Talk:XPO, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Neutrality tag[edit]

Since this article is written in marketese, I have added a neutrality tag. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the talk page and I tend to believe that Aussie is from XPO's PR team lol. They understand that they can't blatantly right a puff piece on wikipedia, but they're including as much "positives" as they can and trying to write everything from a good point of view rather than neutral. They've already been told to avoid listing awards and accolades, agreed to do it, and then did nothing. The Tour de France is a puff piece with XPO sourcing the mobile app game part, which is entirely unremarkable and not worth mentioning (anyone can release an app that gets no traction). 2600:6C54:7900:D4D:C0C7:F619:ECFC:BF31 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)T[reply]

And why is there no mention of Louis DeJoy's tenure as head of New Breed Logistics (which redirects here)? BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awful article dominated by American PR crap. Why has the neutrality tag been removed? There are major WP:COI issues here. --Ef80 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de France[edit]

XPO: founded 1989 yet claims to have provided logistical support to le Tour since 1981? I rather think someone is passing off Norbert Dentrassangle's pre-takeover business as their own… Mr Larrington (talk)

This representation is not deceptive. It's common in the business world to refer to pre-acquisition activity as "your own", otherwise it becomes very difficult to communicate simple ideas concisely. Norbert Dentressangle became XPO with the acquisition, so the TDF support has been continuously performed by the same operation. All best. Gannymetis (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions for female employees[edit]

The undue weight was for the paragraph being one-sided and for the real estate it is given. Performing WP:CITEKILL doesn't address the issue. DonaldMSpencer (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help[edit]

Hello,

Please see my talk page for my disclosed COI (third-party company rep receiving compensation). Firstly, my thanks to editors who removed vandalism and voted to "keep" the XPO article. I'd like to request that the number of locations be updated in the "infobox." It currently states 744 locations. Can another editor please update this number to 1,431 locations as stated here? https://www.annualreports.com/Company/xpo-logistics-inc Thank you in advance for helping to make this accurate! Freightguy1975 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe XPO has nearly that many locations. The latest quarterly report shows the below for employees and locations. However, those numbers were likely still including the RXO numbers. I think we need to wait until the XPO 10-K comes out later this month to do any updates.
"As of September 30, 2022, we had approximately 44,000 employees and 748 locations" Ksu6500 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to wait until the new 10-K is released. Thanks! Freightguy1975 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requsted help[edit]

"Hello,

Please see my talk page for my disclosed COI (third-party company rep receiving compensation). I'd like to request that under the GXO heading that the company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “GXO" and that Malcolm Wilson is the CEO. Can another editor please update this as stated here? https://www.wsj.com/articles/xpo-logistics-taps-cio-for-supply-chain-services-spinoff-11618013923Thank you in advance for making this accurate. Freightguy1975 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circling back to this. @MrsSnoozyTurtle I see that you've done quite a bit of work on the page. Would you mind updating the GXO section, adding this information? Thank you! Freightguy1975 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Freightguy. Mr Wilson is already mentioned in the section as the CEO, so that request seems redundant?
Regarding the NYSE abbreviation for GXO, as a volunteer I'm not motivated to make that addition. Also, personally I don't think that is a notable detail for the XPO article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I understand your opinion on this matter. I will see if there are any other changes that make more sense for the article in your opinion. Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requsted help[edit]

"Hello,

Please see my talk page for my disclosed COI (third-party company rep receiving compensation). Thank you @Chirags, @Ksu6500, & @Zero334 for updating the financials, adding the founder to the infobox, adding helpful article URLs, and adding an operations section. I'd like to request that the acquisitions section remain on the page. Thank you in advance for making this accurate. Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freightguy1975 No. Please see WP:PROMOTION Zero334 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help[edit]

Hello,

Please see my talk page for my disclosed COI (third-party company rep receiving compensation).

@MrsSnoozyTurtle Below I have compiled sources and comments to fix the tags you put on the page. It seems highly unorthodox to do what you did and you tagged items with multiple, reputable third party sources including the Wall Street Journal which is confusing to me while the content you added you sourced with a personal essay. It also seems unusual to me to name the controversy section anything but controversy. I would like to request that this section title is changed back to fit in with Wikipedia conventions. I am also going to tag some of the other editors who have been active on the page for help updating the citations in case you are unable. @Zero334 @Chirags @Eagleash I want to thank everyone for your help in keeping the page up to date and factual. If agreed upon, I am also willing to help add the sources but I wanted to request the changes given my COI and get agreement first.

XPO, Inc. is an American transportation company that conducts less-than-truckload shipping in North America as well as full transportation options in Europe.

The company's headquarters are located in Greenwich, Connecticut, U.S., and they have 564 locations globally.

The company was initially called Express-1 Expedited Solutions and listed on American Stock Exchange with ticket XPO. It was acquired by Brad Jacobs and renamed to XPO Logistics in September 2011.

In June 2012, XPO listed its shares on the New York Stock Exchange.

In 2019, XPO was the first global logistics company to join the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Industrial Liaison Program, a partnership organization that pairs MIT resources with corporations worldwide to solve global business challenges.

The company has conducted logistics operations for the Evian Golf Championship and the Paris Marathon. In 2019, XPO Logistics released a mobile game simulating freight operations for the Tour de France.

  • This is covered significantly in multiple sources. Given that, I believe it should remain on the page. However, I would love to hear from other people.

Beginning in 2021, XPO Logistics broke into three separate publicly-traded companies, making XPO solely an LTL provider.

In August 2021, the company spun off its global contract logistics business into a separate company named GXO Logistics, with facilities located primarily throughout North America and Europe. GXO stands for “game-changing opportunities.”

As of April 2021, Malcolm Wilson is the CEO of the company.

  • Current CEO information is relevant based on Wikipedia's current rules and regulations to cover the company's updated essential information.

RXO stands for “reliability multiplied by outperformance” and provides global forwarding.

At the time, Drew Wilkerson was CEO of the RXO.

  • See the above comment for GXO

XPO dropped “Logistics” from its name in December 2022 and remains solely as an LTL carrier, which allows multiple customers to transport goods in the same truck.

  • Site is WSJ and supports LTL and name change in 2022, thus passing verification.

XPO is the second fourth largest freight and logistics company in North America.

Since November 2022, the company’s North American operations have been solely focused on LTL (less-than-truckload) freight transportation.

  • The source clearly provides information about LTL operations in North America.

XPO operates in 99% of US zip codes including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

XPO provides dedicated truckload, LTL, truck brokerage, managed transportation, last mile,  and freight forwarding in Europe. The company also manages multimodal solutions, such as road-rail and road-short sea combinations.

1,000 new drivers were hired in the U.K. and Ireland in 2022.

Thank you in advance for making this accurate. Freightguy1975 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Freightguy1975. I have checked the links above and here are my comments:
  • XPO, Inc. is an American transportation company...: The sources don't support "full transportation options in Europe".
  • The company's headquarters...: The third link doesn't mention 564 locations and the other two links are paywalled. That doesn't mean they can't be used, but could you please provide quotes from them?
  • The company was initially called Express-1...: Updated as requested
  • In June 2012, XPO listed its shares...: The Forbes link doesn't state this, but I have added the FreighWaves link
  • In 2019, XPO was the first global logistics company to join...: Updated as requested
  • Beginning in 2021, XPO Logistics broke...: Updated as requested
  • In August 2021, the company spun off...: The sources don't state that it is a "global contract logistics business". If it is just a matter of different terminology, I would be happy to update this.
  • As of April 2021, Malcolm Wilson is the CEO...: Which policy states that company articles should include the current CEO? If so, I have no objection to this to being retained, of course.
  • At the time, Drew Wilkerson...: However GXO is a separate company.
  • RXO stands for “reliability multiplied...: The www.thetrucker.com website seems to be down? I have added the TTnews link
  • XPO dropped “Logistics” from its name in December 2022...: As per the comment in the tag, the WSJ article states that it was planned, but doesn't confirm that it happened.
  • XPO is the second largest freight...: Article states that it is the second largest "provider of less-than-truckload services in North America". Are you okay with that wording?
  • XPO operates in 99% of US zip codes...: Updated with wording changes to better reflect the source. Removed Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
  • XPO provides dedicated truckload, LTL...: Article's don't support "dedicated truckload" or "last-mile" claims (I have not checked the other aspects at this stage)
  • 1,000 new drivers...: Updated as requested.
Hopefully that is everything, I apologise if anything got missed as I switched between windows for this. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle Thank you for going through this. See my responses below:
  • XPO, Inc. is an American transportation company...: The sources don't support "full transportation options in Europe".
There is a planned spin off of their European business, but it has not occurred yet. It might make sense to remove it versus resourcing? Hopefully I am understanding your request correctly... I have removed the text about Europe and the tag.
  • The company's headquarters...: The third link doesn't mention 564 locations and the other two links are paywalled. That doesn't mean they can't be used, but could you please provide quotes from them?
Here is the quote from one of them: “After the spin-off, XPO will serve about 43,000 shippers, with 564 locations and 38,000 employees worldwide.” https://www.ctinsider.com/business/article/XPO-Logistics-17543737.php Thank you, now updated
  • In August 2021, the company spun off...: The sources don't state that it is a "global contract logistics business". If it is just a matter of different terminology, I would be happy to update this.
The TTNews article calls it: “contract logistics provider in the world.”
WSJ: “XPO spun off its contract logistics business, now called GXO Logistics Inc., last year.”
I am not sure what the best wording is here. Happy to take out “global” if that is what is the issue? But, they are doing global logistics. "Global" seems fine now, since the WSJ article about STG supports this. I've updated it as such.
  • As of April 2021, Malcolm Wilson is the CEO...: Which policy states that company articles should include the current CEO? If so, I have no objection to this to being retained, of course.
I thought it was just normal to declare who the new CEO in a spinoff or acquisition was. We didn’t request this or any of the recent content changes. Maybe we can reach out to whoever did it? Oh, sorry for getting this confused if it was not one of your requests.
  • At the time, Drew Wilkerson...: However GXO is a separate company.
  • XPO dropped “Logistics” from its name in December 2022...: As per the comment in the tag, the WSJ article states that it was planned, but doesn't confirm that it happened.
Given that it has happened and the company website, stock listings and other press now call it “XPO” and the sourcing states that it was planned, is there a need for a source to state it happened as planned? That is a very good point, thank you. I have removed the tag.
  • XPO is the second largest freight...: Article states that it is the second largest "provider of less-than-truckload services in North America". Are you okay with that wording?
Yes! Thank you. Excellent, this has now been updated.
  • XPO provides dedicated truckload, LTL...: Article's don't support "dedicated truckload" or "last-mile" claims (I have not checked the other aspects at this stage)
Recognizing that this is from XPO, but it is filed as part of the 10-K SEC - “Our range of services in Europe encompasses dedicated truckload, LTL, truck brokerage, managed transportation, last mile, freight forwarding and, increasingly, multimodal solutions, such as road-rail and road-short sea combinations that we tailor to customer needs” https://investors.xpo.com/static-files/f03050b6-17b2-40dd-8768-cf3f4d483d86
Again this is going to be spun off and divested, so maybe we don’t worry about it right now? Since this is a temporary situation, I agree that it isn't worth worrying about.
A few additional items:
Since the sources have now been updated and replaced, can we remove the tags that you added? Yes I have been removing the tags as each issue is resolved. Please let me know if any have been missed.
You also did not comment on: The company has conducted logistics operations for the Evian Golf Championship and the Paris Marathon. In 2019, XPO Logistics released a mobile game simulating freight operations for the Tour de France.
  • This is covered significantly in multiple sources. Given that, I believe it should remain on the page. However, I would love to hear from other people. Coverage doesn't necessarily equate to importance, so I think a discussion about this would be worthwhile.
Second, the “Conditions for female employees”, the content that was added was sourced with a personal essay not a reliable third-party source, so I believe that this should at the very least be removed and in accordance with Wikipedia standards the section title should be changed to “controversy” or “criticism”. I can provide supporting examples WP:Criticism, WP:BLPGROUP and WP:Verifiability. Thank you for those links. I think that the "Controversies section" errr section is suggesting that the section shouldn't be called "Controversies". However, it would be good to get input from others about this. Please note that the section was also sourced from the Memphis Flyer, Commercial Appeal and the New York Times.
Additionally, XPO in its current form does not have a warehouse business, the entire warehousing business moved over to GXO as you can see by the sources listed above and here . Therefore, we would like to put it to a vote on whether this section should be entirely moved to GXO rather than stay on the XPO page. The warehouse was associated with the XPO company at the time, therefore I think it is relevant to the XPO article. However it would also be good to get input from others about this. Please note that content is decided by consensus, not votes. Also, who do you mean by "we"?
Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Freightguy1975. I hope you don't mind that I interspersed my replies above, to hopefully make it easier to follow. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on making the article better and more neutral @MrsSnoozyTurtle and @Zero334. I appreciate you being so responsive. Per my COI disclosure, by we I mean “XPO”. I look forward to hearing others opinions on reaching a consensus for the section. Freightguy1975 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freightguy1975 Everything I added met WP:RS. The Ms. article doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:NPOV so I removed just the content cited with that. Don't see a policy regarding moving the conditions content. "Conditions for female employees" seems just as not WP:NPOV as "Controversies" and I see "Controversies" as the more common usage on company pages. Zero334 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero334 & @MrsSnoozyTurtle Thank you for your help on making the page more neutral through the tags and citations. I would like to request that the Controversy section be moved to the GXO page as GXO operates all warehouses and XPO is solely a transportation business as mentioned in the sources above. I look forward to hearing others opinions on reaching a consensus for the section. Freightguy1975 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help[edit]

Hello,

Please see my 'user page.' I would like to disclose my COI with XPO before making any edits.

I have some new requests for the page.

In the first sentence under History there is a typo, "ticket" should be changed to "ticker."

In the second sentence under History, add a hyperlink to "Brad Jacobs" to Brad Jacobs (businessperson) page since it is live.

Remove references 50 and 51 (Memphis Flyer and Commercial Appeal) as both sources only repeat the NYT article making them unnecessary.

Thank you in advance for helping to make this accurate! Freightguy1975 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello,

Please see my 'user page.' I would like to disclose my COI with XPO before making any edits. I would like to request that the latest change and the Controversy section be removed. XPO is solely a transportation business as mentioned in the sources above. Thank you in advance for helping to make this accurate! Freightguy1975 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is somehow a different XPO than was featured in the NYT piece, and presumably a different XPO currently advertising umm...214 warehouse and logistics jobs on Indeed, then Wikipedia doesn't really care that they rebranded. GMGtalk 14:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XPO is a shipping and logistics company. It does not own any warehouses. This section should be deleted as the company does not own any warehouses. Freightguy1975 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freightguy1975 agree with @GreenMeansGo deletion makes no sense. Zero334 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to put this more succinctly, Wikipedia doesn't care if the company spun off it's warehouses to a different company, and therefore doesn't currently own them. The only question that matters here is whether, on or about 2018, when the NYT published the piece, whether the company was the employer. And yall need to chill out, or you're going to be blocked. I'm not an idiot, and I can see when two editors show up post-haste to defend a company largely unknown outside logistics. GMGtalk 19:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo I agree with you... I'm not trying to delete the controversy and think you may be an idiot given you are irrationally jumping to conclusions. I don't care what you think, but I do not and never have had a coi and instead I am defending Wikipedias policies. Zero334 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally deleting the controversy. GMGtalk 19:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am deleting excessive detail from a primary source not the controversy. Zero334 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is not a primary source, and "profiling" employees with no further information is not a controversy. GMGtalk 19:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT isn't the majority of what I deleted, I removed Ms. Magazine, which was written by an employee. Primary. I am not opposed to different wording, just opposed to poorly sourced and excessive detail of anything. Zero334 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So suggest something rather than making unfounded accusations. Zero334 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times? And sources referencing the New York Times? GMGtalk 20:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problematic sources, so I see no grounds to remove anything as 'poorly sourced'. MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://msmagazine.com/2018/10/31/life-death-warehouse-floor/
This written as an opinion piece. The NYTimes one is fine. I am clearly not understanding something if this isn't the definition of a primary source.Zero334 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a first person account by one of the affected employees, not an 'opinion piece'. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Means the same to me. What are the rules on first person accounts, so I am clear going forward because this was a nonsensical confrontation. Zero334 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per our 'No original research policy', Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used on Wikipedia for statements of fact. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that the warehouse was owned by XPO, is that an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What actually happened is that the NYT piece was widely reported, and even led to a Congressional Inquiry. The company closed the facility entirely because they were getting such bad press, and apparently hired "some dude" to monitor their WP page to the point that they respond to any change within a couple of hours. But I will admit, I am generally hostile to COI editing, and specifically hostile to whitewashing instances where you worked somebody's baby to death. GMGtalk 11:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear from @Freightguy1975:, if what you're saying is true than Freightguy1975 is lying through his teeth and I assume there must be another explanation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pulling together materials and will respond once those are complete. Thank you to everyone for your input and contribution. Freightguy1975 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

XPO prioritizes the safety of their employees and has no tolerance for any type of discriminatory behavior. The company is an industry leader in providing protections for pregnant employees.[1]
The allegations mentioned in the “Controversy” section of the XPO Wikipedia entry either predate XPO Logistics’ acquisition of the Memphis warehouse referenced in the New York Times article that is cited [2] or weren’t reported to management after the company acquired it in September 2014.[3] Importantly, the warehouse mentioned is not currently owned or operated by XPO. It is owned and operated by GXO, Inc., a separate, standalone public company.[4]
I am also enclosing 10-K statements that show that XPO no longer owns any warehouses.[5]
My request is given that XPO did not own the warehouse during the time period that both the Ms. magazine first-person account and as reported by the NY times article, and no longer owns any warehouses, let alone this facility, that this controversy should not be located on the page.
Footnotes listed below:
[1] https://www.truckinginfo.com/325092/xpo-logistics-expands-benefits-for-new-and-expectant-parents
[2] https://investors.xpo.com/news-releases/news-release-details/xpo-logistics-completes-acquisition-new-breed
[3] https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2019/02/26/xpo-announces-conclusion-independent-investigation/2990087002/
[4] "XPO Logistics will now focus just on trucking, as it spins off and sells other businesses." https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/xpo-logistics-will-focus-only-on-trucking-will-spin-off-sell-other-units.html
"GXO becoming an independent, publicly traded company ... GXO launches with approximately 94,000 team members worldwide and more than 208 million square feet of warehouse space in 869 locations across 27 countries." https://gxo.com/news_article/gxo-logistics-inc-completes-spin-off-from-xpo-logistics-inc/
[5] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1166003/000116600323000017/xpo-20221231.htm
Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're kindof missing the point. It's like getting divorced, being asked whether you beat your wife, and saying "I no longer have a wife." GMGtalk 18:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo I appreciate the quick response. However, domestic violence is a very serious and traumatic issue that does not belong in this conversation or as a metaphor for any situation. I insist that we avoid graphic sensationalism and instead focus on the facts. Additionally, your offensive metaphor misses the point entirely. XPO did not own the warehouse during the incidents written about, and no longer owns the warehouses at all. XPO does have the most progressive company policy for pregnant employees in the industry—perhaps the country—and it did conduct thorough investigations into the allegations as soon as they were made aware of them. As you have called out above, you clearly have an extreme bias and are not willing to work collaboratively or professionally with a declared COI account. Freightguy1975 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's a reference to philosophy/rhetoric. Second, I have a background in things like family therapy and social work, sooooo...I'm aware. Third, Wikipedia doesn't give a crap about press releases, or stories that copy/paste press releases. Fourth, your own source you cite says "when the company shutters its Southeast Memphis warehouse" and says they purchased the warehouse in 2014.
You know what's a "very serious and traumatic issue"? Having women miscarry on your warehouse floor. GMGtalk 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of self awareness is shocking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by why someone with a background in therapy would use, rhetorical or not, the disappearing wife analogy above. Definitely going to be triggering for some.  
That said, The current write-up of the controversy isn't in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:EXCESS, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Perhaps we could focus on why "windowless warehouse" is within the section, as it was reported that there were windows in the warehouse. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/21/business/pregnancy-discrimination-miscarriages.html ; I'm happy to propose some updates for review. Freightguy1975 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in literally the very first sentence of the NYT piece. GMGtalk 20:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so is "The company also disputed that the warehouse was windowless, noting that there were a number of interior windows." under Wikipedia:YESPOV, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." Freightguy1975 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to give prominence to the company's self-serving denials. WP:YESPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the ownership of the warehouse would lend some clarity to the description. The distinction for when the warehouse was owned by XPO needs to be clarified in the current version of the section. Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is perfectly clear as-is. As a paid editor, you have a responsibility to avoid wasting the time of volunteers - we are not being paid to argue as you are. Hair-splitting about exactly which conglomerate spin-off owned which asset on which day has no place in the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An "interior window" is a window that leads from an interior room to another interior room. That not typically what "windowless" means. It's a bit like saying, "I didn't cheat on my wife. I mostly cheated on a bed and a few times on a sofa." GMGtalk 23:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to waste your time, I am trying to have context added to our page to comprehensively describe what happened. I read the WP:NPOV rules and felt as though not all sides were represented fairly in this case. There are reliable sources that discuss the ownership of the warehouse at that time, but you are choosing to ignore them. I was under the impression that the volunteer community would work with me to help update the page, not against me. On another note, I find GMG’s comments on this thread to be disturbing. You are not being helpful in the least bit.Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. If you're disturbed then go do something else. We don't work for you. You can't report us to HR. I don't intend to be helpful at all when you're blatantly misrepresenting sources at least twice now, and trying to confuse NPOV with sterilizing the content until it fits your employer's narrative. If you would like to report me to the autorities, feel free to go to WP:ANI. I'm sure it will work out for you. GMGtalk 18:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your childish chest-beating aside, nobody is asking for sterilization. There’s a big difference between a fair representation of events and outcomes and sterilization. The warehouse’s issues stemmed back years, even under management of New Breed Logistics and Verizon (according to the article itself). Under your authorship (guided by tag-teaming and bullying), it only reflects the single most negative, cherry-picked item; and nowhere on the page does it mention the overwhelming policy changes, Maven Clinic, or the support provided for employees. At the very least, the article should reflect the outcome of these experiences and how it changed company culture instead of suggesting they are ongoing or unresolved out of pure willful ignorance.Freightguy1975 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are not going to help. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @MrOllie — I'm a former employee of XPO, so this is me declaring an unambiguous COI and agreeing to not directly edit the page. I'm chiming in to suggest that this section be moved to the GXO page. XPO simply does not have warehouses. It's just a trucking company. Yes, the NYT piece names XPO, but that's only because the article predates the 2021 GXO spin-off. All of XPO's warehouses — including the executives and leaders who manage them, as well as the employees who work in them — went to GXO. If the purpose of keeping this information on Wikipedia is to support better working conditions for warehouse employees or hold the company's feet to the fire, we're missing the mark by keeping it on the XPO page. My suggestion is that we move the entire paragraph to GXO's article, add a line that explains the name change, and then we can move this going-nowhere-but-in-circles conversation about whether the paragraph's tone is sufficiently encyclopedic (I think it's too long relative to the rest of the article, but I defer to the group) to GXO's talk page. Thanks. Gannymetis (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The NYT article is about XPO, this is the correct place. Spinning off an asset does not retroactively eliminate criticism. The purpose of this article is to document the company and its history, that's it. We're not here to make broad points about capitalism or to 'support better working conditions for warehouse employees', Wikipedia isn't a venue for advocacy. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article is/was about XPO before the GXO split. The content about that period belongs here — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we're saying the same thing. This warehousing company existed, was bought by XPO, then got divested and is now GXO. It's been the same company the entire time. The only thing that changed was the name. The warehousing company profiled in the NYT article is now called GXO, and if the NYT wrote this exact article today, they would say GXO instead of XPO. Gannymetis (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not saying the same thing. I understand your point and also completely disagree with it. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're stretching WP:AGF past its breaking point, you clearly know that you're not saying the same thing but the opposite. Note that disruptive editing on this topic may effect your ability to edit wikipedia in general. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stretching WP:AGF ——— I've made two straightforward comments on a talk page discussion and I opened with a clear COI. Note that I haven't edited an article in quite some time. Participating in talk page conversations is well within the bounds of appropriate behavior. MrOllie and I are not making "opposite" arguments. He said the purpose of this article is to document the company and its history, which I strongly agree with. Where we disagree is re: what "the company" means. Are there rules against disagreeing with other Wiki editors? Your side of this argument is hyper-fixated on what the brand of the company was in the moment this article was published — never mind what the brand was in the moment when the reported events allegedly occurred or what the brand is now. What I'm saying is that corporations change brands like I change hairstyles, and the actual company — which I'm defining as physical locations filled with employees performing services for customers — is now operating under a different brand than was reported by NYT. XPO, at that time, had multiple business units, of which warehousing was just one. Post-spin, that warehousing business unit is now its own company with its own Wikipedia page. It's nonsensical to me that XPO, a trucking company without warehouses, should be the home of this paragraph about the working conditions of a warehousing operation that is literally part of a different company. I question the insistence that this documentation be so drastically separate from the corporation, GXO, whose history this is. Gannymetis (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: XPO had two warehousing business units at the time (one in NA and one in Europe), both of which went on to become GXO. Gannymetis (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Don't put words in my mouth. 2) You are making Distinctions without a difference. There is no valid reason to remove this well-sourced content from this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I did not "put words in your mouth". I was careful to quote verbatim the comment you wrote at 13:55 on 9 August 2023 (UTC). I'm surprised that you missed that, and I question the hostility in your tone. 2) Are you saying that this well-sourced content should not also be on the GXO page? Gannymetis (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie and I are not making "opposite" arguments. <--- Don't do this. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree with you? I think we're making the same argument and drawing different conclusions. You don't. Hardly worth getting hostile over. Gannymetis (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any hostility that you are inferring has nothing to do with me, though it is another example of your tendency to incorrectly summarize the statements of other editors. Do not attribute things to me. This discussion is repetitious enough without requiring that others correct misrepresentations of their statements. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my question that you missed: Are you saying that this content should not also be on the GXO page? Gannymetis (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be in a background section, but GXO doesn't appear to exist until 2021 and these events happened before that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look. It's an account almost entirely dedicated to XPO and related topics. It must be like a fandom thing, like when adults dress up as video game characters to go to Comicon. GMGtalk 16:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GMG. I stopped editing because I was getting a lot of pushback/callouts as an SPA. I can only edit what I know about and I have to work, so limited time + limited knowledge = I look like an SPA. I still don't understand how high-frequency, high-volume editors manage to do what they do for free — I've never in my entire life valued my time so little — but I understand that the optics of my edit history aren't good and have adjusted (read: ceased) my editing behavior accordingly. My understanding is that contributing to talk page conversations is still fair game for me, but lmk if I'm off. Thanks. Gannymetis (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come bearing sources or be gone with you. Your issue here is with the NYT and not with us. GMGtalk 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "us"? Gannymetis (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia? Or possibly I'm that guy from Mark 5 called Legion. GMGtalk 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the NYT. I think it's strange and funny that you think a brand and a company are the same thing. The company in the NYT article has a new brand, but I guess rebranding is all it takes to throw Wikipedia editors off the trail and bury unflattering press. Gannymetis (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Distinction without a difference once again. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come bearing sources or be gone with you. And they better be independent, because If I can find that they're copy/pasting a press release, there will be a public flogging and also possibly a tar and feathering. GMGtalk 17:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the declared COI account in this thread, we want things to be civil and cooperative. So let's leave this be for now, given that the discussion is not productive. Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Where have these been covered by independent sources? GMGtalk 20:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XPO,_Inc.&oldid=1208333813"