Talk:Controversies surrounding G4S

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies 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

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

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Sussex B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 23 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to G4S controversies. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Danny Fitzsimons, the 'antichrist' murderer - worthy enough to add?[edit]

See https://theintercept.com/2016/06/14/orlando-shooter-wasnt-the-first-murderer-employed-by-global-mercenary-firm/ 95.55.94.129 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GS4 guard Buamgartner 2012[edit]

On June 14, 2012 Travis Baumgartner shot several of his GS4 co-workers in the head with his GS4 issued weapon and then looted the armored car he and they worked aboard while at the University of Alberta in Edmonton and attempted to escape into the United States. Travis had posted statements on Facebook prior to the event such as “I wonder if I’d make the six o’clock news if I just started popping people off,” and was texting about robbing GS4 with a friend of his the night of the robbery/murders.

A CBC account of the matter is here - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/travis-baumgartner-pleads-guilty-in-deadly-edmonton-shootings-1.1703929

Their vetting procedures are surely lacking.

75.165.57.101 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former Group 4[edit]

has been controversial since the 1990s, when it operated under the name Group 4

They were in fact a laughing-stock, and proverbial in popular culture for allowing prisoners on trial to escape custody. Nuttyskin (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Mateen?[edit]

I've just reverted the deletion of a subsection about Omar Mateen. I'm not sure why it was deleted - G4S paid fines relating to failures in relation to him - so perhaps any further deletion could be justified here? JezGrove (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Seawolf35 ^T--C 21:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding G4S → G4S controversies – Seems to be more in line with other "controversies" articles. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. G4S is jargon. Jargon should be avoided. If it must be used, use it at the end, not the start, to be less jarring. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G4S is a company name. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.