletion was justified on the grounds that primary sources were used. I fixed this. Now another editor deleted it and commented "rvt good faith edit. Could we discuss why this is included? I'm not seeing a precedent for it."

First of all, there is a similar quote from CCA's SEC filings in the CCA article here. Secondly, this exact quote is featured in several articles pertaining to the GEO Group and the privatization of prisons in general, like the ones I used as citations. Thirdly, it has been added and then deleted more than a few times. This smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I can't help but wonder if some of these deletions are connected to the recent controversy that put this article in the news. Perhaps GEO are finding established editors to do their dirty work for them?

Here is the text:

The GEO Group noted risks to their revenue stream in their 2010 Annual Report to the SEC:

"[A]ny changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us."[1][2]C.J. Griffin
  • Back up. First off, I'm the one who removed it yesterday. I've never removed it before and never talked about it before. So don't foist your past encounters onto my removal. Second, if you want to make an allegation about me working on behalf of GEO then let me help you out. I have never, ever, been in the employ of GEO group or any of their subsidiaries. I've never edited any Wikipedia article at the request of any company. There. Clear as I can make it. Now, if you make that idiotic allegation one more time, you'd better do so at the proper noticeboard and do it with evidence. Get it? Besides, if you pulled your head out of your agenda long enough, you'd see I've worked with reasonable editors to actually improve the article, including negative info about GEO.
  • Now that we're done wasting time addressing your whining about the other editors, let's address the issue. First, you say a similar statement is in the CCA article. So what? I may go remove it from there too. But the fact the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't justify putting it here. Next, you say it should be included because 1) it's found in a RS and 2) it was used in articles. Neither of those are a reason to include it here. Your inclusion looks very WP:POINTy and that's a real issue. Just because something is said in a reliable source doesn't make it automatically insertable here. When Justin Biener buys a new hat, 10,000 sources cover it. We don't stick it in the article about Bieber or about hats.
  • BTW, what you are smelling might be WP:IDHT. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY to start. Using articles as a soapbox is contrary to the basic pillars of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The risk assessment relates more to the industry and GEO's operating environment. But this article is about the company. The assessment might belong in an article about the U.S.'s private prison industry - but it's a big stretch to put it here. Rklawton (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This addition is absurd, in my opinion. Every publicly traded company that focuses on the government market puts similar risk warnings in their SEC filings. It is boilerplate. We might just as well insert a section saying "the sky is blue". It adds nothing. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy backup

From the AIJ report: "Nonetheless, 26 U.S. House members signed a letter to ICE Director Morton in September 2012 complaining of lengthy detention periods and medical mistreatment at BTC. Organized by Rep. Ted Deutch, whose district encompasses BTC, the letter urged a 'thorough case-by-case review' of each BTC detainee. Three months later, the Congressman followed with another letter noting the 'excessive delay' in responding and hoping that the reviews had been 'completed or nearly completed.' Finally, on Jan. 9, 2013, Rep. Deutch received a response that he believed to be inadequate. To our knowledge, case reviews have yet to be undertaken by ICE." Activist (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • "You can't be 'neutral' on a moving train: Howard Zinn.
  • I'd edit Hitler's page, but would be concerned about your insistence for "neutrality," such as you've expressed your concern regarding accurate descriptors of this odious corporation and its management. Activist (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent back-and-forths, company edits, controversies, etc.

I agree that the bickering is pointless. Activist, if you want to make some substantive edits, then please summarize them here or elsewhere on the talk page before you make them, and we can achieve a consensus instead of edit warring. That is what has worked well in the past. And if you want to add any facts that require sources, I think we should stick to "reputable", secondary sources. I realize that no source is completely reliable. But better things than motherjones, salon, slate.com, stuff like that, should probably be used. Also, even though that aijustice pdf you tried to use about BTC is a primary source, it contains 200-some endnotes, some of which might lead you in a better direction in terms of well-sourced, important facts, if they fit the context of this article. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "bickering." I'm upset that Niteshift36 has been removing well sourced edits and the supporting documentation, with no legitimate cause for doing so.

Niteshift36 complained that the document did not indicate the response by ICE was "inadequate. He removed the link to the AIJ document[3] that indeed specified that was what Deutch conveyed:

"Finally, on Jan. 9, 2013, Rep. Deutch received a response that he believed to be inadequate. To our knowledge, case reviews have yet to be undertaken by ICE at BTC."

Further, he removed the Sun-Sentinel article[4] that included this report:

"ICE has yet to reply to the letter, written in September. Last week, Deutch sent a second letter, chastising ICE for its "excessive delay" and demanding it respond immediately to lawmakers' concerns." "It's certainly time for us to hear back, and it's well past time that these serious issues be addressed," Deutch, of Boca Raton, told the Sun Sentinel on Friday. If legislators continue to encounter silence from ICE, Deutch said they will investigate what actions can be taken to ensure that a review of the center is made and "these human rights abuses are stopped."

I should note that Deutch has offices in Pompano Beach, where the facility is located, and in Boca Raton, where GEO's HQ is located. Spending millions, as has its main competitor Corrections Corporation of America, GEO has vigorously fought bills that have been introduced for over 12 years that would compel it (and CCA) to respond to FOIA requests despite the fact that every penny of its revenues comes from taxpayers.

I have more than adequately addressed the specifics of these issues in the article's TALK page. I have also made clear summaries of the edits I've made. In fact, if memory serves (I'll have to check) Niteshift36, months ago, went into a rage many months ago because I left an explanation on his talk pages, and he was entirely confining his clearly insufficient explanations about his reverts to Edit summaries.

Lastly his abusiveness in those edit summaries, such as "Discuss the SPECIFIC edits and not your stupid ass allegations..." really needs to cease. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collegial enterprise, not a venue for attempted intimidation and chronic vulgarities. Activist (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Again, you can't talk about specific edits. Instead, you want to talk about me. No, you haven't addressed these issues. You've made a case for your agenda. That's not really the same thing. And while you whine about "intimidation", I'll remind you that Wikipedia is also not the place for offensive, false allegations, which are personal attacks in their own right. Stop pretending like you're so innocent. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I did talk about specific edits. What I am unwilling to do is to supply endless and copious responses to your whimsical and unwarranted mass deletions of materials that you believe reflects negatively on the corporation regarding which your behavior might lead one to assume, correctly or otherwise, you have a real or imagined investment to protect. I haven't made any case for or against any allegations, false, substantiated or otherwise. I'm a busy person. I don't have the time or motivation to indulge in such behavior. I am not "whining," a word that reflects your extensively demonstrated predilection to the use of pejoratives against those with whom you have unfounded disagreements when your arguments may range from weak and tenuous, to wholly unsubstantiated. I am not going to once again succumb to your barrages of personal attacks and tirades as I did in frustration in the past, when I was hoping to assure the balance that the page needed to achieve a neutral presentation of the corporation, rather than largely reflecting some institutional apple polishing. You have no ownership of the GEO pages. (I noticed this morning that you've also done scrubbing on the Broward Transitional Center page.) Wikipedia editing is a collective process. There is no room for these repetitive personal attacks. If you are unable to participate collegially in this arena, I would hope you might find some more appropriate venue to express your hostility. I must say that I do appreciate your backing off your use of vulgarities and hope that you are able to continue to do so. Wikipedia TALK is no place for that kind of language. Activist (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Seriously dude, you need to stop making this discussion about me. Period. You spent the vast majority of that response talking about me and not the article. That is not productive and betrays your claims that you're just the innocent guy here, trying to improve the article. Secondly, when I have to pick through all your commentary about my responses and you allegations (and yes, you've made them), then your response it ineffective. I will, however, help you out though. I'll discuss my specific edits in a new section. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm going to talk about the article. I'm about to make a couple reasonable changes: I'm going to change the wording about the company's status as a corporation, and I'm going to delete the citation to the motherjones article because it is pointless. If the only purpose of this citation is to prove that this facility exists and is operated by GEO, then there are many other ways to do this. As far as any controversial aspects of this facility with respect to GEO, it is incumbent on Activist and any other editors who want to make changes to provide decent sources, and then offer a wording here on the talk page of what should be said in the article, before changes are made. In the meantime I'm going to replace the motherjones ref with a link to GEO's locations page. Let's please discuss here before edit warring. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of "distressed"

I can't see any reason for it. It's an opinionated term and truly not relevant to THIS article about GEO. What is the specific reason it is so vital? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reeves Detention

There is nothing indicating that this facility is notable. If it isn't notable on it's own, then why is it being shoved into a list of notable facilities? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What are the criteria for notability? Th Reeves facility has been in the media a lot, just like Broward has, for example. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So then let's discuss how much coverage and for what. Right now, it's simply being shoved into the article with no apparent reason. Is there something notable happening there? Is it something that will be of enduring relevance or is it more of an issue of being in the current news cycle? Broward has had some more enduring coverage, so I haven't really had an issue with the inclusion. I have taken issue with some POV language and trying to make it a play by play news story. But the inclusion and substantial reasons for it are sound. To be honest, I kind of question the detention facility in Colorado being in here too. The "source" really only mentions GEO as part of an email address. Seems a little like grasping to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The Reeves Detention Center apparently had some previous enduring relevance that has quelled. It seems to have revolved around a serious riot that was well covered by the media at the time, and the death of an epileptic inmate due to malpractice, Jesus Manuel Galindo. Here's an idea of it:
http://www.texasobserver.org/the-pecos-insurrection/
https://sites.google.com/site/transborderproject/medical-claims-and-malpractice-at-west-texas-immigrant-prison
http://www2.sacurrent.com/printstory.asp?id=72044
And here, the former warden brags about cutting medical costs at the facility, second story:
http://www.pecos.net/news/arch2002a/112502p.htm
The facility is at least worthy of mention in the article, both because of its size and because of its prominence in the media. I'm not sure if it merits a paragraph in the Controversies section, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be at least mentioned. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And see, this is how progress is made. You actually presented a reason and discussed it. So it makes more sense now. I appreciate you actually discussing instead of just telling me it's notable and never truly articulating why. I would question that last source. That's a 2002 story and trying to tie it directly to something 7 years later is going to take some work. Did any of the 2009/2011 sources reference that warden as a contributing factor? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the first link mentions him: "Four months into their (Physicians Network Association, PNA) contract, then-warden Rudy Franco lauded PNA at a county commissioners meeting for drastically reducing the number of surgeries, X-rays, outside visits and other medical services, the latter of which had dropped from 3,148 to 222." But this point is more about PNA than GEO, although GEO was administering the facility at the time, as it is currently. Anyway, there was a massive riot and at least one negligent death that were reported, and I think at least a mention of the facility in the Facilities section makes sense due to its media prominence. I'll make this change soon unless anyone has any qualms. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Geo Group's Board of Directors

Geo Group Expands Its Stable of Former Top Federal Officials (2014-07-23). Is anyone aware of additional sources that discuss the issue of the board of directors? IjonTichy (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

Criticism sections are generally to be avoided in articles. This should be broken down and included in a corporations history section, as appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not start unnecessary edit war

I removed improper grammar from the article. I don't see the need for someone to start reverting this. "Illegal immigrant" is not grammatically correct, regardless of whether the sources in the citations use it. We rely on the information from the sources, but we do not need to repeat their incorrect grammar. Also, one of the two sources uses the term "undocumented detainees," which also captures the fact that they were incarcerated. This is the same reason why we don't say "illegal doctor" for a doctor practicing medicine without a license. Illegal immigration (a grammatically correct term) is about crossing a border without proper documentation. Therefore, a term like "undocumented immigrant" precisely defines a person who has immigrated illegally (without proper documentation) across a border. If you have another term you prefer, then I would request we discuss it here, rather than you simply reverting changes in support of a grammatically incorrect term based on what seem to be ideological reasons rather than reasons that are valid for making changes on Wikipedia. 164.82.32.13 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • First, the source uses the term. It's not up to you to correct the source. That's OR. Second, an unlicensed doctor is not the same thing. Third, all 3 sources in the paragraph uses the term "illegal immigrants"? One uses "undocumented immigrants" in another part, but not in reference to these two illegal immigrants. Want a different term? Then call them illegal aliens. But their action isn't simply not having documents with them. Their crime is entering and remaining in the US contrary to the law. Trying to gloss over it by removing the "illegal" part is really POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Crossing the border without documentation is NOT a crime. It is a civil offense (illegal conduct but not criminal conduct). Crossing the border again after being caught in this country without proper documentation and deported pursuant to official deportation procedures is when the conduct becomes a crime, and none of the sources comment on this aspect of the cases. But as you say, it is the action that is illegal, and not the person. Using "illegal" to describe a person is simply grammatically incorrect. The action that is illegal is (1) not having proper documentation and (2) immigrating to another country. (1) is covered by "undocumented" and (2) is covered by "immigrant." I hope I have adequately explained this since you seem to not be understanding. Also, one of the three sources does NOT use the term "illegal immigrant," and one of the other two sources uses the term "undocumented detainee." So not only are you misrepresenting what the sources say, you are also misrepresenting what OR would be (as well as being wrong about whether all illegal immigration is a crime). 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you even look at the sources before making your false statements? http://www.geogroup.com/Maps/LocationDetails/4 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Even the GEO Group uses the term "undocumented" rather than "illegal" to describe the immigrants held at Broward. So stop with the lie about OR, too, please, especially since it's in one of the two sources that actually reference immigrants at all. http://www.geogroup.com/documents/geoworld_pdfs/final-4q-2010everything.pdf 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The primary source doesn't use it, the two third party sources do use it. So acting like I'm fabricating the term is ridiculous. And you're wrong about the term illegal. Civil offenses are still illegal. And 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien [3] says that it is crime "the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months". You're wrong. Regardless of your interpretation of the law, the reliable third party sources use the term, several times. Your attempt to re-write the facts, pretend to be a legal expert or make a big issue over whether 1 source didn't use the term while ignoring that the others did, is simply wrong-headed. And please don't pretend like you're trying to avoid an edit war while violating the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I never acted like you're fabricating the term "illegal immigrant." You were the one who lied and said all three sources had it, when only two of them actually did, as I had pointed out. Additionally, I also specifically said that civil offenses are illegal. They are NOT a crime. If you had read either what I said or the actual law you referenced, you would have seen that: "(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed." There can be additional criminal penalties (such as violating a deportation order if you have already been found in this country without proper immigration documentation), but crossing the border without documentation in itself is NOT criminal conduct. It is illegal, it is a civil offense, but it is not a crime or a criminal offense, since it only provides for civil penalties. Finally, not only have I never said that two of the three sources use the term "illegal immigrant," but I also pointed out that one of the two sources uses the term "undocumented detainee" (more than twice as much as "illegal immigrant" no less), and so your attempts to act like the term "undocumented" is either original research (which you have specifically lied about several times) or does not apply adequately (which you have also been wrong about, although this seems to be a misunderstanding on your part rather than a purposefully misrepresentation) are disingenuous. It seems increasingly clear that you are trying to fight an ideological battle, rather than basing your arguments on valid reasons for editing Wikipedia, which include the grammar concerns I have used to explain my change, not to mention that half (one of two) of the sources that reference the two individual at all use the term "undocumented." 164.82.32.13 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Lied? I mistakenly said 3 when it was 2. Big deal. Let's act like you've never made an error in your lifetime. Second, you're selecting the part of the law that doesn't apply while ignoring the part that does. They committed a crime when they entered illegally at a location other than designated by immigration officers. This wasn't a case of overstaying a visa or entering under one visa and trying to ignore the status. However, your personal interpretation, and my interpretation, mean nothing here. That's WP:SYNTH. Two reliable third party sources call them "illegal immigrants". It happens more than once in the sources. It is NOT your (or my) role to interpret their intention. It's clear you have ideological issues here about the term and you're making up a faux "grammar" complaint. I won't waste time refuting your incorrect legal analysis because it means nothing in the end. We go by what the source says. I'll seek community input at the appropriate noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Mistake? You said "all 3 sources" and put emphasis on it, including the "all." You then continued to attempt to claim that all 3 had it by questioning which one didn't (which you should have realized if you had actually looked at all 3 sources before making your statements). Also, two reliable sources use "illegal immigrants," and one of those two sources uses "undocumented" far more than "illegal." So the term is already in the sources. So what is your complaint again? 164.82.32.13 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mistake. I clicked on one twice and didn't click on the primary source (the one that doesn't actually address this specific incident). Mistake. The two sources that actually talk about the incident being reported use the term illegal immigrant. If one uses "undocumented" more than "illegal" (as if that matters), then that means the other one uses "illegal" more than "undocumented" , doesn't it? So why is one source more important than the other one in terms of a count? So what is your complaint again? Oh yeah, your complaint was originally grammar.....take that up with the editors of the two reliable sources. As I said, I'll get community input from the appropriate noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you finally seem to be getting it. Yes, one source uses one term more, and the other source uses the other term more. So now that you have stopped your lies about OR, hopefully you can start to understand that my point was if we have two terms used in the primary sources, then we should use the one that is more grammatically correct. What is your opposition to that? 164.82.32.13 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, one source doesn't use "undocumented". Both DO use "illegal". There have been no lies about OR. You've engaged in plenty of OR here. Toss it all out. It doesn't matter. The primary source isn't addressing this incident, so it holds less weight. this discussion can continue on the noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Adelanto

In July, 0.5% of the congress (24 of 435) signed a letter "expressing concern" about the facility. They didn't do anything else, just write a letter. In November, an advocacy group claimed "hundreds" of people went on a hunger strike. ICE said it was actually 30 people. So that's 0.15%. And then it was short-lived, less than 2 weeks. Yes, there are reliable sources, but WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". So we have something that only .5% of congress cared enough about to sign a letter (but do nothing else) and a short-lived event that involved 0.15% of illegal immigrants at a facility. For those reasons, I see no reason to include it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

POV deletions

@Niteshift36: @Eflatmajor7th: @Lockley: @C.J. Griffin: @UseTheCommandLine: @Harizotoh9: @Simnel: @Parkwells:

(I've copied a few other editors who have contributed to the article, some of whom you've treated badly.)
I did a number of edits on the GEO Group article, obviously taking a few hours to do it properly. You spent a few seconds erasing it all, (-10,269) characters, as is typical of your persistent behavior. I believe this is antithetical to the spirit of the Wikipedia community.
For the last four years, you've clearly been assiduously scrubbing substantial and well sourced content from the GEO Group page of information that might reflect poorly on the corporation (and other articles as well). You seem to feel no need to make improvements, but are content to savage any other editors who are making positive contributions to the encyclopedic article as well as to disrespect the work that they've done. It would appear that to get your way with this and other articles, you seem to have a penchant for launching into invective, insults, and gross vulgarity. You demand that other editors go to article TALK pages and build a consensus without ever bothering to try to accomplish that yourself. You seem to find it impossible to apologize, as I've seen your interactions with many other editors. I won't repeat your insults and vulgarities directed at so many Wikipedia editors, but I would ask that you follow your own advice for a change, before launching into whitewashing articles to which others have devoted sometimes substantial energy at improving them. Here's a couple of examples, referencing your (often repeated) efforts to bury the nexus between GEO and the corruption in the Mississippi DOC.

Revision as of 22:49, 31 January 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank) Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) (and they worked for Cornell before GEO. At this point, nothing has shown GEO was aware of what he was doing. This looks more a case of institutional corruption than anything GEO did itself.)

Obviously, the MS Attorney General thinks differently, and is suing them for what may be tens of millions in ill gotten gains. Many of those involved in the corruption have pleaded guilty to the payoffs. Some have made restitution. No one yet brought into court has claimed that they didn't know what was going on. They were either demanding or paying bribes and were admitting it in court. (One committed suicide the day he was to be arraigned.) Yet you write:

Revision as of 22:44, 31 January 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank) Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) (not in the lead)−

You deleted this as well
In 2010 it merged with Cornell Companies, taking over their contract for Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in Mississippi. A class action suit was filed against it in federal court 2013 on behalf of plaintiffs at the facility, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU and United States Department of Justice. Its contract was ended with the state of Mississippi; the company announced it had not found state business to be profitable.
So, if it didn't belong in the lede, you certainly could have easily moved it to where you supposedly felt it did belong. That obviously was not your intention.
I should have noted that since you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article. Well over 70 of those have been substantial deletions of the work of a great many other editors. In my opinion, few were warranted. I doubt if you could find five positive additions you've actually made to the article. Activist (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You know what? If you have an allegation about me editing on behalf of the company, then take it to ANI. If you don't have any evidence or anything more than your paranoia, then go hump someone else's leg. (Don't whine about being civil. When you make personal attacks in the form of false allegations, you can't be surprised when people stop assuming good faith). Your "contributions" have been solely to add negative information, regardless of how minor, or to act as a news service for every minor detail of more substantial incidents. So please don't tell me about your "positive additions". You're a straight up POV warrior. Now, if you want to actually discuss the issue at hand, I'm starting a different discussion. If you want to keep doing your childish allegations, then see my earlier mention of finding another leg. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've asked you to contain your vulgar remarks. Are you unable to do so? Activist (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As stated, when you make false allegations, you should expect people to no longer assume good faith. Make you allegation in the correct venue or cease your personal attacks. It's simple. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: @Eflatmajor7th: @Lockley: @C.J. Griffin: @UseTheCommandLine: @Harizotoh9: @Simnel: @Parkwells: Unless you have Tourette's Syndrome, Niteshift36, why are you not able to contain your vulgarity? Activist (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Why do you keep trying to draw in others that aren't as interested in this as you are? And why the second "contain yourself". My second response has no "vulgarity" in it whatsoever. Are you simply unable to move past it? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So let's see: You "notified" the posse Harizotoh9 said he doesn't even remember this. Command line hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2014. Simnel has 2 edits since 2014. Only 1 of those editors has edited this article in the past year, a single edit to fix a link. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Operation Mississippi Hustle

This case has an article of its own. We shouldn't be recapping it so extensively here, let alone making little updates about current events. There reason for Wikilinks and hatnotes is t o lead people to the more extensive coverage of a given topic. In this case, a couple of sentences telling us that the case happened, describing why it was notable and then providing a path to read the more extensive article is the norm on Wikipedia. Is there a policy based reason we need to deviate from the norm? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: @Eflatmajor7th: @Lockley: @C.J. Griffin: @UseTheCommandLine: @Parkwells: Unless one is trying to hide something, it takes a great deal more than a hatnote to explain this sorry situation. In addition, you actually twice erased the hatnote I'd placed there, as you were frenetically scrubbing the article. You're removing links. You're not trying to lead Wikipedia readers to more extensive coverage. You're desperately trying to whitewash and obscure the corporation's sordid history and to lead people away from any solid understanding of GEO's business model, and in so doing, you've deleted the NPOV edits made by virtually all other editors. Mississippi Hustle is about a vast corruption scheme, but one in which GEO played a major part. They were giving the bagman, McCrory, whom Epps recommended to them, $10,000 a month. (Later, Epps himself had negotiated an increase in the payments to $12,000 a month from MTC, on GEO's departure, which McCrory split with Epps, after paying taxes on it.) I don't think it has been revealed how much Cornell was paying McCrory/Epps before the merger, but the A.G. says he's after them as well. By your unjustified edits, you're grossly disrespecting the efforts of every other editor who has tried to present an unbiased encyclopedic understanding of the corporation. You've also done similar things with respect to obscuring the problems experienced by G4S, briefly GEO's parent organization, and its U.S subsidiary, G4S Secure Solutions, Omar Mateen's employer. Activist (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Amazingly, you were involved in all those articles, doing nothing but add negative information, yet you don't see any issue with your clear agenda. But you repeatedly make this allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Company edits

  • The company PR manager edits Wikipedia to show favorable info then, when called on it, admits they are his edits. Where is the controversy? Wikipedia gets new editors, editing articles about themselves or their company every week. They try to make it sound good, people call them on it, explain COI etc and then they usually either get with the program or go away. In this case, he went away. This is classic WP:RECENTISM. There is nothing enduring about the coverage and since GEO is no longer buying the naming rights, it's pretty unlikely to be an issue again. The "controversy" is really little more than Wikipedia editors getting upset over a PR guy doing what a company pays him to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's editors should get upset when a corporation's spokesperson has been spending a great deal of time scrubbing the page in question of any negative content. Abraham Cohen is not the spokesperson for GEO, Pablo Paez is. Paez set to scrubbing the GEO pages years ago, if memory serves. The pages of course had massive deletions of well sourced text that were replaced by a roughly equal amount of corporate boilerplate, I'm guessing to conceal the prodigious amount of changes. Cohen at first denied making the changes, the first he'd ever made anywhere to Wikipedia pages. Then he claimed that he had allowed others in his shop to use his log in, though it had never been used before. You've presented yourself as a neutral editor, in the spirit of Wikipedia, but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO. You'll recall that after he was outed, Cohen used the corporate IPN to do further editing, only to get caught again by some observant editor(s?). Activist (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO TALK page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us? Activist (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits. Activist (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • First off, I've edited only a few article lately due to off Wiki events. If looked you could see that my edit history covers a wide range of topics and articles. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see that. Second, you are counting numbers of edits without context. For example, if I remove the a word and fail to change the "an" to "a", then correct that, there are 2 edits but really only one change. Third, reverting your POV edits shouldn't count. Lastly, if you have an allegation about sockpuppetry, then go to SPI. I'll expect a public apology when that investigation shows I am not editing under any other name or IP. My edits are always signed. There was no "before you started signing". So take your baseless allegation and go fuck yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read what I'd written once more. Cohen and/or GEO clearly engaged in sockpuppetry when he or some other company hack made the edits. I never accused you of doing so. If you would like me to examine all those edits you made to see how many were geared to cleaning up the corporation's image, I'd be glad to run up a chart. I would urge you to abandon the gross vulgarities and insults to other editors to which you seem inclined. Activist (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • And I'd suggest that you back up your allegation at SPI. You've made the allegation here with your bullshit implication. Analyze whatever you want. And at the end, when SPI clears me, I will expect your public apology. And if you don't want to hear vulgarities, then clean up your act. Again, back it up at SPI or apologize. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yours is a "straw man" argument. I've never accused you of sockpuppetry. Others rightfully accused Cohen/GEO of engaging in that behavior. There's no need for me to go to SPI to have something I haven't done arbitrated. The edit I made about "for-profit" prisons clarifies the issue for those for whom the situation is novice, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, is it not? The edit about the CSC purchase is indisputable: The corporation was faced with a mid-eight figure judgment for a negligent death in Texas and the solution for the seller was to unload, declare bankruptcy or liquidate. He chose the former which enabled him to cheaply salvage the youth component, a deal sweetener I'm guessing GEO offered to ameliorate the sting of the corporate collapse. That youth component is one of which reporter Chris Kirkham has recently raised the public awareness regarding the continuing abusive nature of that management. That rump corporation is linked right on the Wikipedia page if you'll bother to take a look. Stop reversing legitimate edits. They are res ipsa loquitur. I should not need to laboriously explain each clarification to you, one who apparently may not be listening, to justify reversing your whimsical or otherwise motivated reverts. Lastly, stop using abusive and/or obscene language toward me and others, or I certainly will ask administrators to take a look at your behavior. Activist (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Blah, blah, blah.....Whether by implication or directly, you are making an allegation that I am editing at the behest of GEO. I'm not. Go to ANI and make the allegation and when you find a gross lack of support, you can apologize publicly. I don't give a crap about your threats. DO something about it. If you want to actually discuss the specific edits, start an actual discussion on them. Trying to shove them in the middle of you false, bullshit based allegations about me working for GEO isn't productive. Just to be clear: I do not work for GEO or any of their subsidiaries, never have and have NEVER made an edit on behalf of ANY company. Now, either get off this crap or take it to ANI. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You made your first edit on the GEO page on 4 March, while the controversies over the GEO whitewashing and the FAU brouhaha were swirling. Activist (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And? Do you think that maybe I ended up at the page because I saw something in the news and came to see what the article reflected? Are you seriously so dense that you never considered that? Again, take it to SPI. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So Niteshift36... are you suggesting that you are a private citizen who is so impressed by the good work of GEO group that you monitor the page in an attempt to improve its public image? Simnel (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There is no suggestion, except for agenda driven editors who want to make allegations they can't provide any evidence for. I am stating, very clearly, that I have never worked for GEO in any way shape or form. What I have done is put this page on my watchlist. I'm not impressed by anything GEO does. Nor am I impressed by POV warriors who think Wikipedia exists to help further their agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you've been reverting my edits, and you certainly haven't claimed that I'm making allegations I can't provide any factual evidence for. (as you know there's ample evidence of them... on this page's logs!) In fact, your reversions seem to be more than a bit agenda-driven yourself. Now, you say that you haven't worked for GEO in any way shape or form... which means absolutely nothing. So I'll ask again, and you can answer the question I'm asking or not - are you saying that you're a private citizen who has chosen THIS PAGE - about a company with a known history of attempting to whitewash its wiki page - and you are protecting it in a way which purely coincidentally matches that company's viewpoint? Simnel (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What? I have stated that you're making allegations you can't provide evidence for. I have no connection to GEO. I came across this article sometime back because of a separate issue. I have had the article on my watch list since then because it has become a magnet for POV warriors like you. You can try twisting verbiage about "private citizen" or whatever. I'm making these edits 100% on my own, not at the behest of anyone. If you bothered to pay attention, you'll see I've cooperated with other editors to retain notable things and present them in a NPOV manner. Now, if you want to persist in making these false allegations, then do it officially. Take it to ANI. If not, then cease your allegations, since they amount to an attack. Personally, I don't think you have the stones to do it. You know it's a bunch of bullshit. So I'm calling your bluff. Make the allegation official or prove you know it's baseless crap. Your choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

It certainly is pertinent to the private prison businesses to note that the federal government's Bureau of Prisons announced in 2016 that it was ending its contracts with private prisons. This should not have been deleted. States and federal authorities have found numerous instances of privately operated prisons resulting in conditions worse than when run by the contracting entity. There is much more questioning of the performance of privately owned prisons, but a huge lobby has developed to keep them going. Too much useful and well-sourced information has been deleted from this article, apparently in an effort to make it sound like a business report. The Wikipedia article should offer a broader view of the company and its issues. It's difficult to understand even how many facilities and employees the company operates in the US in terms of its various kinds of facilities - each type should be summarized and enumerated.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

When we have a separate article, there's not a need to duplicate material. The attack on Pearl Harbor was undoubtedly a major event in world history and in WW2 in particular. Yet the event gets a paragraph in the article on WW2 because a separate article exists. In the present case, the incident isn't being removed or hidden, it's simply not being retold in detail. That's exactly what the separate article is for. If we tell the whole story here, we have no need for the other article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand there is a separate article on Operation Mississippi Hustle, with considerable background material, but the initial class action suit at this largest juvenile facility in the US was not addressed in this article at all. Also, most of my comments above are directed at the lack of basic business information about GEO - how many facilities and of what types it has in the US - how many beds and how many employees. Their worldwide totals don't tell me much. This article is so sanitized that it does not provide basic information. So it designs and constructs facilities which it will manage - how many does it own and operate for states or feds? How many does it operate that states or other entities own? You can't get much idea about scope from what's here.Parkwells (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Walnut Grove is part of the Mississippi Hustle case. If you want to mention it was part of this, fine. That wouldn't support the large amount of material that was here. Additionally, now you have the Walnut Grove story in the article twice. We should pick one place. Your use of "sanitized" is simply bad faith. Nothing was "sanitized". Neutrality and relevance was observed and given consideration over activism. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Parkwells:, wanted to thank you for your edits here. I've also restored two deleted paragraphs regarding GEO's loss of federal contracts in 2016 -- material not flattering to GEO but accurate, sourced, and highly relevant to this company and this page. --Lockley (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I can't see a reason for Walnut Grove being in the lead. In the overall history of a 30+ year old company making over a billion dollars a year, a suit about one facility probably isn't notable enough for the lead. Yes, it belongs in the article, just not the lead. (And please, don't try using "it was the largest" as justification). So I removed the specific about WG and added some language about related criminal prosecutions. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Our changes have overlapped. Since the Walnut Grove case was related to a major class-action suit and federal settlement that resulted in the GEO Group losing the Mississippi contract for the largest juvenile facility in the nation (why don't you think that is notable?), I think it should go in the Lead. (It is supported by what is in the article. If the body of the article needs to be reorganized, fine.) In addition, the related indictment of a top MS state official for kickbacks (Mississippi Hustle) related to $1 billion in state contracts, starting when Cornell and GEO had state contracts, I think is also important enough for the lead. These cases have shaped current conditions, including federal re-assessment of privatization of prison operations, as shown by BOP's decision to end use of private contractors. Parkwells (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the size of juvenile facilities, being "the biggest" isn't a huge accomplishment. In addition, most states, including the much more populated one, use numerous juvenile facilities instead of centralizing them. I don't especially like the version currently up there, but it's reasonably neutral so I'm not going to squabble about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Niteshift36: @Eflatmajor7th: @Lockley: @C.J. Griffin: @UseTheCommandLine: @Parkwells:While Niteshift36 is predictably trying to minimize or completely erase the importance of Walnut Grove, it should be noted that its size, is not the major issue before us, though it was vastly expanded through the machinations of Epps and serial briber Cornell Companies. In fact, the unravelling of this entire scheme was launched because the mayor, who had business interests in the prison, was outed for the rape of a female inmate of an adjacent facility and for his attempt to cover it up. That led to the wider investigation that eventually implicated GEO and its three largest industry competitors, just as assuredly as the discovery of those taped-up locks by Frank Wills, the security guard, led to the Watergate Scandal. In his ruling, Judge Carlton Reeves, of the Federal District of Southern Mississippi court who heard the case about the horrific abuse, wrote that an assessment of the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility conditions "paints a picture of such horror as should be unrealized anywhere in the civilized world."[5] Activist (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I think what's become abundantly clear here, in the last two days, is that we have a consensus, and that the opinions of and edits by Niteshift are diametrically opposed to that outcome. Activist (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • How do you arrive at that conclusion? When this started, you have a big entry about this case. Now there is a single reasonable sized paragraph. That's exactly what I have contended all along. I never tried "whitewashing" or "scrubbing" it. I simply made it reasonable sized and consistent with other articles. If anything, it was your version of the Mississippi Hustle entry that was rejected. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend seeking third party arbirtation and views on this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Keeping class action suit and settlement at Walnut Grove in narrative

The reason to keep the class action suit and settlement at Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in the narrative is because it was a separate action related to treatment of prisoners, with results that preceded and were concluded prior to the bribery/kickback investigation and its indictments. That is, GEO Group was no longer operating the facility and youths had been moved to other places. I agree that the facility's size is not the most important factor, but it is a way of indicating scale of operation without getting into square feet and # of prisoners. The suit and settlement were related to GEO Group's operation of the facility and treatment of prisoners; this is why it is worthy of inclusion in the section of this article dealing with such matters. This was separate from the later FBI MS Hustle investigation of the corrupt behavior of state and local officials and contractors in kickback schemes. Yes, some related state and local officials were subject to investigation in Operation MS Hustle, but not, in the long term, primarily in terms of their treatment of prisoners. MS Hustle investigation developed from a coverup related to abuse of an inmate from Walnut Grove Transitional Facility. This was operated by different people and under a different contract than the GEO Group's operation of the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility. Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • As I said above, given the size of juvenile facilities, being "the biggest" isn't a huge accomplishment. In addition, most states, including the much more populated one, use numerous juvenile facilities instead of centralizing them. I don't especially like the version currently up there, but it's reasonably neutral so I'm not going to squabble about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Restored details of federal investigation/termination of contract at Walnut Grove

@Niteshift36:, @Parkwells:, @C.J. Griffin:, @Lockley:, @Ctaylor661:, @WhisperToMe:, Restored details of chronic and extreme mismanagement at Walnut Grove, unjustifiably deleted by Niteshift36. This editor has made 20 removals of text added by many editors this year, yet no additions or corrections. In the past four years, Niteshift has made 77 removals of negative information about this corporation's behavior, what have usually constituted massive amounts of well sourced edits by other Wikipedians, and made only four miniscule additions to the article. This seems to be the quintessence of POV, IMHO. Activist (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • First, stop pinging the crap out of everyone who ever supported anything you said once. Second, enough with your "unjustifiably" removed nonsense. There was plenty of discussion. Third, regarding your "look how many edits he made" crying, when will you get tired of your paranoid nonsense? Lastly, you should examine your own issues, like your attempted WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, your chronic casting WP:ASPERSIONS and your activities as a WP:POV warrior. You've been asked to stop with your false allegations, yet you insist on continued dickish behavior. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Khalek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Shapiro was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ http://aijustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BTC-A-Model-for-Civil-Detention.pdf
  4. ^ http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-01-05/news/fl-private-immigration-jail-20130105_1_illegal-immigrants-deutch-human-rights-abuses
  5. ^ "CHARLESTON DEPRIEST" (PDF). aclu.org. Retrieved 3 March 2013. (Archive)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GEO_Group/Archive_1&oldid=1136747423"