Talk:Background check

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rvale045. Peer reviewers: Cgome166, Ncons009.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Would a background check routinely involve investigation of medical records? -- FirstPrinciples 10:15, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not for most pre-employment background checks. However, it could become an issue in applying for health insurance for someone who is self-employed. I know this from personal experience. 205.217.105.2 15:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

When applying for an employment position through an agency, most employment agencies will tell you to change your resume to fit the job description, otherwise they wont submit you. As everyone needs a job, and relies on the employment agencies judgment (after all they are the highly paid experts!) they comply with the instruction. Companies know this too, but let it happen. Is this so the company knows it will then have leverage should it ever need or wish to terminate a persons services in the future without having justifiable grounds? Should the employment agency not be the entity held liable in such instances?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.93.21 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background Checks[edit]

To answer your question no. When needing a background check, there are various searches that can be made to suit the need of the person needing the info. There are various sites you can find that can provide information online. However, when needing a proper background check always retort in using a Licensed Investigator. ParentFL 07:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC

Can you really get a free credit report?[edit]

Companies get paid alot of money for digging up our personal details. I think we should have a right to look at these files given to our banks, employers, etc. Is there anyplace we can get a free credit report, and not one that tries to trick us into signing up for some service for a "free report?"

--RAKO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.166.190.192 (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

merge[edit]

Pre-employment screening should fit neatly under this title unless it would make the combined article too big. :) Dlohcierekim 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Is ther any way to clear your background history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.163.25 (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Pre-Employment screening encompasses both the process of performing background checks and that of screening for drugs. I could see both this section and drug tests fitting under P-E S, but not the other way around. :)

More info[edit]

The article seems to mostly be about background checks by employers. However, there are many background check websites for the common public to use on... anyone. Is there any information that can be included about this, and what (if any) actions can be taken against invasion of privacy a la public records? Gemini79 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacground Checks Article[edit]

Have redirected the above article here, but you might want to use the following info:

A method of acquiring information on an individual through third-party services, government organizations and private individuals in the hopes of making a determination on the future actions of an individual based on past actions. Can be abused an used to commit identity theft. The right to request background checks is enforced by the Patriot Act, as well as other Federal laws which surround the right of organizations to pursue information to make financial determinations before submitting to contracts.

Regarding the proposed Merge[edit]

I see no reason to merge this article in any other suggested way. The other article's length could be shortened and made more concisely focused on its related topic. Corporate fudiciary 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. The article now needs cleanup for style and redundancy issues. theProject 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising cleanup needed[edit]

The article now needs cleanup also for advertising... ("There are many companies... one of them is...")66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bankruptcy[edit]

There is no empirical or statistical evidence I can locate that correlates between a person who has filed or declared bankruptcy and the same person "stealing from the company." If such evidence exists, and can be cited, it should be noted and changed back. Remember, for every Enron executive who "steals" from the company, there are thousands or millions of people who declare bankruptcy each year due to job loss or medical emergencies. Additionally, the original version would seem to suggest that the preponderance of bankrupt individuals are actually in a POSITION to steal from the company, ie. comptrollers, cfo's, accountants and such. Even in the widely known Enron scandal, and others like it, the actual "bankruptcy" of high level executives occurred AFTER the theft or misuse of shareholder dollars, and was used to (in some cases) attempt to shift assets or shield personal responsibility. I feel it is unfair to categorize a hard working auto worker with 30 good years of service to Ford Motor Company as a potential theft risk because he/she declared bankruptcy after the factory closed and he/she was unable to obtain employment. Or a greeter at Wal-Mart who has just rejoined the workforce following a million dollar medical issue that resulted in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy arises from many events, not all of which are criminal. Nor are all bankrupt persons presumed to be criminal. If anyone has evidence and citations to the contrary, I would love to see them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.75.251 (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

possible copyright violation?[edit]

It seems that much of the text of this article is identical to text on other websites, such as

http://www.nwlpcbackgrounds.com/101.pdf and
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/31952

There are more, but the above two seem not to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't know which site contains the original work of authorship. Rather than figure out which parts of the text are original Wikipedia contributions and which are taken from other websites, I am blanking the whole article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf given has a creation date of January 29th, 2007. The pre-screening part of the article was merged in in December 2006. In addition, there is no copyright information in the PDF file.

The second article there has a date of July 12th, 2007. By comparison, the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article was modifed in April 2007. In addition, the page carries no copyright and says, "The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content."

I believe that both of these are infringements on Wikipedia, and not the other way around. Astgtciv (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I might add though that the create date on a .PDF is not necessarily the date of authorship; for example, the author of the file may have written it before 2006, but may have converted it to .PDF in 2007. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the copyvio tag. Unless there's a clean revision in the page history, future edits should be made in the temp page. Additional comment: the absence of a copyright statement does not mean a work is public domain or freely licensed. -- Robocoder (t|c) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While lack of copyright statement does not indicate a work is compatible with GFDL, I have removed the copyright tag as evidence supplied by Astgtciv seems to clearly substantiate that the Wikipedia material was introduced first. As Wikipedia:Copyright violations notes, "Text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is also not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part." There is not at this point any compelling reason to believe that Wikipedia copied the article, given that the article's listed publication postdates the addition of the material to Wikipedia. In terms of the PDF, not only does the material on Wikipedia predate the dating of the PDF (substantially, as it started here), but there is a subtle difference at the origination that the article started with the words "Employment Screening is used", which were modified to "Pre-employment screening is used" here, five months later. The latter wording is adopted by the .pdf in question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is useless[edit]

Probably 90% of people coming to read this are looking for a few websites that actually provide background checks for free. The last paragraph of the article is great about mentioning a lot of websites that are moving to the ad model but there are absolutely no links and no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.237.190 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is specifically not supposed to be a directory of web sites. Try Dmoz.org. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

I think that Trends in pre-employment screening should be merged here, it's barely been touched in two years and doesn't stand alone as a topic. Fences&Windows 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Background Check System - NICS[edit]

Background Checks Systems - BCS[edit]

The National Background Check System phrase terminology is not to be confused with "Background Checks Systems".

This private domain was registered in 2000 prior to the US Federal government using this wording terminology for their background check service.
BCS Background Screening, LLC is a private company that provides online background checks to business consumers.
The National Background Check System is part of the United States federal government and their fingerprint based background checks are cross-matched from the NCIC national crime information center.
National Background Check System's (NICS) is only available to firearms and gun dealers.

Background Checks Systems (BCS) receives quite a bit of email and phone traffic from anxious firearm buyers asking about delays in their background checks when in reality they should be contacting either the firearms dealer or the National Background Check System.

Joeg524 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Joeg524[reply]

Possible information included[edit]

In the Possible information included section is talks about drug tests and polygraph tests but shouldn't the article make clear that that is generally an American thing? Most countries do not invade their citizens' privacy by conducting drug tests except for a few specific jobs. And in almost all parts of the world except for the USA the polygraph test is completely discredited and never considered to be reliable in employment or courts of law. The land of the free indeed!--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 20:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Background check. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Background check. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Folks, Do check us out: End-to-End background verification company that revolutionizes the Background Screening Industry by leveraging modern technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinushaukathali (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Large parts of this article are written in an extremely biased (employer-friendly) way.

Passages like the following (just one of many examples) are inappropriate:

"Due to bad hire, employers lose in a multitude of ways: financial-wise, reputation-wise and time-wise. The research shows that as many as 77% of them have lost significant sums of money to carry out the re-recruitment. Moreover, the companies have suffered losses after hiring the dishonest employee due to his low competences (57%), lack of diligence at work (28%), spending on additional training (28%) or problems with attendance (15%) and employee theft (7%). The demand for pre-employment screenings is constantly growing among Polish entrepreneurs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb it (talk • contribs) 09:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let us cull it. Zezen (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I add citations to the sentences missing citations. Moved stuff around to improve the organization and flow of the article. Removed the word "may" because the word may brings the credibility of the article down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvale045 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to include a citation after every sentence, but I kept pointers where appropriate (and consolidated the list to keep maintenance overhead down). Also there's this citation that didn't really seem to address the content attached to it. It might be useful elsewhere so I'll preserve the metadata below. Mockingbus (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<ref name=ICE-Laurel>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120921052619/http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/0808/080826laurel.htm|title=595 arrested in ICE and Department of Justice joint immigration enforcement action initiated at Mississippi transformer manufacturing facility|last=|first=|date=2008-08-26|publisher=U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement|website=|archive-url=|archivedate=2012-09-21|dead-url=yes|access-date=2019-06-12}}</ref>

Edits[edit]

Kleinerdiner (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has multiple overlapping sections and sources. For example dating has no citation and in the firearms purchase section. I have also changed some of the diction in the article to give it more a concise and clear tone. I have made no edits to overlapping sections. Such as "security" and firearms being the same section

I have updated the first paragraph to include more information on backgrounds check and better cover the base of the article I have changed the purposes header to uses.

The section on brazil should be culled or receive a citation. The wording is vague and its meaning in legal terms or general terms is indiscernable. The section on firearms regulation should have a link to the bills that mandate background checks for silencers automatic weapons and et cetera. Irrelevant sections on dating should in my opinion be culled

All in all this article needs to be made more concise and its word choice should be revaluated whoever authored it has clunky and hard to comprehend word choices that make it harder to read.

Phone number section?[edit]

why is the last section “phone number” with a list of relate to articles 2A01:4B00:8810:400:68DF:CB96:8769:429D (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent[edit]

Also called background investigation, as the US Encyclopedia of Intelligence says. A friend checked the term in the book and announced me. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]