Talk:Paladin Group (security company)

Requested move 14 May 2019

 * 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: Moved to Paladin Group (security company) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Paladin Group (private military contractor) → Paladin Group (private security contractor) – Paladin Group is a private security contractor not a military one. XNP123 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. qedk (t 桜 c) 19:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to that. I named the article military contractor because of the naming convention used for this page: private military company. But Paladin's work is security and detention based rather than being military/paramilitary. It would also help differentiate their name from the fascist Spanish org. Revoran (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Although, it should probably be lowercase, I think: Paladin Group (private security contractor). Correct me if I'm wrong there. Revoran (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have decapped the proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Paladin Group (Australian contractor). Any attempt to disambiguate this away from Paladin Group (fascist private military contractor) based on the type of contractor will be extremely confusing, which likewise should be moved to Paladin Group (Spanish contractor). -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify: Paladin is led by two Australian men, and holds a large contract from the Australian Government. But most of their operations are abroad and they are technically held by a Singapore holding company. Revoran (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From the official website: "Paladin Group (Paladin) is an Australian-owned company that delivers essential services to support major projects across the Asia-Pacific region." I think "Australian" would still be accurate. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, good point. Revoran (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Paladin Group (security company) since the subject is a Security company. Steel1943  (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Paladin Group (security company) per Steel1943. This is a better target to more fully disambiguate the title from the fascist organization. bd2412  T 17:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Paladin Group (security company). It is not military.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits by 42.255.36.130
I wanted to draw attention to several edits by 42.255.36.130

Some of the edits by this user have been constructive:
 * Language changes such as changing "former soldier" to "former member of the Australian Defence Force". Or changing "the group's name was" to "the group's former name was"
 * Properly cited info providing alternative perspectives and new information, including statements from Paladin responding to media articles. I think this is important given that many of the sources I used to create the article were highly critical of Paladin, and so other perspectives are needed. For instance adding a section that Job Pomat denies corruption allegations and Paladin supports this view. Or adding info that the money laundering allegations against Kisokau Powesau relate to his time in the PNG military, and not to his time with Paladin. All good.

Some have been neutral but were uncited, and I'm confused as to where the user got the info from:
 * Eg: in a more recent revision, the user added that the offices of Paladin Singapore were on battery rd. This may very well be true but I'm not sure where the information has come from, or how the user could know this: Google comes up with nothing - the top result for paladin group battery rd is this article.

However, some have been unconstructive.
 * Blanking paragraphs of cited information, without discussing on the talk page, and with only an edit summary saying "content" or "spelling and content". For instance information about Teddy Gedes previously working for G4S on the island, but being fired for mistrating refugees, and then being rehired by Paladin before being accused of sexual assault against another Paladin employee.
 * Changing language from reflecting the tone of a citation, to language which is much kinder to Paladin and obscures the criticisms or information contained in the citation. For instance changing "In February 2019, Paladin Solutions fired a number of employees on Manus Island and then re-hired them on lower wages, after taking over its competitor Black Swan" to "In 2018, Paladin Solutions acquired a leading local security services provider called Black Swan and there were some complaints over wages following this process."
 * Adding information with a citation, but the information written is not contained in the citation (for instance in the Labour disputes section where I have marked not in citation given after the claim that the industrial action was illegal under PNG law).
 * Adding "currently unverified" or "this is unverified" to lines which are cited and the citations do in fact contain the information written. And again, I'm confused as to how the user could know that?

After partially reverting some of these edits (the bits I considered unconstructive), the user then made more edits several days later, effectively reverting mine. It went back and forth for a bit.

I'm posting here in the interests of resolving this without engaging in an edit war. Revoran (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Paladin Group Scandals with KPMG?
Is this the same Paladin as the one in the most recent KPMG scandal? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/24/incredible-failure-kpmg-rejects-claims-it-assessed-the-wrong-company-before-423m-payment-to-paladin Thanks! 50.4.132.185 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes that is the same Paladin that this article refers to. Revoran (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)