Talk:Lexipol

Headquarters

- Though the LLC may be located in California, it looks like there physical headquarters is in Frisco, TX according to their own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.255.55 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, added Frisco to infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 3500 law and public service agencies in the U.S. use policy manuals written by the same private company, Lexipol? Source: "The company has grown from partnering with 40 California-based public safety agencies in 2003 to more than 3,500 agencies — police, fire, and corrections and probation — across 35 states in 2019."[1]
  • ALT1:... that one private company, Lexipol, writes the policy manuals for 3500 law and public service agencies in the U.S.? same source

• Reviewed: none yet, first time in the DYK realm

Created by Schazjmd (talk). Self-nominated at 00:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

• New enough (nominated on date of creation), long enough, neutral, cites sources, appears free of plagiarism. Earwig has two big hits, but they are cited quotes. Hooks are neutral and cited. Prefer ALT1. QPQ not needed, no image to review. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the page is an WP:ORPHAN. Please link it in at least one other Wikipedia article so it won't get an orphan tag. Also, can you add a fair-use company logo to the infobox? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Article is de-orphaned (Privatization in criminal justice now links to Lexipol), and I have added a logo to the infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Schazjnd: thanks. A well-written article, by the way. Nominate more for DYK! Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC) @Schazjmd: Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Does the 'critics say ...' sentence belong to the lede?

"Critics note that a decision made by Lexipol becomes policy in thousands of agencies and that there is little transparency into how the policy decisions are made" - I believe this should be limited to the Criticism section and not part of the lede given the non-neutral tone. Generally, many articles have a section on criticism but they are usually not a part of the lede. Perhaps if there are multiple WP:RS supporting this assertion, it makes for a stronger case to be in the lede? --Molochmeditates (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Molochmeditates, a lead should summarize the whole article. If you'd like to suggest another summary of the criticism section, please do so. (Multiple sources in the criticism section support it, I just included one as the others are in the body. We don't generally put citations in the lead when the content is sourced in the body, I only added them there because you tagged it.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding from MOS:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I stand corrected. The statement you have is an accurate summary of prominent controversies. I think it should definitely be supported by the ref though (as in, I wouldn't want to remove the citation you already have). --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Molochmeditates, thanks. Multiple sources focus on concern over the lack of transparency into the policy-making process so that's what I tried to highlight objectively. Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Number of clients in 2019 vs. in 2020

Hello! I'm an employee at Lexipol and the 3,500 clients number is representative of policy clients as of 2019 only. Since the merger with Praetorian Digital, the number of agencies served is 8,100 - this includes, policy, training and grants support as of 2020. You can see this number on the Lexipol website (https://www.lexipol.com/) and in Lexipol press releases (EX: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/03/06/1996516/0/en/Lexipol-and-PowerDMS-Announce-Integration-Partnership-to-Streamline-Public-Safety-Risk-Management-and-Compliance.html) Mchilds72 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mchilds72, I would love to add an updated number, but have any sources independent of Lexipol reported that information? With those primary sources, all I can do is say that Lexipol claims that they service 8,100 agencies. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it as "Lexipol says". Thanks for pointing this out. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing Updates

Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). To stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss possible edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf. I'll post my queries and requests here on the article Talk page for feedback from the community.

In reviewing sources used in the current article, it seems there is much room for improvement. I am providing a few suggested details for updating the article below, along with secondary, Wikipedia-appropriate sources for verification. Are there any editors willing to help improve the article by replacing unsourced details (e.g. Founding) with better information and any acceptable sourcing that I've provided here? Additionally, there may be details below to expand on Services or improve sourcing in other sections as well. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!

Suggested updates and sources

• Lexipol was founded in 2003, by two former police officers.
• Now based in Frisco, Texas, Lexipol assists with online training, grants, and policy management for law enforcement, fire, EMS, corrections, and city and state governments.
• The consulting company grew to obtain contracts with more than 95% of California's law enforcement agencies, later expanding its influence nationwide.
  • The company saw an increase in interest in 2020, prompted by orders like that of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in response to George Floyd protests that began in Minneapolis. There is divided thought as to the immediate efficacy in alleviating issues raised.

• OTHER SOURCES FOR CONSIDERATION (see References below)

References

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Mchilds72, can you be more specific about where you think the changes need to be made? As in change X to Y, or add to (location)? I'm confused by you referring to unsourced details as I sourced the entire article. Founding, which you call out, is sourced to Lexipol, with a separate source for the latest CEO. The founding content already specifies that Praet and Graham were both former LEOs. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:Schazjmd, thanks for your quick reply! To answer your query, I didn't realize the Texas Law Review source cited in the second-to-last sentence of Founding applied to the entire section's contents that come before it; I thought it was only used to verify the sentence where it is cited, alone. That said, I can see now how my request may have been unclear - thanks for your help to clarify my points. In general, my aim is to offer additional, current, Wikipedia-appropriate sources to the community for consideration/use in updating the current article for accuracy. Understanding that editors are volunteers, I also tried to parse out relevant details from the sourcing I'm providing, which may be important to add/update within the current article if editors agree. As noted above, due to my COI, I will not edit the article myself. Below I have updated my suggestions and tried to provide more specific recommendations (and context), I welcome your thoughts:

Clarified/updated suggestions and sources

• Update Introduction: change "based in California" to "based in Frisco, Texas" or similar
• Add to Expansion:
  • Lexipol is now based in Frisco, Texas.
  • "The Riverside Company, a private equity firm, purchased Lexipol in 2014." (Add secondary source)
  • The company saw an increase in interest in 2020, prompted by orders like that of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in response to George Floyd protests that began in Minneapolis.
• Add to Services: Safety personnel training familiarizes officers with new policies and their real-world applications, tracking their understanding and completion with questions at the end of exercises.
  • This section relies heavily on the Texas Law Review source when there seem to be ample other relevant sources that contribute to Lexipol's [2] in that they are distributed more widely. The above suggested additions and source are intended only to further clarify the details included already within the section, and to add to existing citations rather than replace any.
• Other secondary sources to consider for updating Services, Expansion, and perhaps Criticism:
  • Again, I'm suggesting these sources as possible additions to existing sourcing to improve the overall list of references used within the article to include a wider variety of acceptable coverage, as well as to verify relevant details for building out/editing any of the sections suggested.

References

Does this help? Please let me know. Much appreciated, Mchilds72 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I made the specific changes. Please note that the Mother Jones article and LA Times articles you have as "other secondary sources" are already used in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Schazjmd for your guidance and for helping to make these improvements. Appreciatively, Mchilds72 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd if the Edit Request is fulfilled, would you please be so kind to close the template, so that it's removed from the transcluded list of open requests? Ferkijel (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, Ferkijel, my apologies. I'll try to remember to do that in the future. Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Schazjmd. I just didn't want to do it myself, in case it was left open because it wasn't complete (and to be honest, I was a bit lazy to compare it myself). I thought it was better to ask. I've been going through the open requests trying to reduce the backlog, thus my question. Thank you for jumping in so quickly ! Ferkijel (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Services Section Updates

Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf.

I am submitting a few edit requests for the Services section in order to clarify Lexipol’s offerings and what industries they serve. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. The goal is to ensure the information included is the most up-to-date and from recent, credible and Wikipedia-approved sources. I also wanted to see if it would be possible to include recent awards Lexipol has won, following the Wikipedia guideline of including only the awards that have their own Wikipedia pages. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!

Suggested updates

• Lexipol offers policy manuals with an updating service, daily training bulletins, and implementation services, as well as online learning, wellness resources and grant services. Lexipol offers their services to police departments, fire/EMS departments, county jails and city governments.
• Although personnel participation in the training component is verifiable, and satisfies some states’ Peace Officer Standards and Training requirements, the daily training bulletins were not certified by California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training "as sufficient to satisfy their minimum standards for state law enforcement training".
• Departments see Lexipol as a mean of mitigating risk, reducing staff hours spent updating policy, and improving document and transparency. ,
• The policy manuals provided by Lexipol can be customized by the contracting agency.[1] Updates to the policy manual are presented to agencies in a mark-up form, allowing them to accept, reject or customize as needed.
• Lexipol holds the copyright to all policies, even those modified or amended by the contracting agency, and Lexipol requires contracting agencies to sign an indemnification clause, explaining the Chief or agency leader is considered the ‘policy-maker’.
• Stevie Awards recognized the company with a Silver International Business Award for Most Valuable Corporate Response to COVID-19 in 2020. Lexipol was also recognized in the Business Intelligence Group’s 2021 BIG Innovation Awards.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mchilds72, repeating myself from your previous request: can you be more specific about where you think the changes need to be made? As in change X to Y, or add to (location)? I am not going to compare word-for-word between the article and your text above to try to figure out what's different between them. Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi, User:Schazjmd, thanks for your quick reply! No problem - clarifications below:

• Update first sentence of Services section to include online learning, grant services and wellness support, as well as list of industries Lexipol serves
  • Lexipol offers policy manuals with an updating service, daily training bulletins, and implementation services, as well as online learning, wellness resources and grant services. Lexipol offers their services to police departments, fire/EMS departments, county jails and city governments.
• Update first sentence of the second paragraph of Services section to clarify POST certification for Daily Training Bulletins, adding information from the Texas Law Review that explains some states accept the training bulletins through POST, while California does not
  • Although personnel participation in the training component is verifiable, and satisfies some states’ Peace Officer Standards and Training requirements, the daily training bulletins were not certified by California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training "as sufficient to satisfy their minimum standards for state law enforcement training".
• Update the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Services section to clarify department use of Lexipol policy subscriptions
  • Departments see Lexipol as a mean of mitigating risk, reducing staff hours spent updating policy, and improving document and transparency. ,
• Update third paragraph of Services section to clarify how the customization and updates of Lexipol's policy subscription functions with a more recent source
  • The policy manuals provided by Lexipol can be customized by the contracting agency.[1] Updates to the policy manual are presented to agencies in a mark-up form, allowing them to accept, reject or customize as needed.
• Update the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Services section to add further context from the same source
  • Lexipol holds the copyright to all policies, even those modified or amended by the contracting agency, and Lexipol requires contracting agencies to sign an indemnification clause, explaining the Chief or agency leader is considered the ‘policy-maker’.
• Add awards to the end of the Services section
  • Stevie Awards recognized the company with a Silver International Business Award for Most Valuable Corporate Response to COVID-19 in 2020. Lexipol was also recognized in the Business Intelligence Group’s 2021 BIG Innovation Awards.

Does this help? Let me know if I can provide any further clarification here. Thank you so much for your help!Mchilds72 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, most of these are done. In the last sentence of the second paragraph of Services, I did not include "improving document" (what does that even mean?) or "transparency". Transparency is only mentioned in the source as a quote by one of the council members, and considering that transparency is one of the primary areas of criticism of the Lexipol model, better sourcing is needed to support that "Departments see Lexipol as a means of improving transparency." In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, I added wording about the person accepting the manual certifying themselves as the policymaker, but did not use your wording.

For future requests, please follow this format. If you dump a lot of sentences and refs again without specific instructions for what needs to be changed, I'll revert it. Also, if you are including references that are already used in the article, please use the names for the refs that are in the article rather than making up your own. We're up to 43 refs now and it takes me a lot of time to go through each new one to see if it's actually repurposing a ref that is already there. If you use the assigned ref name from the article, this will be a lot easier. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks so much for your help on this, User:Schazjmd! Noted that this format is best for future edit requests, including references. On the second paragraph, that makes sense when it comes to transparency, but that was my bad - it was supposed to say "improving documentation."

I just had one quick question on the third paragraph update: The new addition currently contradicts the sentence directly following ("Subscribers are advised that the regular updates provided by the company will overwrite any customizations."). Since the new addition is from a more recent source and is providing different information, would it make sense to remove the sentence about overwriting customizations? Much appreciated, Mchilds72 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Mchilds72, agreed, I've removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Expansion Section Updates

Hello! User:Mchilds72 here again to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me with a conflict of interest (I am an employee), I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and request updates.

I am submitting a few edit requests for the Expansion section in order to clarify a few points and add further context. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. The goal is to ensure the information included is the most up-to-date and from recent, credible and Wikipedia-approved sources. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!

• In the second to last sentence of the first paragraph in this section, there's a typo. It currently says "Fire Policy Manual from Lexipro in 2014." Correct "Lexipro" to "Lexipol."
• At the end of the first paragraph, add in this sentence to explain expansion of customer base to include local government entities:
  • In 2021, Lexipol announced its national policy management platform for local government agencies.
• Update the third paragraph to include list of sites included in Praetorian Digital merger:
  • The Riverside Company, a private equity firm, purchased Lexipol in 2014. In 2019, Lexipol merged with Praetorian Digital,. which includes news media sites Police1.com, FireRescue1.com, EMS1.com, Corrections1.com and Gov1.com, as well as online learning academies, PoliceOneAcademy.com, FireRescue1Academy.com, EMS1Academy.com, CorrectionsOneAcademy.com and LocalGovU.com. In 2017, Praetorian Digital was named one of Inc. 5000’s Fastest Growing Companies.
• Move the fourth paragraph, referencing the Mother Jones article, to the Criticism section
• Add further context about Cordico's services and how that expanded Lexipol's offering to the last paragraph:
  • In December 2020, Lexipol acquired Cordico, a wellness technology firm, that offers a customized mobile app to departments that includes wellness resources for personnel and their families.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Done with the following exceptions:

• The 2021 announcement isn't significant enough for the lead, it's covered in the body.
• I did not list every Praetorian Digital website but instead added a generalized description of what PD brought to Lexipol.
• I did not include the 2017 claim about Praetorian as the source provided doesn't support it (nor is it relevant here).
  In future edit requests, please use the reference names that are used in the article. (Note that this is the second time I am making that request.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Rename Criticism Section

Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. As noted in previous edit requests, I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee).

I wanted to reach out to request that the Criticism section be renamed to something else such as "Reception," per Wikipedia's guidelines on sections focusing on criticism/controversy. I appreciate your help! Mchilds72 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"Reception" doesn't adequately reflect the content in that section. Btw, WP:Criticism is an essay, not a guideline. Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and for the clarification on WP:Criticism. Because the “Criticism” section is about half of the article, we want to ensure the information is balanced and provides insight into all notable views evidenced in third party sources, so as to comply with the guideline, WP:Neutral point of view. Our aim is not to remove negative views or commentary, but to ensure the article provides a fair and proportionate summary of these significant views. As such, the goal of this request was to arrive at a more neutral name for this section and to allow these views to be summarized within it. Mchilds72 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think of any other possible headings, feel free to suggest them. How about "Public concerns"?

The thing is, when you discard press releases, the vast majority of coverage of Lexipol in reliable sources is from critics, so the article reflects that (which is what WP:NPOV calls for). Schazjmd (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Excluding press releases, we’ve found several positive comments in the already-cited sources for this article. Would it be preferable that some of the positive views be incorporated beside the critiques/concerns in this section before seeking to rename it?

Examples of these views are below:

• “Lexipol offers a valuable service, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies that are without the resources to draft and update policies on their own.”
• “In the past, local police policy “was basically on the fly as different situations presented themselves,” he added. “They did the best job they could given their limited time and resources. But now, given all the executive orders and new directives, we have got to step back, get some professional help, engage the public, and reformulate our policies and procedures.””
• “Lexipol will provide the county with recommendations that must be approved by jail officials before being implemented. The policies will be regularly updated in accordance with industry best practices, and federal and state laws, according to Public Safety & Justice Chief Brandy Carney.”
  • “County Executive Armond Budish said last week that Pinkney and interim jail director George Taylor have already updated some jail policies to remedy problems identified by the Marshals Service. But the contract with Lexipol “goes way beyond” those in-house improvements, Budish said.”
• “The Lexipol team researches and recommends updates to policies, along with notes to explain what is changing about that policy and why. “Updates are presented in mark-up form, just like a Word document,” Tworek explained. “The platform allows side-by-side comparison against our existing policy. We can then accept, reject or customize each update - it’s as easy as one click for each update.””
• ““And it’s legally defensible, so we don’t want to change much.” However, if there was something glaring, or if the board had issues with a certain policy, then they can inquire about it and have that step before implementation.”
• “The chief there said they also use the Lexipol service and are four months in to new, rewritten policies. He said they have proofs of compliance and checks in place to trigger reviews for officers showing issues.”
• “"We're being proactive and we're serious about the level of professionalism that we have and the service that we provide to the community," Carter said. "And this [PoliceOne Academy] is just a way that we're going to be able to fill that gap during this time with training that otherwise the deputies may or may not get."
  • “The training is nationally certified by the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement. Carter says more than 400 online courses will be available to deputies.”

There are also positive comments on Lexipol’s wellness solution, Cordico:

• “He says speaking to a therapist he connected with through the [Cordico] app proved invaluable to his mental health.”
• ““We believe that this was something of urgency that we needed to provide for our first responder families,” said Richard Miller, the president of the nonprofit 100 Club of San Antonio. “We see this as really a lifelong resource.””

As noted above, these comments are from sources already cited in the article. I can also supply examples of positive comments in additional sources. Please let us know what you believe is the best way to proceed here. Thanks in advance! Mchilds72 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please use the names assigned to the references in the article. Notice how your first four don't connect to anything? Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I've updated the refs. Mchilds72 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Schazjmd, just wanted to check in and see if those updates were what you were referring to and what your thoughts are on the Criticism section at large. Thank you! Mchilds72 (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Mchilds72, you can see the changes that I made in this diff. Schazjmd (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Public Reaction Section Updates

Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf.

I am submitting a few edit requests for the Public Reactions section in an attempt to help streamline and organize the content for easy consumption. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!

Suggested Updates

• First paragraph, before the last sentence include something to highlight the differing reactions, such as: "Police leaders have stated that Lexipol policies are based on federal and state legislation and industry best practices."
  • Change "They" in the last sentence to "Eagly and Schwartz" to ensure that sentence remains clear.
• Third paragraph, after the second sentence add in this reference to a source that breaks down policy differences among several California law enforcement agencies. Something along the lines of: "The San Diego Union-Tribune highlights the differences in the exact policy language between California police agencies subscribed to Lexipol."
• Third paragraph, third sentence, add the following to provide a more complete view: "...then becomes policy in thousands of agencies, although agency leaders note they review policy updates and can choose to edit or reject them."
• Third paragraph, update second to last sentence to add context: "Morris also notes that Lexipol responded to the model policy on use of force produced by eleven law enforcement organizations, National Consensus Policy on Use of Force, by recommending that its clients not make changes that reduce officer flexibility.
• Third paragraph, add something like the following to the end of the last sentence to provide a more complete view: "...but not reflect community values or expectations, though many agencies have highlighted their customization of Lexipol policies with community members, city council and authority board input."

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Schazjmd - wanted to see if you were able to take a look at the above request. Thank you! Mchilds72 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the request but didn't feel any of the edits were necessary, so I left the request open for other editors to consider. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Mchilds72 I agree with what has been said above. Specifically, that the edits are unnecessary. None of them are notable, just mentioning that company XYZ did what company XYZ was told to do by policy. I'll implement the one change from "they" to "Eagly and Schwartz", but as for the rest of the changes, I'm going to close this request with a decline. Feel free to discuss this here (making sure to ping me) or on my talk page. Thanks, RFZYNSPY ^talk 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Update CEO

Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make a quick edit request on behalf of Lexipol. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). The CEO listed in the information box differs from the CEO listed in the "Founding" section and both are outdated. Our current CEO is Chuck Corbin, listed on our leadership page. The CEO is also listed on Glassdoor

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, User: Schazjmd! Is there any way we can also update the last sentence of the Founding section to include the correct CEO as well? Chuck Corbin was named CEO in January 2021.

Thank you! Mchilds72 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed CEO mention from the Founding section. I have no source to state when Corbin was named. Schazjmd (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)