This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies C‑class Low‑importance 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Miami C‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Correction and Detention Facilities C‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• What are you talking about, specifically? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Public relations are part and parcel of any major corporation's business, and not unique to GEO or its core business activities. Specifics would have to be discussed, agreeing with Niteshift36. Jerseydem (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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.

• Because except for a couple of activists, it really hasn't been that controversial. A couple of jokes, but in the end, not really a big, lasting issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Yes, the sources say what the article says. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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[1] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Yeah, I linked it above. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1074279.html Eflatmajor7th (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see where using it would be a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Looks good. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Without that last sentence, I'm pretty ok with it. That sentence is the only issue I have. Otherwise, I'd consider this "solved". Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Some of that is fine, but you're still editing to make a point. Be neutral and stop trying to make a case for your outrage. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "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)[reply]