Talk:Control Risks

Template:Advert

This article is blatant advertsising.

I Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.6.52 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This article ("Adventures in the Ransom Trade") originally printed in Vanity Fair in 1998 has a little info --Lord of the Ping (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot like advertising still.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is now 5 years since Template:Advert was added. By my best judgement the article has been modified so that it no longer contains information which could be construed as advertising. Any opposition to removal of the template? 67.167.56.219 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Control Risks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060604220952/http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000883.html to http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000883.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516142916/http://www.eca-international.com/asp/ViewArticle.asp?ArticleID=208 to http://www.eca-international.com/asp/ViewArticle.asp?ArticleID=208

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Control Risks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827091852/https://www.internationalsos.com/en/pressreleases_3600.htm to https://www.internationalsos.com/en/pressreleases_3600.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback of December 2025 edits

@Kdwqaaddd: Hello! I've rolled back edits you made recently to this article because they did not conform with several Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, much of the content you added was highly promotional, and much of it was unsourced. Please note that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to serve as an advertisement for a company's services or generally boost its reputation. It is appropriate to refer to the company's website for certain details, but secondary sourcing should be the main source of content. Please refer to WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NPOV, and WP:PSTS for more information. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 20:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell me which parts where 'highly promotional'? All the information was factual (including the awards) and was taken from the Control Risk website. I can add in references as necessary to the original text. Kdwqaaddd (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that just because information is sourced from the company's own website doesn't mean it's appropriate to include. As I mentioned, primary sourcing for the bulk of an article is not acceptable. See WP:PSTS. As a rule of thumb, relying on primary sources is fine for basic, factual information (e.g., here is the current CEO, when it was founded, etc.). But it's important to avoid having an article simply repeat the company's public-facing materials. Reading WP:NOTPROMO will help give a better idea (and scanning through WP:NPOV) will give you a better idea, but here were some immediate flags for me as examples:

• leading global risk and strategic consulting firm that specializes in geo-political, security, technical and integrity risk assessments. It offers a wide range of services — these words in the lead are very subjective and read as promotional. This is wording you'd expect in a company brochure, not a neutral article.
• clients includes many of the world largest companies and high net worth individuals, they have been defined by - and recognised for - our commitment to the highest standards of business integrity and ethics., etc.—ditto, above. This may be true, but many, many companies (including Control Risk's competitors) have a motive to say this sort of thing, so it should be generally avoided unless this is attested in reliable, secondary sources. Again, see WP:PSTS.
• The entire Services section seemed more or less to be a summary of the company's website, as are several other sections (and they do not cite Control Risk's website in any case, which is another issue. If you're drawing on a source, you need to cite it.). Again, see WP:NOTPROMO.
• On awards: There exist many awards in the corporate sphere, some of which are highly promotional, obscure or frivolous. It may be acceptable in principle to mention these, but as noted above, a) they should be cited to sources (at the very least, a company page or a page from the award itself) and b) the overall goal of an article is to present a neutral, non-promotional view of the company. Your best bet is to include awards that garner independent media coverage.

Also, I'll add that if you have a connection to the company, you should disclose this; see WP:COI. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)