Talk:GEO Group

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 mells 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)

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)

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. OlYeller21^Talktome 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. OlYeller21^Talktome 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)

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)