Talk:Securitas (Swedish security company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Layout and Style[edit]

(cur) (last) 20:43, 3 March 2007 AVX (Talk | contribs) (→added clean-up tag. This article is poorly written and organised.)

Look, instead of just adding a tag, and commenting like that, why don't you instead show me how to organize this properly, me being a "newbie" at this, or adding to it yourself? I made an effort at least, and you should take a gander at what it looked like before... :)

Murdockh 10:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about that. Don't think I'm criticizing you or anything. I just haven't had the time to look over it. By adding the clean-up tag it alerts others to come take a look at it and clean up if they can. In fact I'm off to work as soon as I finish this comment so I can't take a look at it now even :P. I might some time later or tomorrow. I just noticed some things are in wrong sections and stuff, nothing more really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AVX (talkcontribs) 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


Don't worry about that, I expect to receive criticism, being new at this - I just got a bit flustered, because I want the articles I work on to look good and be correct. I need tips!! ;) Murdockh 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reads like a pitch for business[edit]

This part of the article reads like a commercial advertisement:

The foundation of Securitas's business has been, and still is, based on what clients need - Integrity, Vigilance, and Helpfulness. These are the company's values...

Wikipedia policy: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style.

The noted language needs to be either neutralized, or removed. Richard Myers 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


*Well, I've changed that line. See if it's better worded now. Murdockh 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates in order to reflect events in recent years[edit]

For the sake of disclosure, please note that my employer has business relations with Securitas. I have edited this article because I believe that the subject deserves a more complete and up-to-date coverage and better references for the facts presented. Because of the possibility of a bias, I have made extra efforts to ensure that the article conforms to an encyclopedic format, that all additions and changes reflect a neutral point of view, that all claims are backed up by proper references, and that the content is restriced to relevant information that the general reader might want to consult as a reference.

The U.K. cash handling operations of Securitas were divested in 2007, and I have therefore restricted the information about the 2006 robbery affecting those operations to a "see also" entry, directing readers to the existing article that deals exclusively with the events in question. Similarly, Loomis was divested in 2008, and I have moved all paragraphs describing robberies against Loomis, along with the references for those paragraphs, to the article about that company, again with a matching "see also" entry for proper direction of readers. I have removed a previous claim that Securitas "has made it a priority to have its brand name the same and recognizable throughout its operating area, and names will vary as little as possible," as it is probably not true as stated (e.g. considering the existence of the Pinkerton brand), and I could find no reference to back it up. Finally, I have removed the calls for additional citations, as I believe that all non-trivial facts are now backed up with reasonable precision by references, and removed the quality ratings, in order to encourage a review of the article after the current rewrite. --OttoG (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_Government_Services,_Inc. claims the pinkerton government agency was acquired in 2003, this page says 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.233.188 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by User:Iloveandrea that referred to independent articles (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/asylum-seeker-removal-reliance-guards, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/deportation-contractor-reliance-abuse-claims, and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/staff-deporting-foreigners-loutish) about the company Reliance Security (http://www.reliance-stms.co.uk/), as no relevance to the current topic was demonstrated. (As mentioned in the article, Securitas AB acquired certain operations, unrelated to the Guardian articles, from Reliance Security in 2010. I find no evidence of any other connections.) I have also reverted an edit by 194.144.44.224, as no reference was shown to back up the claim that Securitas AB has operations in Iceland. --OttoG (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

As I did some fact updates, I noticed that User:Kagrenak had added an "advert" template to this article, on October 25, 2013, with no edit summary and no comment on the talk page. It is not clear to me what it is that "appears to be written like an advertisement" in the article.

If anything, I would have thought that the article could be criticized for offering too little insight into the current operations of the company, and I cannot find any language that sounds biased or obviously non-encyclopedic in style. (For support services corporations, there tends to be little written about operations in independent sources, though, so actually expanding on the operations part of the article might be a challenge.)

Unless someone can provide specific suggestions for improvements or offer criticism of specific parts of the article, I suggest that the advert template is removed.--OttoG (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As nobody has commented on this for over a month, I assume that it is the consensus to remove the "advert" template.--OttoG (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

July 2014 Notability[edit]

Going to mark this as not really a notable company. All references are from their own annual reports. No third party references. Whistlemethis (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)