Talk:Atos

History

Please remove top box "This section needs additional citations for verification" all needed citations are inserted. (tim362729|t )

The History section needs to be edited - very confusing at mo Paradisepark (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

top

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.49.41 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An employee of Atos Origin was found to have lost a USB thumb stick containg highly sensitive user information and source code for the UK governments Gateway system. someone might want to look at these links: here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.97.142 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Benefit assessments

There is covering a legitimate topic and there is blatantly one-sided soapboxing. This crossed the line. Full of what appears to be anecdotal evidence, not supported by reliable sources with no expression of the opposing viewpoint in the midst of a welter of criticism. Gr1st (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Atos seem to attract a lot of criticism from many quarters. All the same, I get the impression here that someone has read a critical report and reported too extensively from it. I expect, with all the current Paralympic related coverage, editors will be able to update/abbreviate the section as necessary. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Atos Origin → Atos – Over redirect. Company has changed name (legally as well as for branding purposes). Gr1st (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support sure, why not.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:31, 7 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Atos nvolvement in matters of UK national security?

According to a newspaper article <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/12/atos-doctors-sign-official-secrets-act>, UK Government contractors Atos have recently insisted all members of staff sign the Official Secrets Act <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/contents>, in an apparent effort to prevent leaks of information about Atos disability assessments which are proving embarassing to the DWP minister (Ian Duncan Smith) and to them. The DWP have denied requesting their contractor do this to their staff - does anyone with knowledge of the OSA understand how criticism about the work Atos perform for the UK Government could pose a threat to national security, or why they should be making a request to members of the medical and nursing professions, who feel it will prevent them from whistleblowing in an effort to protect the health of the patients they interface with, like the suicide victims listed below ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.224.14 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Update employee count after Siemens IT acquisition

After acquiring Siemens IT, the company now has 78,500 employees, according to their web site. http://atos.net/en-us/about_us/default.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.163.221 (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Atos Healthcare

What's the Dr Foster stuff about? Non sequitur?

Northampton - 'deliver a solution'. Does that mean 'produce some software'? If it does, why not say so?

Notreallydavid (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dr Foster - Agree that this appears to have no place here. Deleted. As for, "deliver a solution": the term is used when the actual needs for a particular situation are so out-with an organization's knowledge that all they can do is call for something to "fill the gap". It's a clichéd term, for sure, but frequently apt.

Edrarsoric (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Impending Paralympics Boycott Because of Atos -Assessment Related Suicides?

Sponsorship of the 2012 London Paralympics by Atos has led to a growing protest movement largely because of the number of suicides, which impartial Inquest juries in the UK have attributed to harassing and distressing techniques they use when 'assessing' people on disability benefits. should there not be a separate 'controversies' section for this firm? The entry appears biased without one. For example,

Two cases of benefit cut related suicides involving ex-British services personnel are poor Mr. David Sanderson of Southfield (<http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/9215292.Dad_committed_suicide_after_housing_benefit_cut/>), and Army Veteran Mark and Helen Mullins of Bedworth(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8878543/Poverty-suicide-couple-had-warned-of-hopeless-situation.html) . Another pensioner is mentioned in a later section. Then, there are the disabled suicides,such as Paul Willcoxson, 33, of Corby, Northants, who according to his suicide note, was worried about benefit cuts when he hung himself in April. And Elaine Christian, 57, of Hull, who according to reports of an inquest in July, was worried about a meeting to assess her disability benefits. She was found drowned in a drain with ten self-inflicted cuts to her wrist and had taken painkillers <http://www.cloggie.org/proggold/2011/12/06/welfare-reform-kills/> . The Taxpayer's burden was further relieved in March 2010, when Vicky Harrison, a 21-year-old, took her life with a massive overdose of drugs in Darwen, Lancashire. < http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/suic-m18.shtml>. + Arguably, if such people do commit suicides, they are no longer a burden on the UK taxpayer, and Atos assessments will indeed, be of enormous benefit to the public purse - but was the risk of suicide not forseen by Atos ? Another 10 benefit-cuts related suicides are:-

1. <http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/9095159.Jobseeker_took_own_life/> 2. <http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/no…s-leanne-chambers-72703-27003699/> 3. <http://news.scotsman.com/arts/Aut…suicide-39due-to-slash.6438473.jp> 4. & 5. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment…n/07/mother-suicide-welfare-state> 6. <http://www.thisishullandeastridin…/story-12927176-detail/story.html> 7. <http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investi…/2011/02/sick-who-gives-atos.html> 8. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politic…rnment-reform-disability-benefits> 9. <http://www.consumeractiongroup.co…elp-me-take-Atos-and-DWP-to-court> 10. <http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-…ad-family-claims-115875-23147158/> 11. Addition to Deaths 4 & 5 Above. Mother was pregnant so her unborn baby died as well. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/PRE…TO+DEATH+HOLDING+SON.-a0213434697 Plus an example of fatal Atos misdiagnosis at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society…l/24/atos-case-study-larry-newman>. To avoid allegations that this entry is little more than an advertisement for a private company, perhaps you should include coverage of claims of Corporate Manslaughter against Atos for failing to adequately assess the mental health impact of the way they treat disabled former tax payers when assessing them as 'fit to work'.212.139.103.26 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.103.26 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.231.241 (talk)

Perhaps we should include the coverage, but then again perhaps it would be much better if you added it yourself per WP:BOLD? Valenciano (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia veteran, but I can't find any evidence in this page's changes history of someone taking responsibility for the POV tag on the "Controversy" section; so, I'm going to assume that this discussion is related, owing to the similarities in dating and content.

This portion of the article is definitely problematic - take, for example, the misplaced (and subsequently extremely misleading) citation that I had to correct in the paragraph regarding the GMC. Additionally, the very first citation is, I've just discovered, a 404! I'll be frank: I'm in no position to fix this section myself. However, I will try just now to verify the validity of as many citations as I can. After that, I think the next job (most likely for someone else, I'm afraid, though I'll do my best) should be to delete any claims that can't be substantiated. But in all honesty, this article is atrocious - POV is the least of its issues. I'm going to add as many relevant warning tags as I can to bring this to the attention of future readers.

Edrarsoric (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done what I can. I apologise for the lack of finesse and technical expertise, but I thought it more important this article be made more accurate for future visitors than languish in its lamentable prior state.

Edrarsoric (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my previous comment, but this is an issue that has left me colossally angry - and with a total feeling of impotence. Which is about how I guess is how most disabled people feel about it. Achieving a neutral point of view NPOV in an issue like this looks like an atrociously difficult task, and not one that I would want even if I were not a protagonist. (or victim) - Lucien86 (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

01/09/2012: According to the BBC, Atos were 'occupied' today by around 150 disabled individuals, who were protesting about the standard of Atos fitness for work assessments, the fact that appeals currently leave people without any money for around a year, and the large number of suicides already caused. The link is here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19437785> - the protest comes a day after the death of Celia Burns, who, despite being terminally ill with cancer, was judged to be 'fit to work' by Atos and had her income reduced by £30 a week - the last year of her life- only to win her appeal and have her benefit reinstated just in time to pay for her funeral. "I was treated badly. I've been working since I was 17, I've paid all my stamps, all my National Insurance. The only time I was ever sick was when I was pregnant with my two sons" she can be quoted as saying in this BBC interview - <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19433535>. 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.232.67 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Atos in Italy?

Are Atos involved with disability assessments for the Italian Government? Or in any other European countries?80.42.236.201 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.236.201 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Atos Healthcare again

With its specific, well reported role in the UK DWP's medical assessments, I'm wondering whether it will be beneficial to create a standalone Wikipedia article about Atos Healthcare. It is beginning to take up a disproportionate part of the Atos article.

Obviously, during the process the current content on the subject will need to be cleaned up and properly sourced. Sionk (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure AtoS would be delighted if they could shuffle the coverage of continued criticism of their role in medical assessment by disabled people away from the main page relating to them - i.e. I believe moving the coverage would be a pro-AtoS move and violate NPOV. I would also question whether a major ongoing controversy in one of their most important markets, with substantial media coverage and which has seen senior AtoS executives called to testify before Parliament, truly warrants the term 'disproportionate'. Indeed given that they are being specifically targeted in protests during the 2012 Paralympics, and that they have just won the contract to carry out the PIP assessment process, which by definition will mean 20% of current Disability Living Allowance recipients (i.e. 500,000 people out of 2.5m)losing benefit as a result of AtoS assessments, and the additional controversy over AtoS failure to provide for the agreed recording of assessments, we may actually need to expand the coverage. DG

I think we generally agree about most things. The reason I suggested creating a separate article is because it took me a very long time to find the coverage on Wikipedia. I came here to find out more because of the current news reports. The Wikipedia coverage is at the bottom of a long article about the parent company, which is described as a "consulting and technology" operation. In my view, the coverage would not be hidden if there was a standalone article, but easier to find. If divisions of multinational (or any) companies are widely talked about, like Atos Healthcare, they should generally have a separate article.

This wouldn't mean Atos Healthcare being expunged from the Atos article. It would simply be summarised, with a hatnote leading to the main article about Atos Healthcare.

There sems to be little 'good' news about Atos Healthcare, so it is quite right to concentrate on the criticisms/demonstrations/complaints, in my view.

I'll amend the lead paragraphs about Atos to include a mention of Atos Healthcare. Sionk (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV template

Someone added a NPOV template to the Atos Healthcare section in April 2012 but there seems to be no attempt to resolve the problem. Is there still a problem? All I can see at the moment is a few areas that could be tightened up/edited to be less 'wordy'. And I'm not sure we have enough information about this BMJ report/article (source #45) to identify it, considering it is referred to in a number of places. Sionk (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag. The section has been improved and is adequately sourced. The large WP:OR section on access to facilities was also removed. Because there has been so much news coverage about the problems with the assessments, in my view the remaining points are fully justified. Sionk (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Atos introduction

Changes are executed and citations added. (tim362729|t )

With your declared conflict of interest it's not advisable to make major edits, as you have done over the last month. I'm sure no one will have a problem with minor corrections but, for example, you removed the entire paragraph about Atos Healthcare from the introduction and also added publicity about a new automobile venture based on a press release. Sources really need to be reliable and independent of Atos to support this sort of addition (Reuters disown the press release so they evidently have not done any fact checking before reproducing the announcement). Sionk (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the Atos Healthcare part does not belong in the intro of this page. This means that all other companies of atos should be mentioned in the intro. Please remove from intro, because Atos Heathcare does have its own strongly indicated section further down on the page. So it is infact not a removel. For the Mycar under "Corporate Responsibility" I will look for other citations or mentions.

(tim362729|t ) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility of facilities

I've added a "original research?" template to the 'Accessibility of facilities' sub-section (of Atos Healthcare), because it lacks reliable secondary sources. It currently looks as if someone has gone through the Atos Healthcare website analysing parking facilities, then synthesised this with a description of the requirements of DDA. Maybe someone can add reliable secondary sources that show this is a widespread complaint and valid for its own section? Sionk (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

top balancing comments - attempt no 1

I would like to make the following edit to the Atos wiki page. In the introduction the second paragraph immediately introduces the topic of Atos UK and Atos Healthcare without any prior explanation of how the company is organized. I would therefore request that, in order to make the position of Atos UK and Atos Healthcare clear, that we move the para below from the Company Information section and insert it above the mention of Atos in the UK. (tim362729|t )14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add to top para

Copy of section "Atos is currently No. 8...Technology; Energy & Utilities." on top of the page paragraph behind the paragraph that ends with "...numerous clients globally." and before the paragraph that starts with "In the UK, the company ..." (tim362729|t )14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, with regard to the para on Atos in the UK, I would like to requested some changes. This is to make clear that in the UK Atos is actually know more as a general supplier of IT services rather than a supplier of healthcare services. Also, in the interest of balance, we would like to add that Atos is also favorably received in some quarters such as the Royal College of Physicians. (tim362729|t )14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So please use this copy: In the UK, the company are known for their work as Atos Healthcare, a division of Atos that is one of the UK’s largest occupational health providers, providing services for over 1 million people. They achieved SEQOHS accreditation in October 2012, something which is managed by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) on behalf of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (FOM) . This division has attracted criticism for its management of the Work Capability Assessment on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions - and particularly for its role in implementing and conducting disability benefit assessments , designed by the UK Government and introduced through the Parliamentary process regarding the DWP's criteria for the treatment of disabled people.[3][4] Atos have been targeted in the media,[5][6] in Parliament,[7] by the medical profession,[8] and by numerous protest groups.[9][10][11]

Also in the interests of factual clarity, we would like to add a reference from the DWP which makes it clear that the policy that Atos is implementing is actually a policy designed by the UK Government and introduced through the Parliamentary process and not a policy of Atos itself. Finally, again in the interest of balance for the Olympic Games section, we would like to add a reference from the Guardian newspaper. (tim362729|t )14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So please add this copy: However, in an article with the Guardian newspaper in the UK , Sir Philip Craven, President of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), said that the IPC valued its links with Atos and indicated that they were satisfied with Atos’ involvement with the International Paralympic Committee. (tim362729|t )14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

request to add content to intro section

1. Move copy first paragraph from "Company information" and add to the "intro section" at the top of the page as a second paragraph. Final result: "Atos is currently No. 8 in the Worldwide IT services market; and No. 2 in the European market, behind only IBM.[1][24] The company is listed on Euronext Paris and a constituent of the CAC Mid 60 stock market index. It operates under the brands Atos, Atos Consulting & Technology Services, Atos Worldline and Atos Worldgrid. Atos, through the Schlumberger Sema's acquisition, was involved in previous Games during the 1990s, starting with the Barcelona Olympic Games in 1992. Atos has an annual 2011 proforma revenue of EUR 8.5 billion and 74,000 employees in 48 countries.[citation needed] Serving a global client base, it delivers transactional services, consulting and technology services, systems integration and managed services. It works with clients across the following market sectors: Manufacturing, Retail, Services; Public, Health & Transports; Financial Services; Telecoms, Media & Technology; Energy & Utilities." (tim362729|t )18:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been quite for a while. Can one of the Wikipedian tell me if there is still something wrong in the Request for edit? Can someone explain to me why it is not procesed? Are these changes considered as ok? (tim362729|t )15:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi tim362729, while I don't think your suggestion above is a suitable move, I would agree that the lead section is lacking substance. Maybe adding some of the salient facts,for example the date Atos was founded and its various trading names, would be beneficial. Sionk (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to rewrite second paragraph of intro section

Rewrite second paragraph from "intro-section" to clearify that Atos Healthcare is doing more. 1. remove the word "primarily" from first sentence. 2. add explaining copy "is one of the UK’s largest occupational health providers, providing services for over 1 million people. They achieved SEQOHS accreditation in October 2012, something which is managed by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) on behalf of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (FOM)." 3. add resource 4. remove the word "sustained" - The word is not sourced and it is misleading. 5. add the "and conducting disability benefit assessments" 6. add resource [1] 7. add the copy "designed by the UK Government and introduced through the Parliamentary process."

Final result: "In the UK, the company are known primarily for their work as Atos Healthcare, a division of Atos that is one of the UK’s largest occupational health providers, providing services for over 1 million people. They achieved SEQOHS accreditation in October 2012, something which is managed by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) on behalf of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (FOM).[2]. This division has attracted sustained criticism for its management of the Work Capability Assessment on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions - and particularly for its role in implementing and conducting disability benefit assessments [3], designed by the UK Government and introduced through the Parliamentary process regarding the DWP's criteria for the treatment of disabled people.[3][4] Atos have been targeted in the media,[5][6] in Parliament,[7] by the medical profession,[8] and by numerous protest groups.[9][10][11]"

(tim362729|t )18:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (tim362729|t )(COI) 17:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been quite for a while. Can one of the Wikipedian tell me if there is still something wrong in the Request for edit? Can someone explain to me why it is not procesed? Are these changes considered as ok? (tim362729|t )15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the "Final Result" it appears you have reworded the controversy and removed "particularly for its role in implementing the DWP's criteria for the treatment of disabled people," yet this was not explained in your notes/description. This could be reduced in its emphasis anyway though. CorporateM (Talk) 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• I gave the article a quick (very quick) once-over. It had large quantities of unsourced/poorly sourced promotion, as well as the same for the controversy. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits seem to have re-written the article wholly in favour of the company. Atos is known almost exclusively in the UK for its well-publicised problems with the DWP incapacity assessments. Sionk (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CorporateM for the comprehensive revision that has taken place of the Atos page recently. It looks much better for the clean-up. I would like to request one further update regarding the make-up of the company by adding the paragraph below. In my opinion, the current text gives a slightly misleading description of the structure of Atos. I understand that for readers in the UK, Atos Healthcare might be the most visible part of the company, but in order to provide a more neutral view it should also be clear for readers outside of the UK that Atos UK and Atos Healthcare are only a part of a much larger, global company.

Please follow the next 2 changes:

1) add the following paragraph to the top intro:

Atos is currently No. 8 in the Worldwide IT services market and No. 2 in the European market, behind only IBM.[1][24] The company is listed on Euronext Paris and is is a constituent of the CAC Mid 60 stock market index. It operates under the brands Atos, Atos Consulting & Technology Services, Atos Worldline and Atos Worldgrid. Atos has an annual 2012 proforma revenue of EUR 8.8 billion and 76,400 employees in 47 countries (http://atos.net/en-us/Newsroom/en-us/Press_Releases/2013/2013_02_21_01.htm). It works with clients across the following market sectors: Manufacturing, Retail, Services; Public, Health & Transports; Financial Services; Telecoms, Media & Technology; Energy & Utilities.

2) add to the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Concerning Atos Healthcare, a division of Atos providing consulting in the UK health sector, a British government study published in 2012 ..." (tim362729|t )(COI) 08:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I agree the second sentence needs an explanation, rather than launching straight into a complex sentence about a government study (the study would be better moved to the body of the article).

As for your proposals for paragraph one, they are sourced to a press release. Wikipedia articles aren't platforms for press releases. However, I can see an argument for mentioning Atos's other operating names, international scope of work and number of employees, for example. They will give a better idea, to the casual reader, of what Atos is. Maybe there are some better sources available than the press release? Sionk (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In general its promotional and imparts no information to the reader to list industries that you serve, particularly when there are so many and it amounts to saying the company sells stuff to everybody. Revenue, employees, ticker symbols, etc. belong in the infobox. However, we should have one sentence about its organizational structure: "It operates under..." in the lead. I have added it, though I was curious why it didn't include Atos Healthcare in the list. If you're trying to water down the UK controversy in the lead, the thing we need for that section is a short paragraph on the company's history, as oppose to its products. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Update infobox

Some factual information for the infobox or business profile should be updated: Type of organization from Société Anonyme to SE = Societas Europaea , image of HQ

File:Atos HQ Paris Bezons.jpg

Atos HQ Paris Bezons

of employees , financial figures are to be abstracted from same 2012 Registration Document. New financial figures 2012, Revenue €8,844 million, Operating income €381 million, Net income €224 millions, Total assets €7,447 million, Total equity €2,379 million, Employees 76,417

(tim362729|t )(COI) 08:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Storage

I am storing this content here, because it appears to be well-sourced, but is written in such a way that it would need to be re-written before it would be an improvement to keep it. As I'm just giving the article a once-over, I'll post it here for anyone who's up to improving it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Atos’ Zero Email initiative comes in response to the challenges organizations face as a result of the continuing explosion in data and seeks to find a better way to communicate and collaborate. The announcement from CEO Thierry Breton on 7 February 2011, has generated a heated debate about its presumed benefits and feasibility. In turn, Atos has emphasized that its desire is actually to reduce internal emails to zero and concentrated on acquiring the expertise required to implement such an approach, such as with the acquisition of the small, French provider of SaaS-based online community solutions, blueKiwi. blueKiwi’s technology is designed to support online communities both inside and outside the organisation, but most of the company’s customers use it for internal collaboration. In November 2012, Atos announced the release of blueKiwi ZEN as part of its SaaS enterprise social software. According to Computer World UK, ZEN is provided out of Atos’ cloud infrastructure platform dubbed Canopy and includes new collaboration capabilities and native mobile applications for iOS, Android, and BlackBerry. Atos has said that it will roll out ZEN globally to transform its business into a "social organisation", which it hopes will provide a better work–life balance for employees.