Talk:Blackwater (company)/Archive 1

I suggest this page be moved to the default page for "Blackwater" searches.

Right now there is a ridiculous disambiguation page. No one is searching for "Blackwater" as a geographical location. If they are, let them go to the disambiguation page. As it is, looking through that long list to find "Blackwater USA" is going to discourage those who don't know much about what is going on, and so may not have the time or even saavy to scan through such a long list. This seems fair.

I've added a duplicate entry to the top of the disambiguation page, with an explanation on the Talk page saying it should be removed later when Blackwater USA is no longer in the news. I think that is the best solution. Renaming this article to "Blackwater" would be too drastic, in my opinion. --RenniePet 12:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

purge of references to Jeremy Scahill's book

Previous edits of the Criticism section included Jeremy Scahill's book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (ISBN: 1560259795) . That reference has disappeared. What is up with that? HC21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The section on Scahill needs to be much more significant. Links need to be made to DemocracyNow.org, an easy search of the archives under Blackwater or Scahill should do. This is important, especially given any attempt to scrub this site of references to one of the group's strongest and most articulate critics (As mentioned below, "With your "contributions" to this article from your corporate IP range, you're currently NUMBER THREE on the list of Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs!"). Surely any reasonable person would grant the significance of his criticism, whatever your opinion. The greatest threat to the issue is that it be taken as a non-issue. Now who would want to see that happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.121.73 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

O.E.D. entry for 'mercenary' (1989, online revised 2nd edition)

A Mercenary is - Concerning a legal definition of mercenary, the Special Rapporteur's interim report to the General Assembly (A/55/334) provides information on, inter alia: mercenary. The report notes that the currently accepted meaning or use of the term primarily focusses on professional services that are paid to recruit soldiers to intervene in an armed conflict in a country other than their own. So before anyone tries to merge "contractors" with "mercenaries" there should be careful discussion on what services that company, who would be lumped into that category, has provided. SCG International Risk, for example, works only for the US Government and private US corporations.Ghostscg 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the definition of what is a mercenary seems to be in dispute... → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

mercenary, n. and a.

-forms:

• ME mercynary, mersenarie, mersenarye, ME-15 mercenarye, ME-16 mercenarie, 15 mercennary, mercionary, 15-16 mercinarie, mercinary, 15- mercenary, 16 mersenary;
• Sc. pre-17 mercenarye, pre-17 17- mercenary.

-definitions

• A. n.

• 1. A person who works merely for money or other material reward; a hireling. In later use (prob. influenced also by sense 2): a person whose actions are motivated primarily by personal gain, often at the expense of ethics.

c1387-95 CHAUCER Canterbury Tales Prol. 514 He [sc. the parson] was a shepherde and noght a mercenarye [v.r. mersenarye]. c1475 (a1449) LYDGATE Minor Poems (1911) I. 167 Pastor callid, nat a mercenarye. ?1548 J. BALE Comedy Thre Lawes Nature III. sig. C8v, We are soch mercenaryes... As from the flock all carryes. 1643 SIR T. BROWNE Relig. Medici I. §52 Mercenaries that crouch unto him in feare of Hell..are indeed but slaves of the Almighty. 1805 H. TOOKE Diversions of Purley II. 3 Punish the wickedness of those mercenaries who utter such atrocities. 1806 J. LINGARD Antiq. Anglo-Saxon Church II. xi. 258 The monastic institute was condemned, as calculated only for mercenaries and slaves. 1982 N.Y. Times (Nexis) 11 July II. 15 Mr Lucas's original intention was to ‘do the first one [sc. Star Wars film] and then be a real mercenary and turn it over to someone like Fox and take a big percentage of the gross’. 1998 Mirror (Nexis) 18 Dec. 49 When Everton came in for me two seasons ago, West Ham were in relegation trouble. If I'd been a real mercenary, I'd have cleared off and left them to it.

• 2. a. A person who receives payment for his or her services. Chiefly and now only: spec. a soldier paid to serve in a foreign army or other military organization.

1523 LD. BERNERS tr. J. Froissart Chron. I. ccv. 242 The Almaygnes, and mercenaryes of strange countreis. 1583 P. STUBBES Anat. Abuses II. sig. K7, The reading ministers after they be hired of the parishes (for they are mercenaries). 1638 G. SANDYS Paraphr. Job vii. 10 He a poore mercenary serves for bread. 1687 DRYDEN Hind & Panther II. 49 Like mercenary's, hir'd for home defence, They will not serve against their native Prince. 1776 T. JEFFERSON Wks. (1859) I. 23 He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries. 1840 R. BROWNING Sordello IV. 51 Lean silent gangs of mercenaries ceased Working to watch the strangers. 1849 G. GROTE Hist. Greece VII. II. lx. 438 Greeks continental and insular..volunteers and mercenaries..were all here to be found. 1913 G. EDMUNDSON Church Rome First Cent. vi. 169 The storming and burning of the Capitol by the foreign mercenaries of Vitellius. 1974 F. FORSYTH Dogs of War (1975) I. iv. 86 So for the last six years he had lived as a mercenary, often an outlaw, at best regarded as a soldier for hire, at worst a paid killer.

• b. In extended use, with modifying word.

1861 J. PYCROFT Ways & Words 285 Literary mercenaries, ready to serve under friend or foe. 1987 E. PRAGER Clea & Zeus Divorce (1988) v. 26 They wore their camouflage fatigues..and heavy boots and berets, like the show biz mercenaries they were.

• B. adj.

• 1. a. Of a person, organization, etc.: working or acting merely for money or other material reward; motivated by self-interest; materialistic.

1532 T. MORE Confut. Tyndale in Wks. 507/2 A mercennary preacher and an hired, which seketh his own temporal aduauntage & commoditie. 1600 SHAKESPEARE Merch. V. IV. i. 415 And I deliuering you, am satisfied, and therein doe account my selfe well payd, my minde was neuer yet more mercinarie. 1616 SIR R. DUDLEY in Fortescue Papers (Camden) 17 And that, whether you move this suite or noe, for I am not mercenarie. 1762 O. GOLDSMITH Citizen of World I. 45 Such wretches are kept in pay by some mercenary bookseller. 1843 Ainsworth's Mag. 4 308 Upon the ‘balance’,..women are quite as mercenary as men. 1865 DICKENS Our Mutual Friend II. III. iv. 31 Haven't I told you what a mercenary little wretch I am? 1955 A. WEST Heritage ii. 38, I should be put in a school where I would neither be exposed, nor tempted to expose myself, to the activities of mercenary and unscrupulous journalists. 1997 Dallas Morning News (Nexis) 20 Dec. 1A, Mr. Greene said he's heard skeptical comments that JPI only gave the city the property because it benefited from the deal. ‘They're not a mercenary organization.’

• b. Of conduct, a course of action, etc., or its motivation: characterized by self-interest or the pursuit of personal gain; prompted by the desire for money or other material reward; undertaken only for personal gain.

1532 T. MORE Confut. Tyndale in Wks. 362/2 They holde that it is not lawfull to loue..God..for obteining of reward, calling this maner of loue..seruile bonde and mercennary. 1619 H. HUTTON Follie's Anat. sig. A5v, Value my verse according to her worth: No mercenary hope hath brought her forth. 1690 W. TEMPLE Misc. II. i. 68 Learning has been so little advanced since it grew to be mercenary. 1711 LD. SHAFTESBURY Characteristicks (1737) I. II. iii. 97 They have made Virtue so mercenary a thing, and have talk'd so much of its Rewards. 1781 W. COWPER Hope 333 His soul abhors a mercenary thought, And him as deeply who abhors it not. 1837 H. MARTINEAU Society in Amer. III. 128 The disgusting spectacle of mercenary marriages. 1861 DICKENS Let. 6 Nov. (1938) III. 251 They are all old servants,..and..are under the strongest injunction to avoid any approach to mercenary dealing. 1890 H. JAMES Tragic Muse I. xiii. 273, I might improve my fortune by some other means than by making a mercenary marriage. 1913 T. HARDY Changed Man 275 No man when he first becomes interested in a woman has any definite scheme of engagement to marry her in his mind, unless he is meaning a vulgar mercenary marriage. 1971 I. MURDOCH Accidental Man 150 We are glad to know that you did not learn of the young lady's fortune before you courted her, though we are in any case aware that you are above any mercenary motive. 1990 G. ROBERTSON Media Law 17 The law of England is indeed,..a law of liberty; but the freedoms it recognises do not include a licence for the mercenary betrayal of business confidences.

• 2. a. Hired, serving for wages. Now: spec. designating a soldier paid to serve in a foreign army or other military organization; (of an army) composed of such soldiers.

1569 T. STOCKER tr. Diodorus Siculus' Hist. Successors Alexander 105 Aboute two thousand Mercenarie Grekes, and so many Thracians. 1589 R. GREENE Ciceronis Amor 52 A simple sheepeharde who as a Mercinarie man kept sheepe for Vatinius. 1590 J. SMYTHE Certain Disc. Weapons 49b, They..began..to go ouer to serue as mercenarie soldiers in the Low Countries. 1611 T. CORYATE Crudities I. 171 Of these Gondolaes..sixe thousand are priuate..and foure thousand for mercenary men, which get their liuing by the trade of rowing. 1640 I. WALTON Life of Donne in J. Donne 80 Serm. A6 He continued that employment.., being daily usefull (and not mercenary) to his friends. 1795 W. SEWARD Anecd. (1796) III. 382 Lord Chatham was obliged to call in to its aid the mercenary troops of other Nations: these..he subsidised with a liberal..hand. 1830 LADY MORGAN France 1829-30 I. 502 For what purpose is all this apparatus of tyranny..the jail, the gibbet, the mercenary army, [etc.]{em}to obtain the power of doing evil. 1871 E. A. FREEMAN Hist. Norman Conquest IV. xviii. 233 William at this time dismissed the mercenary part of his army. 1910 Encycl. Brit. I. 31/2 Abd-ar-rahman subdued the nobles by means of a mercenary army, which included Christians. 1974 J. PHILIPS Power Killers (1975) I. i. 9 There is a well organized..terror group that involves mercenary killers all over the world.

• † b. Salaried, stipendiary; profit-making. Obs.

1656 T. STANLEY Hist. Philos. (new ed.) VI. xv. 27 He shut up his poor shop, and gave over his mercenary profession. a1684 J. EVELYN Diary anno 1664 (1955) III. 369, I saw acted the Indian Queene a Tragedie..so beautified with rich Scenes as the like had never ben seene..on a mercenarie Theater. 1726 J. AYLIFFE Parergon 319 Such Things..the Judge may despatch by his mercenary Office. 1782 T. PENNANT Journey Chester to London 96 These livings at that time were good rectories; now poor vicarages, or mercenary curacies, annexed to the bishoprick.

• 3. Of or belonging to a mercenary.

a1616 SHAKESPEARE Hen. V (1623) IV. vii. 74 Many of our Princes..Lye drown'd and soak'd in mercenary blood. 1735 J. THOMSON Liberty II. 38 To spill Their Country's bravest blood, and on themselves To turn their matchless mercenary Arms. 1758 J. HOME Agis II. i. 22 Tell..Rhesus, if he loves bright arms..No more to wield a mercenary sword, But plant himself with thee in Sparta's soil. 1922 A. E. HOUSMAN in Oxf. Bk. 20th Cent. Eng. Verse (1973) 48 These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling And took their wages and are dead.

Duplicate entry

An article at "Backwater training centre" was being prodded; I removed the PROD and redirected it here. The content doesn't seem to be completely redundant, so I'm reproducing it here:

1 Blackwater training centre

The Blackwater training centre is a private security company that specialises in training security personnel.

1.1 General

Founded in 1997 by former US Navy Seal and current CEO Erik Prince the purpose of backwater is to provide additional training to civil and military security personnel as opposed to providing complete security training for a recruit or novice. located in North Carolina Blackwater is the largest training facility in the world at an astonishing 6000 acres with more than 20 target Rangers equipped with computerised target movement systems.

1.2 Facilities

The more than 20 target ranges include the world's only privately owned 1200 yard firing range Forsyth rifle training and can be concrete reinforced for 50 calibre or Gatling gun training and is often performed from the side of the recreation helicopter. There is also the "reactive steel" firing range. This range provides pop-up steel plate targets which can be configured to appear in a variety of sequences and timings in day and night scenarios.

One of the largest firing ranges is the "are you ready high school" contains Hall's, classrooms, mannequins of students and hostile targets for critical incident training that is primarily themed on a high school shooting scenario. The high school consists of video and audio recording for post exercise evaluation as well as moving walls for a variety of floor plans to provide diverse training that forces the students to adapt their skills.

--maru (talk) contribs 06:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words they may not fit the legal definition of what a mercenary is to the military but, are mercenaries, according to the literal meaning of the word. (StarkeRealm 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Oblivion

Someone managed to claim that Bethesda Softworks stooped so low as to include contemporary political satire in their fantasy game Oblivion. In this game, there is a mercenary company named the Blackwood Company which pursue unethical acts. What the author failed to realise, is that the company is named after the region in the game in which they base their operations, the Blackwood forest. The fictional world of this forest precedes Blackwater USA by three years. Joffeloff 23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if Blackwood is a place name in earlier games in the Elder Scrolls region, this does not mean that there was no satire intended. The world of these games is very detailed and has a large number of place names. "Blackwood" is a very generic fantasy name, I would not be surprised to see it in many other fantasy settings. They could have easily chosen that area because the name was close to Blackwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.76.48 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Blackwater organisation is also named after a geographic trait in the region (Blackwater Creek), the symbol the company uses is also used because there are a number of Black Bears on the property. (Bears paw in the crosshairs.) Izzy1985 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Miscalculation?

the Line: Blackwater USA consists of five companies: is followed by six lines of "subcompanies"... whats right? 5 or 6? --87.193.35.4 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what date should be used for when blackwater was found: the company website uses 1996 as the genesis of the operation, as did the Wikipedia page prior to my edit. During the congressional hearing over Reconstruction is Iraq on Wednesday, the 7th of February, the General Council for Blackwater said the company was founded in 1997. No real concensus on what year to use for foundation. BarabasKid 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bush Campaign Contributions

On a broadcast of Democracy Now, they mentioned that the founders of Blackwater were big contributors to Bush/ Cheney's election campaign. Do you think this is worth putting in the article? --Jml4000 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes put it there.. or place the reference here please.Cheers -- maxrspct ping me 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic entry on a company. Do we normally list the campaign contributions on articles about companies? This seems POV to me. — Linnwood (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important if the Company primarily profits from war or armed conflict, especially since they have played major roles in the current war in Iraq. --Jml4000 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important if the Company primarily profits from (Insert Government Action), especially since they have played major roles in the (Insert Government Policy) I mean you could fit that statement to any company that has people who donate to political campaigns. I fail to see how Blackwater USA is diffrent than any other organization (corporation, labor union, charity) in that way. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a company profiting off of say, a highway or school being built by the federal government, and a company that profits off the bloodshed of human beigns. When Dick Cheney left the office of Secretary of defense under Bush 1, he hired a firm called Kellog Brown and Root (a subsidiary of halliburton) to brainstorm ways of how to privatize the U.S. military. This is the "revolution in military affairs" that's brought up many times by the Project for the New American Century. --147.144.1.251 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless you have some sort of allegation about corruption, there is no difference. For all we know the founders of Blackwater USA contributed to Bush/Cheney '04 because they are big supporters of school choice or any other GOP plank. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was offered as a criticism by Democracy Now! there's no reason to exclude it from the article, as long as it is sourced and under the appropriate heading. The same would be true of any other company with a publicly-alleged conflict of interest. Aelffin 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aelffin. Perhaps the best place to note the contributions to Republican candidates by Prince and Jackson is under the section dealing with personnel, where their names are mentioned. The extant connections between the current government administration and this company through personnel exchanges are further justification for acknowledging a publicly-alleged conflict of interest--i.e. current vice president, Cofer Black, is the former coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department and former director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, and Joseph Schmitz, current COO of the Prince Group, Blackwater's parent company, was previously the Pentagon's Inspector General. There should be some acknowledgment of these relationships. Mcwabaunsee 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If conflict of interest is mentioned, it seems to be part of the corporate culture. Cofer Black is now counterterrorism advisor on the Romney campaign staff. ----Rawkcuf.

The campaign contributions were done by Erik Prince, and should be mentioned in his part of the personnel section. Their relevance to the company does not warrant its own section. Arkalochori 22:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Blackwater!

With your "contributions" to this article from your corporate IP range, you're currently NUMBER THREE on the list of Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs!

Are you having trouble reading? The article clearly says Dow Chemical. They manufacture chemicals, they are not military or security contractors. Arkalochori 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dow Chemical manufactured Agent Orange for the U.S. Military during the Vietnam War. (I think the list is constantly changing.) --Howrealisreal 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater History in Al Najaf, Iraq (April 2004) - creative but not true.

Blackwater's creative history of what happended in Al Najaf, Iraq in April 2004 is interesting but not completely true. As an eyewitness of the events that transpired in April 2004 in Al Najaf, here is the rest of the story: A team of Marines from 4th ANGLICO, attached to MND-CS, arrived on Al Ándalus to assist in repelling the attack by Al Sadr's Militia which lasted almost the entire month of April. The ANGLICO Marines were also joined by SSgt Allen Truesdale who was attached to a unit training the ICDC (Iraqi Civil Defense Corps). Upon their arrival at the base, the ANGLICO Marines exposed themselves to enemy fire while establishing a communication plan with the Spanish headquarters, the CPA headquarters, and an element from the MND headquarters. The ANGLICO Marines (SSgt Derrick Leath, Sgt Justin Foley, Sgt Luis Hernandez, Sgt Halain Suarez, Cpl Jeff Dusch, and Cpl Fahim Mortazavi) and SSgt Truesdale established an obervation post to maintain a view of the surrounding area and began coordinating Close Air Support to include Apaches, F-14s, F-18s, Hueys, etc. While directing aircraft to areas of interest the Marines receivied incoming enemy fire from Al Sadr Hospital which was a taller building on the perimeter of the base.

The Marines changed observation posts on several occasions to gain the best vantage point of the battlefield. After several days of no sleep, the ANGLICO team worked twenty-four hour operations with a two man watch. During this time, the ANGLICO team controlled a C-130 Gunship, Slayer 75, onto a vehicle after their position was attacked with RPG fire. Additionally, the ANGLICO Marines cleared the delivery of a 500lb bomb, with no collateral damage, on a building killing several combatants while. The ANGLICO team also directed the Spanish sniper team on the engagement of enemy combatants and controlled over twenty CAS missions.

It is curious, that Blackwater would leave out such an important factor in the April, 2004 defense of Najaf. Maybe it was because one of their own spray painted the ANGLICO vehicle and received the beat down of his life for showing such disrespect to a team of Marines who had been fighting along side of them for weeks.

SSgt Derrick Leath and SSgt Allen Truesdale won a Bronze Star with "V", Sgt Foley and Sgt Suarez won a Navy Commendation Medal with "V", and Sgt Hernandez, Cpl Dusch, and Cpl Mortazavi earned a Navy Achievement Medal with "V" for their actions in defending the garrison. The statement that "the U.S. military had declared the city unsafe and would not risk inserting U.S. troops" is a lie. I was there and witnessed the bravery of these Marines who have more than earned the right to be recognized as they lived up to the traditions set by Marines before them and weren't earning six figures doing their job. source: http://anglico.net/news_040929.php G8rlawdog 13:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Border Jail???

I am pretty sure that the border jail paragraph (currently the last paragraph in Controversy and Critisms) is not true, but I can't prove that. Is there anything to back that up? Tmaull 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Arkalochori 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A non-user reinstated it. So I redeleted it. Tmaull 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate Section on Involvement in Iraq

Most of the History and Controversy sections of this article are dedicated to information concerning the current Iraq war. It seems like a good idea to establish a separate section dealing with the role Blackwater plays in Iraq (how many employees, what kinds of missions, etc.) and criticism concerning this role (lawsuits, company's response to employee deaths in Iraq, etc.). Or, if the information about Blackwater's activities elsewhere, in Azerbaijan, for example, can be expanded, then a section pertaining to Iraq could fall under that larger category. Mcwabaunsee 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea. Tmaull 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Iraq Involvement" section there is a dramatic passage concerning Blackwater's defense of the U.S. base in Najaf. The section should be rewritten more objectively. In addition to that, information concerning other incidents of Blackwater misconduct (in addition to the one already discussed), legal battles, the number of Blackwater employees in Iraq, and the extent of government funding, should also be included.Mcwabaunsee 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Facilities

Has anyone geo coordinates? I would like to check if there is anything visible on google earth... sounds interessting. --Nemissimo 10:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I found their driving track on google earth at 36°27'28.71"N, 76°12'6.67"W Tmaull 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Summary

I think we should avoid including current events in an article summary. I know people are desperately eager to be the first to add breaking news to an article, but it's going to look ridiculous in a couple of years time when this information is still in the article summary even though by then it'll just be distant blip in the company's history.

Also, if 20 more things happen to the country in the next couple of years, are we supposed to put ALL this info in the article summary? If so, why bother having the summary at all if it's just becoming longer and longer?

I'm removing this information from the article summary for now because it looks ridiculous. 195.99.220.2 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A small amount of current information seems appropriate while it is ongoing, but I haven't been around the article as long so I won't reinsert.. --69.218.58.110 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is generally a summary of the article that follows - all of it. If the coverage of recent events is considerable, it warrants at least cursory mention in the lead. MrZaius^talk 14:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater USA arms smuggling

Is there enough to fork that off, yet, into it's own article? • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Once the House committee hearing on Blackwater is over in a week or so, I expect there will be ton of new, credible information on Blackwater's controversial activities that could be used to support several spin-off articles. I've already added some new references to the reference list for anyone who wants to run with it. Cla68 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and began Blackwater USA arms smuggling. There are still another 5-10 sources I haven't used yet, and that is just through today. Once more comes out, as you said, it will only grow even further still. • Lawrence Cohen 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are so many facts missing on Blackwater in this article?

During a Govt. House oversight committee session headed up by Waxman Oct. 2nd, 20007, the question was directly asked to the CEO of Blackwater, who manages a smattering of personell compared to General Petraus' thousands, what his salary is compared to the General. According to the CEO himself, he is being paid (via American taxpayers) around 9 to 10 times what the General is paid although he manages a paltry fraction of people. Also, estimated profits were mentioned as well... mulitple millions of dollars? Of course, the CEO who laughably claimed during the hearing that he "doesn't care" about money said he didn't know what the specific profits were of his company and said since Blackwater is a privately held company they didn't feel the need to let the American people know what their profits were anyway. Basically, he admitted Blackwater is a rogue, anti-American taxmoney-sucking entity. I think the least we can do for those seeking facts on Wikipeida is mention estimated Blackwater profits, salaries, etc. that are being paid by the American taxpayer. It's the right thing to do.... and THAT'S how it is. Sorry, I'm a bit furious right now when the traitors to our country are called "heros". Real heros don't milk American taxpayers, real heros don't run, scurry and hide when light is shown upon them. Real heros fight for America, not profit. ($*&$&ing bastards. Cowicide 07:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold and fix it. Limit your additions to well-cited neutral text, however, or it may be boldly removed. There is mention, however, of costs in at least one of the two daughter articles to this (I believe it's the arms smuggling one). MrZaius^talk 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly too furious to be neutral right now and hope someone with a cooler head can take an unbiased look at this. Maybe later when (and if I ever) cool down, I'll attempt it. Cowicide 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't honestly add neutral text to the article, just add your sources to the references/external links list and someone else will do it. Cla68 08:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Or at the very least they'll be there for when you do cool down. I'm registered (R) and got that ticked after reading this Rolling Stone piece that I called my Republican congressman and requested he move towards impeachment. It wore off after a couple of weeks. Oh, the opiates of the masses. You'll be fine with editing again in a couple days. MrZaius^talk 08:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In the News nomination for main page

I've nominated these articles for In The News on the front page of Wikipedia, and it appears to have some support. • Lawrence Cohen 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured on Wikipedia ITN on front page, 10/3/07, expect some vandalism... • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince Group

Prince Group currently redirects here, but isn't mentioned at all in the article. My understanding is that Prince Group predates Blackwater USA, though, being founded by Erik Prince's father as an automotive company, so perhaps it should have a separate article. It seems the automotive part has since been sold off, but Prince Manufacturing still remains one of the Group's major holdings besides Blackwater. --Delirium 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews

Unless I'm missing something, both of the Wikinews links are straight to the WN front page, rather than the articles themselves. 138.38.151.17 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockdown, add current events tag

I don't know the Wikipedia tags for the Current Events template,, but this page is clearly involving current events and will be susceptible to edit wars and arguments with political motivations. I suggest it is locked down or at least noted as current events. 68.1.79.246 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And how is it current? Miranda 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article as current due to the congressional hearings. Miranda 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No Matter what anyone thinks of Blackwater, this article is so monumentally imbalanced that is should go into the Wikipedia Hall Of Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.180.79 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I just read this article for the first time, and am hugely impressed by its quality - as well as being extremely detailed, I think it does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. I think it should be nominated for GA status when the current speed of edits slows down and it approaches something like stability. (Not that I think it should be locked; I see no evidence that vandalism and/or edit-warring on this page has reached the point where the costs of semi-protection would be outweighed by the benefits.) Terraxos 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source w/ interpretation of the Geneva Convention definition

Regarding the search for a secondary source interpretation of the Geneva convention definition of "mercenary", my recollection is that PW Singer's book Corporate Warriors is good on this point. --Pleasantville 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chiliean bit is kind of hanging at the moment. Because we're talking about a restrictive definition of mercenary without any context of why this matters. I had planned to remove it, then I was planning to hide it but decided to leave it for now but it would be good if someone could find a good secondary source for this. I didn't add the original section just moved it to the intro Nil Einne 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The chilians

Thanks for rv yourself Nil Einne, the presence of these chilian nationals is i believe very important to the arguement as to if blackwater are mercs. They are mentioned by many sources, what do you want this section to say and why Nil? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the Chilean nationals employees of Blackwater or are they subcontractors working for Blackwater? There is a difference. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There would be no difference, and there's no reason to believe they're subcontracted anyway, in fact Scahill says otherwise in his interviews. Niczar 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the euphemisms used as terminology for the Guys With Guns providing private sector military force in Iraq is "security contractors." These "contractors" are employees of private military companies. The companies are the contractors, not the individuals, for the most part. My understanding is that the Chileans and other non-US citizen working under Blackwater' name in Iraq are employees with fairly stringent employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements, etc., to show for it. --Pleasantville 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have described above why I believe this section is a problem at the moment. Basically with the removal of the technical definition of the law bit, it's not clear to most readers why the fact that they are Chileans is relevant. Personally I don't give a damn whether they're Chileans or Americans, they're all merceneries. Clearly however there are reasons why it matters but this isn't clear in the current context. Indeed as I said above we currently say they fit even the most restrictive definition of merceneries without describing what this restrictive definition is. Note that we already mention there are Chileans, Filipinos and Bosnians in an earlier part. This part is fine. It's only the part under controversy and criticism that is a problem at the current time Nil Einne 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chileans have been a source of controversy for several reasons: (1) They undermine Blackwater's claim that the firm's employees are not mercenaries using one def or another; (2) Their hiring invokes Pinochet-era Chile and brings with it the taint of fascism, death squads, etc.; (3) Guys with guns hired by private military companies from places like Chile tend to be paid less and work in poorer conditions than their American counterparts. --Pleasantville 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found no mention of sub-contracting to anyone else, would'nt really matter, they are paying for mercs as opposed to hireing them directly in that case. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC) PS can EVERYONE on this page take a chill pill! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See also . . .

I see that someone has added Executive Outcomes to the See also list. EO is much more closely related to BW's competitor Aegis, so I'm not sure this is appropriate. Maybe we need a list of comparable firms? Or is that covered by categories? --Pleasantville 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd think categories would be enough. Or else the See Also will be huge. • Lawrence Cohen 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters photograph - fair use query

On this article, I found an image of their main headquarters. As the building is heavily secured in a 7,000 acre complex with armed guards, and all reports in other sources indicating that photography is disallowed, a free photograph is highly unlikely to be found. Would this then count as fair use? • Lawrence Cohen 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content. There are 2 issues of distinct here.

• Are photos used under fair use allowed for this instance? If it's resonable to expect a free alternative can be found then it's nearly always no. If it's not then the next question is how important is a photo to illustrate something in the article? Fair use photos aren't simply used because they're decrative or look nice (amongst other things this affects the legal rights to use said photo under fair use). If the training facility is being discussed in a resonable amount of detail in the article and the photo is essential to give the reader and understanding of what it looks like then a fair use photo may be okay but if not probably not IMHO.
• More importantly is that from what I can tell (the website appears down) the above link is to a media site. Photos from media sources are nearly always disallowed because they don't fit the legal requirements for fair use as media sources usually involved in the business of commercially licensing their photos. Media photos are only used when the photo is so iconic that it's considered not harmful. So even if a fair use photo is acceptable in this context the above photo would probably not be. A photo from the Blackwater website or something is perhaps where you should start

Nil Einne 23:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also asked at WikiProject North Carolina to see if someone can get us an illustrative photo of the entrance to their building at 850 Puddin Ridge Way, for this article. • Lawrence Cohen 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mercenary company"

After a US Navy owned IP removed the mercenary tag again, I have re-added it, with five international sources. Google news archive searches, and regular Googling, turn up several dozen more. I suggest that any other removals of this internationally accepted fact be reversed as vandalism. • Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an "internationally accepted fact" simply because antiwar activists or people opposed to the Bush administration around the world refer to PMCs like Blackwater as mercenaries. There are many other reliable sources which refer to Blackwater with terms other than Mercenary. Walterego 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Arkalochori reworded the mercenary usage under NPOV, and that IP from today RV'd it. Let's discuss it here. I think having multiple reliable sources reporting on them as a mercenary organization is sufficient to list them as such, in the lead and in the infobox. While Blackwater doesn't list themselves as mercenaries, they do not get to decide that and their take on it doesn't matter. Thoughts? • Lawrence Cohen 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been a sudden shift in the press's vocabulary concerning PMCs. Until recently, private security companies operating in Iraq were, for the most part, not referred to as mercenaries but rather as "security contractors" or some such. This has changed very suddenly because of recent events. See, for example, Mario Loyola in The National Review, "Mercenaries vs. Counterinsurgency". Though there have been previous discussions on the choice of terms, I think it needs to be revisited in light of the change in press vocabulary. --Pleasantville 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted his edits because it was his lack of sources vs. your multiple sources. You have provided enough evidence for Blackwater to be classified as a mercenary company(although I believe that is common sense in the first place, apparently not everyone accepts it).--68.149.181.145 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PMCs' PR departments work hard to avoid the label. (See the documentary Shadow Company for a good treatment of this issue.) There are distinctions between previous business models and the current post-Executive Outcomes/Sandline model, which is what allows for the definitional wiggle room. Whether or not they are described as mercenaries doesn't really change what they do. I find it telling that the press definition of mercenary is in process of expansion to accommodate 21st century business practices. --Pleasantville 23:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the view of the company who is covered by an article get any say in how we list them? I.e., if the company never goes off message and refers to themselves as "a hair salon", but everyone else is referring to them as "a barber shop", who do we go by? • Lawrence Cohen 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the PMC industry got some cooperation from the press on this point. --Pleasantville 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to the press, Blackwater passively misled them about their exact function from the beginning. They always claim to be providing "security services" or "protection", and refer to their employees as "contractors". None of those words accurately describe what the kind of services Blackwater really performs. Then again, the company has been remarkably unorganized and their employees have had committed numerous acts of random violence since the invasion of Iraq, so it is shameful that the media hasn't been entirely truthful about them until now. --Sawyerkaufman 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, the reports of naming the nature of Blackwater's business do not read as contradictory to me, but rather just alternate/supplemental. If some sources call them private security contractors, some call them private military, and some call them mercenaries (a growing trend), there is no reason we cannot refer to them as all three, as all three are accurate. Hence, I think my five-time sourced inclusion ought to stand. They are a mercenary company, such as has been reported by exemplary sources. If not every source calls them that, that is fine too. I think the opening line of

"Blackwater USA is a private military company, security firm and mercenary company, founded in 1997 by Erik Prince and Al Clark."

Is completely fair and balanced for NPOV thus. Thoughts? • Lawrence Cohen 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds NPOV to me, but the issue I have is that it sounds redundant, since the terms "private military" and "mercenary" are more or less synonymous, IMO. --Sawyerkaufman 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If they were entirely synonymous, no one would have been using the term "private military" in the first place. --Pleasantville 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are very correct, they are mostly synonymous, but they each have a little bit of slant inherant. They mean essentially the same thing, it's just that people percieve the word "mercenary" more negatively than the term "private military". The open sentence just seems a little awkward to me. I'd think that something along the lines of "Blackwater USA is a self-described private "military company and security firm" founded in 1997 by Erik Prince and Al Clark. It has alternatively been described as a "mercenary organization" by numerous sources." followed by the links would be preferable. I am not really opposed to the current opening, I just think it could be cleaned up a little. --Sawyerkaufman 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The synonym for "private military" would be "militia", not mercenary. A mercenary is a foreign private military. WalteregoWalterego 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sawyerkaufman's above wording, NPOV means we include both points of view. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, so we're all in basic agreement that mercenary stays in, but my awkward and clunky wording just needs adjustment. Who is a good copyeditor? I'm so-so. :) • Lawrence Cohen 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just realized it was already redone. Is the current wording alright? • Lawrence Cohen 02:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no offense. It was great of you to gather all the links. I just felt the wording could be improved, not that your editing was crap or anything. I like this wording better because it not only avoids possible redundancy but it addresses the semantical issue that many people are debating regarding Blackwaters status. --Sawyerkaufman 05:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, I know my limits, and I know I'm not a great writer. I just Google well. • Lawrence Cohen 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The terms "security contractor" and "private military contractor" were coined to intentionally muddy the waters. Culturally, Western Civilization has some very strong opinions on the subject of mercenaries. However people have much less strong opinions on bank security guards, and folks the military subcontracts food service to. The terms that are alternatives to "mercenary" tend to be waffle words. --Pleasantville 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia guideline seems to be WP:WEASEL. --Pleasantville 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While on the subject of definitions, do the Blackwater people count as civilians or not? I'm trying to understand the difference between a private military contractor and an unlawful combatant. (No, really! English isn't my native language, so I'm having serious difficulties telling the difference between them.) 62.181.255.64 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Legally, I'm not sure. Blackwater themselves certainly will have no worth or value in their opinions, and I would understand that the United States also does not get to decide this (they can state an opinion, but opinions are not binding on any foreign government). They don't get to decide. I imagine it is a function of what the United Nations and Iraqi government decide, as they are a sovereign nation and get to set their own domestic laws on such matters, while this likely has a part in international (UN) law. What do the Reliable Sources say? I never looked this up. • Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

CPA is what set the rules blackwater opperate under, the democratically elected government of iraq can change those rules (i think) but that would also open up US military to criminal charges in iraq as the protection covers all american citizens working for the CPA or iraqi government. Mercs are unlawful combatants, wether blackwater are mercs (i vote yes) is a legal argument but that should be enough for anyone to lock them up in cuba for 5 years without a trial. I'm of to ask someone in the know. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Even by the strictest standards, the non-American Blackwater employees that perform combat duties ARE mercenaries. Whether their American counterparts are or not is more up to debate. I agree with Pleasantville that the termonology employed by Blackwater was specifically coined as a sugar-coated alternative to mercenary, and I believe the terms are practically interchangable except for bias. 62.181.255.64, don't worry about your English skills, most native English speakers are a little confused over the terms themselves. Since it is still contentious, I think the current wording in the article is appropriate. --Sawyerkaufman 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sawyerkaufman that the Americans working for Blackwater aren't mercenaries under the UN conventions, and as well as that Blackwater works in several other countries in which the US isn't a party to the conflict making all their staff there qualify as mercenariesTicklemygrits 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater in fiction

Trying to add the following text, but people keep deleting it claiming it is unsourced. Notice that the two embeded external links point to the sources. What is wrong with it?

Fans of CBS drama series Jericho believe that the fictional company Ravenwood_Security is modeled after Blackwater USA. The theory triggered a heavy discussion about patriotism but the real world connection between the fictional company and Blackwater haven't been disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.159.61 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: The section keeps being removed without proper arguments. I must assume that the moderators do not want Blackwater look bad by being compared to a fictional villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.159.61 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Attorneys & PR firms

We should probably have a section for the attorneys & PR firms helping them through their difficulties. See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5io26XfEe4F4LJr8KxWsRUyjO_SbwD8S34P3O0

What should it be called? Representation? --Pleasantville 19:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a representation section. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Krongard vs. Waxman ?!?

This is interesting: allegations that the State Dept's Inspector General Howard Krongard has threatened to fire anyone from his office who testify in Henry Waxman's Congressional investigation.

An Uncertain Fate for the Whistleblowers Who Took on State Department's Inspector General by Brian Beutler, Mother Jones, October 5, 2007: "The Blackwater investigation has fueled controversy about military contractors' abuses in Iraq. But it has also raised questions about where government whistleblowers can turn for protection."

See also this letter by Waxman: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070918105806.pdf

Where would this fit in to the current article structure? Should it perhaps be added to the section on the Congressional investigation?--Pleasantville 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations and Howard Krongard, which I've begun building up. All the material except any today (didn't look) that is available. I believe thats all. • Lawrence Cohen 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for better sourcing overnight, 10/5/07-10/6/07

• In the History section: "In each case, Blackwater received a no-bid contract. Overall, the company has received over one billion dollars in government contracts." is queried with "Where in this citation is there a reference to this fact, much less to question the source of the citation". These claims are widely repeated and this should be easy to clear up.
• in the section Iraq involvement, "In 2006, Blackwater won the remunerative contract to protect the U.S. embassy in Iraq, which is the largest American embassy in the world. It is estimated by the Pentagon and company representatives that there are 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, and some estimates are as much as 100,000, though no official figures exist." Is queried with "The first citation makes no mention of the figure 100,000. The second citation makes note of 20 - 30 thousand armed contractors and a total of 100,000 contractors. Poster assumes all of the 100,000 are armed." If I recall correctly some of these figures are from congressional testimony, and there is a comment accessible via Google News from IPOA rep Doug Brooks quibbling with the specifics. Again, this should be easy to clear up.
• "Approximately six hundred former Chilean soldiers are currently hired by the USA to carry on military assignments, most of them motivated by the relatively high salaries." was removed because the source is not in English. Can we replace it? Also the issue was raised as to to whether the Chileans are "active combattants." It seems to me the real issue is whether they are armed, since Blackwater goes far out of its way to portray ALL of its employees as people who respond with force ONLY when attacked. UPDATE: DONE

--Pleasantville 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater killings

I was talking to a marine who was in Iraq (I don't know where), and his patrol witnessed Blackwater employees kill a little girl unprovoked, and the patrol arrested them on the spot. I asked him if it was an isolated incident, and he said "no, they do it all the time" and that these blackwater employees just go unlucky to have done it in the presence of a patrol. I'm sure he was exaggerating with "all the time" and probably meant that they are just known to do it. I know there was a video on the internet of some anonymous security contractors (not sure if they were Blackwater) taking pot-shots at cars on a freeway.

The fact that the marine who told me this was very conservative, of the mindset that "we shouldn't be in Iraq, we should just blow the f'in place up" and isn't the type to make up tall tales, and along with the fact that there was video released I'm inclined to believe there is something to what he said.

I would never add this to the article unless I could get it from a reliable published source. But I figure there has to be something published about it. That video was on the news for a while. Someone had to have investigated it. If a good source explaining the phenemenon could be found I think it would be good to add the info to the article. Brentt 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a good story. I'm going to email it to all my friends! 129.92.250.41

I have seen the video, the security contractors are not taking "pot-shots" at cars, they are firing warning shots to alert cars that they are coming too close to the Blackwater convoy and will be fired on directly if they get any closer. This is not done callously, but to prevent suicide car bomb attackers from detonating next to the convoy. Walterego 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be true...but as a standard operating procedure the men and women operating under blackwater are liable for war crimes and courtmartials under both united states military codes of conduct and the geneva convention. I'll Tell you one thing, if any black water employees openly admit their alegance to that company in Our Country (USA) I will arrest them on the spot and take them to Abu Garb Myself...not a threat...a promise. Remember this: "Dead Men Learn not from their Mistakes" --THe Hare 8/oct/2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.100.189 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not done callously, you're having a laugh aren't you. I've seen the video too more than one car veers off the road. One even slows down(in my opinion as if the driver has been killed or at least seriously injured) then veers off and hits another car, then the perpetrators have a good laugh about it. If thats not callous I don't know what is. I also wish to add a warning shot IS a pot shot, if live ammunition isn't fired at and stopped by a specific target, it keeps going until it either runs out of momentum and ends up on the ground, hits a solid object and either stops or richochets into something else, "accidentally" hits somebody minding their own business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be protected?

The Blackwater USA page seems to be experiencing a high level of vandalism from unregistered users. Should we request that the page be protected for a short period of time? --Pleasantville 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote yes. Tmaull 02:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not unless anyone says something really stupid like "Black tar heroin turns into blackwater when it is made ready for injection." That'd be bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.163.71 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll request it. Good idea. • Lawrence Cohen 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to this older message, thinking it was new. Oops. • Lawrence Cohen 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ebird.afis.mil ?

Pardon my ignorance and/or my paranoia, but what the heck is ebird.afis.mil? I can see that most of the links under "External links and references" are to this web site. At the moment these links do not work. (I assume they have worked previously...) As for my paranoia, why should it be necessary to go to an American web server run by the US military to read articles about Blackwater? Can friends of Blackwater in the military be collecting IP addresses for cross-referencing with other IP address sources to maybe profile those who are anti-military? Should I consider hiring a private security service to protect me from the, uh, no that probably isn't a good idea...   :-(   --RenniePet 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thought just struck me. Is is possible that ebird.afis.mil only accepts connections from American IP addresses? If so, then this article is crippled for all non-Americans due to the use of these links. (I seem to vaguely recall something from many years ago where the American military had closed off access to non-American connections on some web servers after having been hacked from Switzerland, or something silly.) --RenniePet 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, my second thought was correct - I'm being blocked! At my office I simply got "Page can not be shown", but now on my home PC I get the following:

EARLY BIRD

Accessed from Non-military Networks

---

We are unable to verify that your computer is in the military network (.mil) domain. Please see the assistance page if your computer is actually in the .mil domain.

If you are a U.S. Servicemember, member of the Ready Reserve, or DoD employee, you may access Early Bird regardless of your location or network domain (for example, from home) by providing your Social Security number and Date of Birth in Early Bird login page located at DMDC.

Continue to the Early Bird Login page.

Can Americans in general use those links? Is it Wikipedia policy to use links that non-Americans can't use? --RenniePet 00:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. Cla68 added the first ones here I just found, I had to backtrack quite a ways for that. I'll ask him what is up with that on his talk page. • Lawrence Cohen 06:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't realize those links were restricted, because they didn't have a .mil tag. Since those articles are from major publications, there should be other links to them available from more commercial sites. I won't use the Early Bird site as the link anymore. Cla68 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed all the links now so that they should now work for everybody. Cla68 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --RenniePet 09:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whereas I have, occasionally, accessed some .mil addresses, it seems that they are not always blocked. It seems that one possibility is, if a discrepancy is suspected, employ a machine that is not likely to have ever been registered to whichever website.

Many libraries seem to rinse the caches frequently.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:BlackwaterUSA

I updated Template:BlackwaterUSA a bit just now. Posting here to advertise that--what else would be appropriate for inclusion on the template? • Lawrence Cohen 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection request

I've asked for very long term to permanent semi-protection for what is now an ultra high-profile article, given it's subject matter. The request is here, please weigh in with any support. • Lawrence Cohen 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personnel?

It just struck me that "Personnel" is a funny heading for a section that talks about the top executives. How about Executives, Management or Leadership? Incidentally, Robert Richer is no longer with Blackwater, at least not directly. [1] --RenniePet 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers?

How many blackwater in Iraq? How many private military contractors total? Are these numbers anywhere?

IIRC, it's on the Iraq War page. Kensai Max 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add some numbers to the opening section that defines what Blackwater is--i.e. roughly how many people they train per year, and who their major clients are. Mcwabaunsee 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Total number of employees is basic information one would expect to find here. Is this information available somewhere? --RenniePet 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found numbers for DOD contractors in Iraq. I'll add it to the lead I thinkTicklemygrits 10:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since they're a private company, that is the best you'll get, unless it somehow ends up in Congressional records or leaked. In the US, once a company gets over a given size (400? 500?) employees they are required to go public, with full financial disclosures. I don't think it's a coincidence that all their mercenaries/security types are contractors. I would imagine the number of actual employees is rather law, but we will be utterly hard pressed to find records indicating that. • Lawrence Cohen 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, the numbers are from a congressional report. I'm pretty sure those are only for Iraq and only for the department of state. No DOD contracts are included. I'll see if I need to clarify thatTicklemygrits 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Creditable Sources & References for Citation

"Erik Prince's Blackwater suing the families of its slain employees for $10-million ea." -Note- The Daily Kos BLOG is not a Creditable Source or Reference for Citation especially when it itself does not provide a Citation for it's claims.

Links to pro and con web sites?

The following applies both to this article and to Blackwater USA businesses.

Under "External links and references" there is a link to www.blackwaterwatch.com, a site very critical of Blackwater.

In the interest of neutrality shouldn't there also be links to www.blackwaterfacts.com and/or www.blackwaterreporting.com?

I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to know what kinds of sites are acceptable as references and what are not, or I'd do it myself. --RenniePet 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your quite right Rennie we should include pro-blackwater sites if we can find them. There are fewer rules for external links than for references, this is easily shown with www.blackwaterwatch.com which is a website someone interested in blackwater might want to visit (external link) but the lack of editorial control and/or peer review meens we could never use it except to reference www.blackwaterwatch.com. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Two things, Rennie:

1. Do not hesitate to add content if you have something to share. Others will reformat it / change it as needed.

2. Do not confuse "fair and balanced" for NPOV. Given the nature of Blackwater's business, it's almost inevitable that most stories about them will be negative, and that BW itself will try to be as discrete as possible (as opposed to trying to get positive reviews). This imbalance is a fact, and that's what goes into WP, as opposed to a made-up balance of good points / bad points.

Niczar 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the two links. My assumption is that these are sites financed by Blackwater (although they claim to be independent). My feeling is just that Wikipedia should include these links if it includes the Blackwater Watch link, which is very critical of Blackwater.

If there are no objections I'll add the same two links to the Blackwater USA businesses article later. --RenniePet 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I object on the basis that both are anonymous blogs less that 2 months old that look to be part of some PR company's idea of damage control. They are really slight. --Pleasantville 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, on the Blackwaterfacts blog. It's brand new and hardly notable for anything. There must surely be older, more respected online sources we can use for external links there. • Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the majority opinion of experienced Wikipedians then fine. I'm still pretty much a newcomer here. --RenniePet 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, outside pro-Blackwater stuff is fine. I'll readily admit that 99% of the work they do there doesn't hurt anyone or harm innocents, but the black-eye stuff they get into is just monstrously bad news (literally), so the bulk of the web and news coverage is in turn hyper-negative about them. There has to be notable, decent pro-Blackwater stuff out there that can be added that isn't a new anonymous blog that came online under a Domains By Proxy GoDaddy veil the day after the American media and Congress went after them. • Lawrence Cohen 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the extent of Blackwater press coverage and the number of press links on the page, I'm not sure that Blackwaterwatch adds much, either. --Pleasantville 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take both off, for balance/clutter reduction. • Lawrence Cohen 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To some extent those two sites are notable just due to their existance. They are (probably) an indication of what Blackwater is doing to try to influence public opinion. Maybe their existance should be mentioned in the section about "Public relations"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RenniePet (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't do that unfortunately, it would be original research. We'd need reliable sources saying that. Even if something like that is obvious, we can't use our own research or conclusions to demonstrate it directly. • Lawrence Cohen 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a look at 'Blackwaterfacts', they've got a link to this blog that seemed fairly neutral towards them. It's not soley on them but has some interesting stuff[2] Ticklemygrits 10:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If anybody has the coordiantes for the Blackwater Training ground please put them in the article. Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

850 Puddin Ridge Road in Moyock, North Carolina

I think I found it: 850 Puddin Ridge Road in Moyock, North Carolina. This is borne out by observing the Google Map for the openness of the location relevant to the rest of Moyock, which is filled with streets--but that area isn't. I'm sure there are lots of RS mixed into that first Google search for 850 Puddin Ridge Road in Moyock, North Carolina. I don't think I'll have time to pull it out for the coordinates to confirm. • Lawrence Cohen 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This link for county tax records may help turn up additional RS for this information. • Lawrence Cohen 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed RS: State of Virginia department of criminal justice services; Blackwater is at 850 Puddin Ridge Road in Moyock, North Carolina. Ton more to be found here, so that is settled. Another RS at: A Congressional record of a contract Blackwater has with the USA.

Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Inc.

T/A: Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Inc.

01E, 04E, 06E, 32E, 02E, 05E, 03E, 44E, 01I, 04I, 32I, 02I, 06I, 03I, 07E, 07R, 08E, 08R, 09E, 09R

850 Puddin Ridge Rd.

Moyock, NC 27958

Phone: (252) 435-1323

Fax: (252) 435-6388

Is anyone any good at converting a street address to coordinates for the article, now that we can source this? • Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth sez 36.495175°, -76.195133°, but it doesn't look like the right spot. Are GPS coords customary for this sort of thing? --Pleasantville 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. On one hand it seems like overkill, but on the other, it's a nice last little bit of thorough coverage. I don't mind either way myself, as long as the actual corporate HQ entry is in there listing the street address for complete coverage of the subject. A business's address is hardly private information. It can be up to you guys. I'm not particular for that. • Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a clear consensus on this but see this recent discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#GPS coordinates as original research (permanent link has some info. Personally I mostly agree with the final comment. In this specific case, using Google Earth is IMHO OR. If a reliable source (e.g. map) could be found which clearly identifies the location of the training facility and doesn't require people to identify the location based on familiarity with the terrain or road then that would be fine but Google Earth can't do it IMHO Nil Einne 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article really needs it. It's interesting but it doesn't add anything and the only reason you'd need to know it is if you wanted to blow the place up;)Ticklemygrits 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article candidate?

Stability issues aside (which are now fixed by semi-protection, which should be extended when the current one ends next month), and aside from the references being messy and unevenly formatted, this looks really good now. Put it up for a GA review? • Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so positive - maybe I'm too much of a perfectionist.

The content may be fairly OK but a revision of topic structure is needed. There are too many top-level topics, and their order is rather arbitrary. Just take a look at the "Contents" box.

I'll take a crack at combining the first three topics under one heading "Corporate", even though I don't really have the time. --RenniePet 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, there's a whole section called "History" that has become invisible due to a formatting error at some time in the past! --RenniePet 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's surreal. I've archeologied it out. • Lawrence Cohen 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's all I have time for. If there's opposition, just revert it. But seriously, take a look at articles for other companies, Microsoft, Apple, General Moters, and see how they are organized. In comparison the Blackwater article is rather hit-and-miss, organization-wise. (Content is pretty good, in my opinion, for what that's worth.) --RenniePet 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought a bit about my idea of reorganizing the topic structure, and here's my suggestion:

Contents - current structure

1 History

2 Corporate

2.1 Executives

2.2 Facilities

2.3 Corporate structure

3 Iraq involvement

3.1 Fallujah mission

3.2 Later incidents

3.3 Killing of Vice-presidential guard

3.4 Baghdad shooting controversy

3.5 Evacuation of Polish diplomat

3.6 Legal status

4 Litigation

5 Post-Katrina involvement

6 Other employments

7 Controversy and criticism

7.1 The crash of Blackwater 61 in Afghanistan

7.2 Arms smuggling

7.3 Congressional investigation

7.4 New rules from State Department

8 Public relations

9 See also

10 Notes

11 External links and references

Contents - suggested structure

1 History

- needs to be fleshed out with more non-controversial facts and figures

1.1 Facilities

2 Iraq involvement

2.1 Fallujah mission

2.2 Killing of Vice-presidential guard

2.3 Baghdad shooting incident

2.4 Other incidents and operations

- include "Evacuation of Polish diplomat" as text in this section

2.5 Legal status

3 Non-Iraq operations

- some introductory text, including current "6 Other employments"

3.1 Blackwater 61 crash in Afghanistan

3.2 New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

4 Litigation, controversy and criticism

4.1 Litigation

4.2 Arms smuggling

4.3 Congressional investigation

4.4 New rules from State Department

5 Corporate

5.1 Executives

5.2 Corporate structure

5.3 Public relations

6 See also

7 Notes

8 External links and references

This reduces the number of top-level main topics from 8 to 5 and groups and orders things more logically.

Also, as a general comment, I think the article needs more non-controversial information about exactly what these guys are doing and where and for whom. Facts and figures and historical development, etc. Simple non-critical prose. Although I realize this may be difficult because they are rather tight-mouthed themselves, and most of the public information is about their screw-ups. --RenniePet 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you or someone else isn't able to get onto this soon, I'll try this weekend. • Lawrence Cohen 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time. By the way, there's an article and some other stuff on the Washington Post site [3] today that could provide some of the "facts and figures and non-controversial info" that I think is lacking in the Wikipedia article. (If you agree that the article would benefit from more basic info.) --RenniePet 12:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go. I might trim it up a bit, just tell me if there's anything you don't agree withTicklemygrits 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Problemo

Since the blackwater is under the control of the government, Illuminati, I bet they are going to kill off any anti-illuminatist. Beware, those of you who woke up. Amphitere

Yes, yes... everyone, put on your tin-foil hats before they zap your brains. I'm wearing one on my head right now and one on my crotch for good measure. Cover all the bases, so to speak. Cowicide 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disinfo agents are still spewing that "tin-foil hat" crap? Cowicide must be stuck in 2003. Nevermind, keep right on with your drivel, Cowicide. It makes you obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.117.196 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't realise from his name, he's a cow mutilator and doesn't like the Illuminati taking credit for itTicklemygrits 07:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Litigation section

The litigation section needs subheads or something distinguishing between cases, and perhaps a little more detail on incidents related to the litigation. It is hard to follow as it stands now because of lack of signposting. --Pleasantville 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

current event tag

Blackwater USA is a company, how is this artical about a current event? i see no need for the tag, Boatman666 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

this company was featured on tonight's premier of "K-Ville" as "Blackriver Securities" who worked as assassins in New Orleans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabianofelix (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention numerous critical articles and news reports, e.g. DemocracyNow.org, Jeremy Scahill, et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.121.73 (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Boatman666. No matter how much it may be related to or involved in current events, Blackwater USA is a company, not an event. If there is a more appropriate tag, maybe that should be used. Kriptyk 03:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercenaries or not?

I was about to concede defeat on this whole "are they or aren't they mercenaries" issue. But I see from the BBC [4] that they employ (amongst others) "231 third-country nationals ... to protect US state department in Iraq". What's the most military-like work that these "third-country nationals" are doing? If they are employing people, from countries not part of the conflict, to do miltary-type work, the final criteria for a mercenary group would be met. Evercat 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They are mercenaries. If they weren't motivated by money, the Americans amongst them could join the US Army. And everyone agrees the foreigners are mercenaries. I'm not too fussed about it though. Contractor/mercenary, not much difference really both motivated by money. And what the hell is this? "International Peace Operations Association, a trade group representing Blackwater and other military contractors" Does that really exist??? Ticklemygrits 06:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, one of their reps was on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer tonight defending Blackwater. Murderbike 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I would like to call them mercenaries, I've been educated by my opponents here and they're quite correct that Americans fighting in a conflict to which America is a party are not legally mercenaries. The Geneva convention (a document they respect and cherish, no doubt) is behind Blackwater on this. 1977 Protocol Addition to the Geneva Conventions, Article 47, Paragraph 2.(d) Evercat 11:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to reporter Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater employs (among others) Chilean former military in Iraq. Chile isn't part of the "coalition of the willing", therefore those Chileans are mercenaries even per this restrictive definition. Consequently Blackwater employs at least some mercs. in Iraq. I updated the article to reflect this, with source. Niczar 11:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue now becomes whether those individuals are doing anything that could reasonably be construed as military-type work. I expect it's rather hard to find out. Evercat 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Scahill, those Chileans are /former soldiers/. How likely is it that they have been hired as truck drivers or cooks? Niczar 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite possible, if they were working as truck drivers or mechanics in the Chilean Army.Walterego 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The more general issue is that the business model of the private military industry entails a new, more corporate stance intended to make the industry palatable to government and business in a way that "mercenaries" are not. --Pleasantville 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"In 2005, it worked to train the Naval Sea Commando regiment of Azerbaijan, enhancing their interdiction capabilities on the Caspian Sea.[74]"

Wouldn't this fit the UN def. of mercenary since the US citizens employed by Blackwater are working in a country that the US is not militarily involved in? Murderbike 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm mere training is not particularly warlike. Evercat 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions are further up the page. After seeing a video with Doug Brooks and Scahill, it's pretty obvious Blackwater don't like the term. They seem to be using an unnecessarily stringant definition of 'mercenary' to deny that they are. But they fit the definition of any dictionary you can find. It's an interesting video, I'd love someone to find sources apart from Scahill.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn0phnmsEOA&mode=related&search= Ticklemygrits 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) PS in three parts

Yeah, I saw the dict. definition, I just wanted to add some more verification for the term since some people don't like using dict. defs, and need other verification. Murderbike 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They are reported as mercenaries in the international (European, Australian) media. There was a reference to a Geneve convention paragraph that defined them as mercenaries, but I do not have the quote -- 212.213.204.99 10:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If Blackwater employees are mercenaries, then so are security guards and "rent a cops". Although they are better armed than your average security guard, that's what they do. They guard convoys and people. They aren't tasked to do military missions like searching houses, bombing raids, etc. etc. BuboTitan 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our views don't matter as to whether they are mercs or not. Only reliable, 3rd party sources will have any weight or value for Wikipedia content on that matter. • Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense here, since people will disagree until doomsday. Besides who are these "reliable" third party sources? Does anyone go to school to learn how to define a mercenary? The real experts on the issue, would in fact, be Blackwater themselves! There are dictionary definitions, too. You can use them, but then be prepared for the label to then apply to everyone who guards things and carries a gun. BuboTitan 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a simple difference between armed guards and mercenaries: guards are paid by, for example, banks to guard their premises. Said premises belong to the bank. Banks don't pay guards to operate in places they don't own/rent. Blackwater is paid by the US gov't to operate on foreign soil, and not just on or near the US embassy. If banks paid armed guards to, for example, go collect money they're owed, well that'd be mercenary work. They don't tend to do that much. Please provide a counter example if you disagree. Niczar 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter examples are relatively easy to find. Armored cars that deliver money to banks are driven by guards, not "mercenaries", and drive all around, not only on a bank's premises. Moreover, politicians and celebrities hire bodyguards to follow them around the world - no one labels them as "mercenaries". Bottom line is, Blackwater guards do not fufill the vast majority of the functions of a regular army. Basically, all they do is guard stuff. BuboTitan 09:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion and view, or mine, or another editor's. Our views don't matter. What do the reliable sources say, that are compliant with WP:Reliable Sources? Reliable sources that are international in nature and scope have referred to Blackwater agents as mercenaries repeatedly, which indicates that a "significant" portion of the world must share that viewpoint: that Blackwater is a mercenary company. So, to be compliant with our NPOV rule, we have to be sure to represent all significant points of view that are sourced. So, we include mention that Blackwater is considered a mercenary company. That is all we are allowed to present. We can disagree, back here, but we cannot change the article to not say that they are mercs. We can try to sway each other or debate it till we fill up 500 archive pages of Talk:Blackwater USA, but the article will forever say they are considered by some to be mercenaries as it is sourced--so that we stay compliant with NPOV, and reflect what the international viewpoint is of Blackwater. • Lawrence Cohen 13:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the article stating that "some consider", "many consider" them mercs, or whatever, that's fine. As long as it's noted that Blackwater (and many others) don't consider themselves to be a mercenary outfit. Heck, I wouldn't even mind the article outright saying they are mercs as long as we have a real definition of them specific enought that it wouldn't also draw in every other kind of security guard job in the same net. BuboTitan 15:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One could use Erik Prince's remark from his congressional testimony regarding the use of the term mercenary (noted in his entry) as a counterpoint. (Otherwise such thing may be difficult to source.) --Pleasantville 14:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that this discussion is happening reveals the rampant POV; the term "mercenary" is being debated not for its descriptive value, but for its pejorative value. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Shameless

I'd add a "disputed neutrality" tag to this article but it would take me hours to identify and dispute all the extraneous information presented. Even if I did, one of you would probably use the Wiki-magic of "7 degrees of separation" to show how I "have ties to" certain irrelevant Republicans, and Big [insert industry here]. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

POV sections have edit summaries. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your POV tag pending a better explanation. Your emotional reaction as described above is insufficient to justify it. The article has had many edits over night, and it is unclear whether your reaction it to these of to the article as of last evening. Also, assume good intentions, rather than pulling in phrases like "Wiki-magic" before discussion of your objections has taken place. --Pleasantville 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? My edit summaries were very clear and until you address them, you're doing nothing other than drive-by reverting, which will not stand. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There, you did it again. You removed a tag without addressing the issue in the slightest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on YOU. The Personnel section is factual. There is no POV to it. Family ties of the CEO and owner of a company ARE relevant to the company. Esp. when said ties (US government) are the main client of said company. So until you point out WHAT and HOW neutrality is lacking, the tag goes out. You could start by listing how many major family-owned business do not have a biographical blurb about the owner, executives and political connection. Not holding my breath.Niczar 10:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

According to reference [58] Blackwater employees are not mercenaries under international law making media allegations erroneous and extraneous This is the edit summary that you've managed to ignore twice. Rebut or recuse (yourself). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you've ignored it a 3rd time. Damn, it looks like you can get away with POV if you just ignore the concerns. Magic. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum, Scahill writes that there are chilean nationals, former soldiers, working for Blackwater in Iraq. Chile is not part of the "coalition of the willing". Either Scahill is lying, those former soldiers work as hairdressers, or Blackwater is in the business of providing mercenaries by your utterly restrictive definition.Niczar 10:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable.[5] Instead of providing a proper counterbalance to fact X, fact X was removed so that the improper counterbalance Y could remain in the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC) _{Struck by me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)}

Please observe WP:CIVIL. See above on this page for the most recent discussion of terminology. --Pleasantville 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If international media has more weight than international law, then we have a problem. Either way, [58] is a contradiction. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made a report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Pleasantville 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel you need to weaponize ANI against me. If you had addressed the POV concerns like Nil Einne, you could have focused your efforts on the article at hand. And just so we're clear, I'm perfectly entitled to be upset with the poor condition of the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While I agree that it would be ideal if Haizum would explain specifics in the talk page, I also agree that his edit summaries are good enough. If he'd been asking us to wade thru a page of edit summaries or something to find an ancient edit summary then I would say this was unresonable. Also if someone doesn't check the history but checks the talk page and removes then I don't think the person could really be blamed for that. But I would presume that those reverting are reading the summaries given that they are using them. So IMHO it was a bit unresonable for Pleasantville to continually revert. Also I note that Haizum did come here and explain again why he was adding the POV-intro tag after the the reversions started. If pleasantvile doesn't agree with the view it's POV that's fine but IMHO proper behaviour is to discuss the issue and since it appears Haizum was willing to discuss the problem the tag should remain, at least for a while. Nil Einne 10:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater Security Consulting

I've edited the section to try an address POV concerns. It's true that ref 79 doesn't negate or directly address the fact that no one BW has been guarding has ever been seriously injured or killed so it was wrong for it to suggest it did. However it does provide context for the record and the equipement they carry and also provides a view on their behaviour in Iraq. Nil Einne 09:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

It seems to me that Haizum has a point. The fact that many of their people are technically not merceneries is relevant. The fact that they are widely considered merceneries is also relevent and I don't think this should be removed from the intro. I'm thinking of a way to address the issue here, mentioning the fact that most of their people may not be considered merceneries under international law without going into too much detail. In the mean time, please leave the tag. Also, see above for my view on the reversions Nil Einne 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are my concerns exactly. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter to be resolved by consensus. There are a variety of definitions and usages. --Pleasantville 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Facts will be more accurate than the consensus of Wikipedia editors. Fact: Not mercenaries under international law. Fact: Described as mercenaries by media. Giving undue weight to the latter in the intro, considering its counterpoint (international law) is very clearly flawed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be respectful of your fellow editors and the consensus discusssion. --Pleasantville 10:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to cry wolf. I'm simply saying that consensus applies where facts are not provided. In this case the facts are provided, and should be included - fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haizum (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact: 600 chileans employed by BW. Fact: BW employs at least 600 mercenaries. Niczar 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a rebuttal. In fact, that information is already included in the article to a degree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point; the majority of a hospital's staff are not doctors. They're no less a medical facility than, say, a private practice. On top of that, it's been pointed out that "mercenary" has several definitions, all of which but one apply to most of BW's staff, and even the reminding one applies to many (at least 600 chileans that we know of, probably thousands in total) of it.Niczar 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If a subjective definition is chosen over a legal definition (an international legal definition at that), then we have a problem. There is no way to provide a verifiable reference that indicates that Blackwater USA falls under any subjective definition. It does however fall under an international legal definition. I feel that is a very reasonable standard that is applied routinely throughout Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're pulling hairs. Besides the "international law" definition of mercenary doesn't apply to corporations, it applies to people in certain circumstances. Blackwater employs mercenaries, for the purpose of them being mercenaries. It's not just an accident that these people fall under this definition, it's the point. Another thing, even when US citizens work for Blackwater in Iraq, they don't appear to respect much of the Geneva convention. That would make them "enemy combattants" of the type held at Guantanamo, but of course this has no bearing in international law since this a made up status.Niczar 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pure comedy. Probably the first time an international definition is not being used in a Wikipedia article, simply because the subjective definition makes the company look more eeeevil. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've tried to summarise the mercenary bit. I don't think there's any need to go into the Chileans bit or the specifics of which laws. Nil Einne 10:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The geneva conventions are primary sources so can't be used to say that Blackwater are not mercs, find secondary RS's. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Personnel

In this case, I don't really agree with Haizum. However I did remove some stuff. I think it's barely relevant that Erik Prince's father was rich and not at all relevant that he invented the lighted car visor and died in 1995. The Christian bit is slightly relevant particularly given that he's operating in a number of Muslim countries but IMHO given it's seperate from his BW role, not enough. As for the other stuff well I removed the intern in GHWB White House bit. It's old enough that I don't think it's that relevant. However I agree with others that the donations are relevant as are his support for specific candidates. Especially since his company has directly benefited from contracts awarded by a government that these people are members of. Nil Einne 10:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I currently have no outstanding issues with that section. I would however like to see some balance with the repetition of "no-bid contracts." No-bid contracts are generally viewed as a negative thing (am I wrong?), but Blackwater provides a world-class service that was essentially unrivaled even before 9/11. It's like saying Microsoft and Apple consistently receive no-bid contracts; the capacity and quality of their services have no substitute. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Haizum, then what should we call no-bid contracts? "Competitive contracts"? There are lots of things in Wikipedia that can be generally viewed as a "negative thing", so shall we prune every article so nobody "looks negative" based on stated fact? Haizum, I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works, it's not for hit-jobs nor for sugar-coating... it's for relevant facts and letting the chips fall where they may. Quit attempting to rearrange the chips, it smells of agenda. Cowicide 08:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is personal opinion. Our views have no weight or value on the content of an article. Verifiability. • Lawrence Cohen 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually on further consideration I also removed the connection between Cofer Black and Mitt Romney. I think it's fine and important to mention the connection between the 2 in the Mitt Romney page. However in this page, I think it's mostly irrelevant. Mitt Romney is currently a no-body. He has no direct influence in anything related to Blackwater. If Mitt Romney were to become the next US president then it would definetily be relevant but until and unless this happens it's mostly irrelevant. Yes it speaks on the political views of Cofer Black but I think we already have enough of that. Remember that these aren't biographies. Nil Einne 11:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Romney has no bearing on the company at this point. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Romney has no bearing on the company at this point ... what? What is Mr Romney doing ATM .. isn't he ... running for president? How is it not relevant? How is it not factual? Where else do you suggest this information should appear in Wikipedia? You are just making assertions about the relevance of this content without providing any example, any reference to common practice, and basically without any argument. Unless you answer these questions shortly, I will revert those changes. Niczar 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How is Romney's run for president affecting Blackwater USA at the moment? Unless you provide verifiable evidence that it is, it isn't. Including that sort of information in the article goes with assumption that it is significant. Show us the significance. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this for relevance: what is BW's main customer? The US government. What job is BW's vice chairman helping Mr Romney get? Chief of the US government. Niczar 11:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Using that standard, it would be just as relevant if the vice chairman was supporting Pinky McFly (D), who is also running for president. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have nothing more constructive to say, I take it that you have no arguments; I will therefore revert the edits shortly.Niczar 11:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is, you're concluding that Romney as president will benefit Blackwater to some degree, and that his candidacy is someone's corporate preference rather than personal preference. There is no way to know this unless Romney becomes president and there is verifiable evidence that his term is directly helping Blackwater. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So why even prosecute corruption? There's no evidence that elected officials will provide services to those who provide them with suitcases full of bank notes. In any case, I did NOT make the straw man you painted me with. I'm just saying it's relevant that a company receiving on the order of hundreds of millions of government contracts has close, personal ties with government officials. That is no proof of corruption, however that is factual, documented evidence that there is something to pay attention to. So unless you come up with an argument that does not involve such logical fallacy, stop removing FACTUAL information from this article. Niczar 11:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want this information appearing in this article, propose somewhere to put it. Documented, verifiable ties between government and private corporations are a historical matter and shed light on policy decisions. They belong in an encyclopedia.

The thing is, Mitt isn't part of any government. He wants to be but he isn't. Nil Einne 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about a third-party candidate here. We're talking about one the front-runners for the Republican Party, former Governor of Massachussetts, who has enough personal wealth to overspend any other candidate from any party, should he decide to "go all in." While the democrats are expected to win the presidency, a catastrophic event (think Robert Kennedy or 9/11) within the next year could easily tip the balance his way. My point is, your argument would hold if we were talking about Mike Gravel or Ron Paul, but we're not. And business executives do not "help" politicians out of the goodness of their heart, they do it for a purpose. Many do actually bet on many horses, donating to different parties to get kick-backs in the future. Let me ask you this, let's speculate: if the democrats gain the WH, will that be good for BW's business? Or will they lose hundreds of millions of contracts? Maybe not, but that's likely isn't it? Niczar 12:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Niczar, it's not an argument. We're dealing with what we know. That whole paragraph is nothing but you speculating. Blackwater will benefit so long as their services are required in Iraq, which would span through most of the candidates if they were elected. If the ties could potentially span any number of administrations (D) and (R), then there is no "gotcha," and it has no business in the article - unless of course you're trying to paint a picture. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So where else should BW's executives connection to government be documented in Wikipedia? Or do you just want this not to be widely known? Do you think they should be ashamed of their connections to Bush & co.? Niczar 11:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over a null hypothesis. They're a government contractor - it's what they do. Edits that read, "Ah ha! Look at these ties to government" are POV if they go beyond what is already known: they work for the government, they receive a lot of no-bid contracts because they are the best at what they do. The end. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits that read, "Ah ha! Look at these ties to government" -- you made that up - strawman, again. they are the best at what they do -- your opinion. My _opinion_: they are chosen because of their personal ties. Except that I'm not pushing this into the article. The facts are, they have those ties. The press has highlighted those enough for us to conclude that they are relevant. Congress has even had an inquiry into those ties. Well let the reader have all the information and form their own opinion about this. I'm not pushing for my POV to be published here, I want the information, all the information about this company to be out there. *You* want to hide things from the readers. Besides, it's not like this article is too long or something. Niczar 12:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The information should definitely appear in the Mitt Romney article (or at least the article about his bid) and it does. It's definitely relevant to his article because the fact that he's getting significant help from someone who's involved in a controversial business, a business that Mitt Romney is likely to be involved in awarding contracts to is relevant to Mitt Romney's bid. It should also be (and is) mentioned in the Cofer Black article since obviously it's relevant to Cofer Black. The question is, is it relevant to Blackwater? IMHO not enough. It provides context for the political views of a key player in BW but we already cover that in some detail. To me, the first question is, is it possible BW may benefit from this connection? That's very hard to say IMHO. If a non-Republican candidate wins then it seems likely that they will be at a disadvantage. Indeed even if a Republican other then Mitt Romney wins it may be a problem for BW. I guess the key thing from my POV is to consider things in the future. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the future when writing. Indeed I believe it's helpful to do so. We can sometimes get too caught up in the here and now. And it seems to me that it will be mostly irrelevant re:BW if Mitt Romney doesn't win. I guess you could argue it's relevant because it means that a key BW player is trying to help a person become head of government (who would be far friendly on them then some of the alternatives) but IMHO anyway it isn't enough. Especially since this sort of stuff seems fairly common in the US sadly; it's relevant when it comes to the people involved but not the company unless the person actually wins. But revert if you really disagree, I don't really feel that strongly either way and don't want to debate this issue any more. Edit conflict: Also I don't quite agree with Haizum. If Mitt Romney becomes president then the fact that a key BW player helped Mitt Romney become president is relevant to BW. It's not necessary to establish that BW benefited provided we don't say or imply they did. Nil Einne 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince's connections to the Republican party and its political interests were a subject for congressional inquiry and testimony on 10/2/07 and have been extensively discussed in the press. --Pleasantville 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I'm not gung-ho on all those specific edits, I would honestly accept any editing argument, such as "the article is too long already", or "it's a Wikipedia policy detailed here or there", or if the veracity of those assertions were debated. What I found objectionable is that no argument has been put forth for those removals, besides mere assertions of it not being relevant by Haizum. Congressmembers have found it relevant enough to spend quite some time enquiring about it, I'd wager their opinion on this matter supercedes his.Niczar 12:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think Blackwater was chosen solely based on ties (that you've haven't provided), then you demonstrate your lack of knowledge surrounding that organization. As private security goes, they are elite. Can you name a substitute? You can't. There isn't. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Your nor my observations are RS. • Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Irrelevant. Someone here thinks BW was chosen based on ties and not the quality of service they provide. One theory is more parsimonious than the other. Done. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources implied that happened, that BW was hired for their demonstrated Republican ties. We report that in the name of NPOV. If you are or I dislike it, we don't matter. • Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The veracity of those assertions are disputed. Done. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Are you disputing Congress? We don't get to do that. • Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We only get to report what is concluded. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And RS concluded x, y, and z, and Congress concluded other matters. So, we report it for NPOV. You are welcome to find more RS sources to counter the weight of what we reported. It is not Wikipedia's fault that the coverage, reporting, and Congressional views as reported in the past days are generally negative. We report what we get. • Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no hope of establishing NPOV if that is going to be the methodology. I won't even try. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem quite confused as to what NPOV means. For one, it doesn't mean "fair and balanced." I suggest you read up on it. Begin with the "Help" link on the left of the page. Hope this helps. Niczar 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Following what the media outlets say with Google hits is clearly the way to go. Dukelacrossesayswhat? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you take a step back, cool down, and consider keeping things civil. And what does Duke's Lacrosse players have to do with anything? You are confused. Niczar 22:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

...coming from the one that's been launching misogynistic insults this entire time. Why don't you tell me how I'm being "emotional" again? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"misogynistic" means derogatory towards women. What's this got to do with anything in here? Niczar 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you've been launching common misogynistic insults from the start. I don't know how to be any more clear. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be about the article on Blackwater USA, rather than Haizum's possible genders. I think I was the first (and perhaps only one) to use the word "emotional" to describe Haizum. If he has an issue with that, he should take it up on the ANI I initiated. --Pleasantville 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would I want to take it up with the baseless ANI report that went nowhere? I think I'd start my own in that case. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RS & NPOV

(outdent) Haizum, question: if not RS, what can we use to make this NPOV? Please detail for us? • Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, the list of references is dominated by outlets such as The Weekly Standard, Reason Magazine, Washington Times, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are all valid for RS. You are welcome to add other sources, of course, from any other place that qualifies. • Lawrence Cohen 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was lying. The list is dominated by notoriously left-leaning, if not left-wing sources. There are some generally accepted neutrals (AP, CNN) and a few primaries (Blackwater.com). Am I saying the article MUST be "fair and balanced," no, but don't pretend that this article would remain unchanged for very long if the material came from the outlets I initially mentioned. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I don't think comments like this are helpful... and again, feel free to add any more RS if you think the media and Congressional reports have some sort of a bias against Blackwater. It's not Wikipedia's fault that the majority of the coverage and information on Blackwater is decidedly negative in tone and content. • Lawrence Cohen 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reject your response. The references are coming overwhelmingly from left-leaning media sources (generally accepted as being so), and that is the fault of the editors of this article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find some contradictory sources from conservative sources that meet RS, I'll be happy to add them for you if you are unable to. Are you able to add them? • Lawrence Cohen 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A similar Blackwater USA article could have been written entirely from conservative sources, but it wasn't, and it never will be. The community simply will not allow it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Heres a conservative source, the FT, heres an editorial [6] and heres the news coverage [7]. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC) And heres links between haliburton and blackwater [8]. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said I would, I've happily added those Financial Times sources, here, and they are a noted Conservative voice. Are there more to add? • Lawrence Cohen 15:54, 5 October 2007

(UTC)

It will be interesting to see if this information is turned into more editorializing, "even Conservatives don't like Blackwater, etc, etc." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

eg: However, even some Conservative American media, however, have characterized the entry of Blackwater USA into the Iraq War as a "catastrophic error". I amaze myself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're assuming we're editing in bad faith. The policy on WP is to assume good faith. Cease and just go to some other website if you can't follow such a simple rule. Niczar 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How about, rather than launching empty attacks, you take an attempt at editing the article? We are making no efforts to stop you, and the sniping here is completely unhelpful. • Lawrence Cohen 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, see, no attack just happened. There was no attack. I predicted the information would be editorialized, and it was, and it was removed by a 3rd party. You having your edits undone for reasons that match my own is not my fault. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please edit the article. I will not be harassed here by you for trying to be helpful and respond to your concerns. • Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You just claimed I attacked you when I didn't. Stop harassing me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're really stepping over the line. You are rude and unhelpful. Please go away. Niczar 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the line, or are you just making up the rules again? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a point here, the Financial Times is a British paper (but still the most read on wall street). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum referred to ANI

I apologize, I don't see how this is being helpful in any way. Posting here to notify all involved. My apologies. • Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum, calm down and start actually editing. You claim that an article could be written using "conservative sources". Why do you produce them, and start discussing ways they could be included into the article with other editors? This is turning into something of a flame-war — you have an extensive history of name-calling and personal attacks, so I suggest everyone tone it down post-haste --Haemo 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You only insult yourself when you try to weaponize ANI reports. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, be sure to mention my block history, it's not an ad hominem, it doens't presume bad faith. Irony. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem because what I'm commenting on is your conduct on this page; specifically, your personal attacks and incivility to other editors. Your history of this behavior is directly relevant to my comments. I'm not commenting about the validity of your concerns either positively or negatively — instead, I'm politely suggesting that you work on helping other editors to address them, rather than engaging in personal attacks. This is your last warning about this kind of behavior. --Haemo 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied about your ad hominen attacks about us "enabling" "liberal media" and whatnot on ANI. Please feel free to contribute, but you will stop attacking any and all editors. Please assume good faith. Thanks... • Lawrence Cohen 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So repeating the phrase "ad hominem attacks" is supposed to turn my concerns into ad hominem attacks? Oops, did I just ad hominem attack you? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear, that weaponized ANI was fruitless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read closely enough, Haizum. You received a final warning. --Pleasantville 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, read this. Just because it's off the main ANI page doesn't mean the warning doesn't stand. It does, today. Haemo told you to stop. Any renewed disruption, or incivility could lead to blocks, so you are on notice. See:

"I've given this user a final warning about his behavior. His conduct on this page, and the page in question is clearly crossing a line. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the report of the Nisoor Square killings?

I can't believe there's not a single mention of the Sept. 16th Nisoor Square massacre in this whole article. What's going on here? dariopy 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole article about it. Tmaull 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But where's the link. I mean, why is it not mentioned in THIS article? dariopy 19:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is Blackwater Baghdad shootings, which is in this section. • Lawrence Cohen 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

political contributions

• In this edit I removed the following sentence that pertains to Erik Prince's political activities:

Prince has also been tied to efforts to fund Green Party candidates Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli in Pennsylvania, a supposed effort to harm Democrat candidates.

This really needs a citation, especially with the extrapolation taken about the intent of the donation. --arkalochori ^|talk| 07:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, I changed the description of Prince's political contributions to "Prince is a financial supporter of Republican Party causes and candidates." As Prince has his own article with a section covering this, there is no need for a number by number person by person section here on the article about Blackwater. Who he chooses to support with his personnel money is of doubtful relevance to his role as the head of Blackwater. --arkalochori ^|talk| 07:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of the press seems to think it's relevant. But regardless, it is indeed covered in detail in Prince's own entry. --Pleasantville 14:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater for Peace

Mindboggling though this oxymoron be, perhaps The Blackwater Global Peace and Stability Operations Institute should be mentioned. --Pleasantville 15:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Surreal, but yeah, it definitely merits inclusion at least as a one-line note. • Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Corporate history section

What do you guys think of my eliminating the subsections? I think it works better this way. I want to do something similar on other sections, but those look like they will be tougher. • Lawrence Cohen 23:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Lawrence!Ticklemygrits 07:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes nice work, a great improvement. --arkalochori ^|talk| 00:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Any suggestions on tackling the Iraq and Controversy sections in a similar manner? Those will be a bear. I'm thinking of trying to see if Litigation may also work under the canopy of the Controversy section, as well. • Lawrence Cohen 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You could eliminate the "Controversy" section entirely. Most of the section relates to incidents in Iraq, so you could put that under 'Iraq involvement'. The only one that is outside of that is the plane crash in Afghanistan and that's covered in 'Litigation'. The arms smuggling section relates to Iraq in that they were smuggled from Iraq, but that's debatable. 'Contractors or Mercenaries' may not relate directly to Iraq though, but that could be incorporated.Ticklemygrits 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article layout sandbox

Guys, I think we have a great base of material (a lot of it, actually) to work off of, but the structure is the biggest problem I can readily see. Please check out:

User:Lawrence Cohen/sandbox/Blackwater USA

I started that just as a layout tool, on how we can possibly restructure this. I want to go for Featured Article, but we need GA first, then Peer. Lets take it all the way. We can be front page in a few months I bet. Please edit that sub page of mine--order, layout, projected length of a section. The length guesstimate is in case we'll need to adjust the layout further because of more forked child articles. Please take a whack at it. Once we hammer out a good layout and structure, we can jam that structure onto Blackwater USA, and then dive into a section-by-section cleanup. I was thinking we can re-do the layout there, instead of live, so that it's less messy. One person can then go in and do the major copy/paste work for the restructuring without us tripping on each other. • Lawrence Cohen 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Like Tickle mentioned above, I'm stuck on this one and where best to put all the current info (which is all good) and how to break it down. See here, and feel free to edit/change my sandbox at will. I think we need a controversy section--they are highly contentious and controversial, but beside that its the standard format of a lot of Wikipedia articles for that sort of thing to go in. What do you all think? Please take a whack at my test layout. • Lawrence Cohen 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Litigation

Under the litigation section can be found a reference of slain Blackwater contractors' families testimony to Congress regarding drafting of laws governing DoD contractors.

These laws already exist.

Blackwater is under contract with the State Department.

As for the diasambiguation page, politics and newsworthiness have no place in an encyclopedia. Blackwater is black water is Blackwater.

The reference section, btw, is similar to using Westlaw for cooking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.180.164 (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Next forking - suggestions

The article is getting big again. Possible options:

• Blackwater USA operations - for all their military/business operations that are covered and reported on. Basically, a complete lift of the involvement sections--Iraq, overseas, domestic.
• Blackwater USA corporate history - might be just as big, in the end. Not like the businesses fork I did, which can eventually cover all their outfits in deal, but the actual history of the company. History section would be a start.

I'm inclined to say the operations one, first. It will likely grow the most, besides the legal. This article could well spawn yet more of these. Thoughts? I'd be willing to do the heavy lifting in a few days again. • Lawrence Cohen 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help you on the operations page, I think its a good idea. Tmaull 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Should this page be moved to Blackwater Worldwide given the name change? Tmaull 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that. Have they officially gone ahead with it, at this point? • Lawrence Cohen 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, dang. They have. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See also section

The "See Also" is blatantly POV. It won't be long before "military-industrial complex" and "fascist" are added to that list. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you remove, and why under policy, and what would you like added? Please note you are of course free to edit the article per policy. • Lawrence Cohen 06:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're free to edit the article per policy as well. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Search and Avoid missions

What about 'Search and Avoid Missions' in Iraq. I don't like Blackwater, but to be fair it's worth noting why such organizations can thrive in hostile Zones. Why, because it's dangerous and nobody on a soldiers salary would do it.

See this Article: (scroll to bottom of article for summary)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66160?page=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzantine Dragon (talk • contribs) 07:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall Innnaccuracies/Biases

I completely admit to my naivete in knowing how to do this, but here I go: First and foremost, my dislosure: I have written extensively on the topic of Modern PMCs and Blackwater in particular; I wrote my MA thesis on the topic. That said, I would not claim to be an experrt and as such my word should not be taken as gospel. 1)I take issue with the "no-bid contract" mentioned in paragraph 2. Though Blackwater has undoubtedly received no bid contracts, as Erik Prince noted himsel in his testimony before congress the vast majority were bid via the typical government contracting process. The article cited says that 2/3 of those being looked at were no-bid, not all contracts; furthermore, I take issue with the ability to actually differentitate between no bid contracts and the actual process of writing a "catalog entry," and the government then choosing. Either way, the entry is misleading.

2)I take much more significant issue with the citation of the $445,000/year in the second paragraph. later in the entry there is a discussion of Erik Prince's refuting this number as outlandish, this should either be included in the second paragraph or the number should be excluded. Simply because Congressman Waxman, not exactly a non-biased source, creates this number, doesn't make it legitimate.

3)Within the Iraq War section: Blackwater is not protecting The American Embassy per se. It is more accurate to say that they are guarding US Embassy Personell, as the US Military is largely responsible for guarding the Green Zone in which the Embassy is contained. Blackwater is famous, or infamous, not for standing around guarding a gate, but running around with State Dept. employees.

4)Post Citation 37, the article would benefit from some explanation as to the higher numbers of fire first incidents and the placement of 195 engagements within the thousands of operations they have run. Even Chairman Waxman included this in his report.

5)In regards to the picking up the injured US Marine; three things would be worth noting: 1)that this was outside the realm of their contractual obligations, in other words they did it because they wanted to save a fellow American, 2) the pilots who did this were chastised for doing so because it was outside their contractual obligation (see RYP Licensed to Kill), 3)according to Erik Prince as least come ground elements in Baghdad carry the Blackwater Helos call signs to come bail them out when necessary

6)After the notation of Blackwater pulling out of IPOA, it would be worth noting that Blackwater is forming their own organizaiton, including holding a conference to deal with similar issues the Doug Brooks and IPOA normally deal with.

7)After citation number 68, in the discussion of Erik Prince's rebuttal to the characterization of his men as mercenaries; he also defined mercenary as Foreigners hired into military service. It could be noted that while the average blackwater employee, being american, is not by his own characterization a mercenary, those chileans or third party nationals blackwater hires are in fact mercenaries.

Overall, I would say that the article is biased against Blackwater, which of course is not difficult to understand given the current public opinion of Blackwater; however, I think these changes could be beneficial in making it more neutral. Wnegley 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article contains a certain level of bias, though much lower than one might imagine. Notably, the fuzziness of the picture of Erik Prince engenders negative feeling against him in similar fashion to how politicians use dark, grainy photos of their opponents in commercials. I realize it is difficult to obtain a free image, particularly of Mr. Prince, but it really is necessary to improving the quality of the article. Also, the phrase "Unqualified Blackwater staff" in the "Controversy and criticism" section should be referenced--the claim that the staff were unqualified, that is.

• As noted previously, the article has numerous organizational issues. For example, it seems the November 2004 plane crash is discussed twice in the article. Additionally, many paragraphs start by talking about one subject and then end on something entirely separate. On a related matter, grammatical issues abound. For instance, of the six sentences making up the first paragraph of the "Controversy and criticism" section, only one (maybe two) is grammatically sound.

• I don't plan merely to complain of the article's shortcomings. I will do my best to effect changes addressing the problems mentioned above. Bottledmark 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wnegley: The key issue is Wikipedia standards of sourcing. Though in my opinion all your quibbles are correct, corrections to the article need to cite sources which, in this case, means mostly media coverage. Appropriate media write-ups may or may not exist to support your corrections. See WP:RS for more detail on the kind of sources recommednded for use on Wikipedia. --Pleasantville 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Link

The link to Charlie Black links to a stub for a basket ball player born in 1920. I don't know but I don't think that this is the same Charlie Black. Ender8282 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out, it isn't the same person. --arkalochori ^|talk| 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo

After an incident on September 16, 2007 when a Blackwater team guarding a State Department convoy in Baghdad fatally shot 17 Iraqis near a bustling traffic circle, Blackwater unveiled a new logo.

• Problem: Leading. The reader is led to believe that the change was made due to the alleged incident despite a representative saying otherwise. Whoever created this edit believed coincidence had more weight than the company's statement. Blatant POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore, clarified directly from the source now. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After an incident on September 16, 2007 when a Blackwater team guarding a State Department convoy in Baghdad fatally shot 17 Iraqis near a bustling traffic circle is still in the section and has no business being there without proof that the change was made due to the incident itself. The fact that you can't see this as being a problem means you should recuse yourself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I shall not recuse myself, as I am editing civilly in good faith to address any valid concerns that come up. The mention of the Nisoor Square shootings is not POV in any sense, as all sources I can see refer to them in context to the name change. They reference it; so shall we. • Lawrence Cohen 06:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the proof? It's nothing more than appeal to the chronological order. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We need no proof. We report on reported facts from reliable sources. We don't do any original research here, we report what others research. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The NYT is a reliable source, but they didn't report the motivation for the logo change as fact, they just made an insinuation. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that the NYT is biased is noted, but the rest of Wikipedia I would argue does not agree with you that they are an unacceptable source here. • Lawrence Cohen 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going that far, I'm simply saying that this article is biased. When trying to look at it as empirically as possible, it is. I'm baffled as to how you can deny this. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't denied anything; I've simply been saying again and again that my opinion of the New York Times doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter, either. • Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then I've discovered yet another loophole in the useless NPOV policy. If one wants to make the article POV, simply reference a POV source. Just because popular media erroneously creates the connection doesn't make it so. Proof makes it so. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the New York Times is not a reliable source in some way? If you feel that is the case, you are welcome to take it up on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and I would encourage you to follow that thread there. Not here. We will not remove or minimize any sources from the New York Times because one editor feels they are not an acceptable source for certain topics. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times is reliable in the sense that they are within the scope of reasonable accuracy when reporting. How they compile information is another thing. It is possible to be reliable, accurate, and still biased. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC

If you feel the NYT is biased, and therefore an unacceptable source on Wikipedia, please bring it up on a widely viewed page with your arguments. Note that it is a valid and accepted source in tens of thousands of Wikipedia's articles, reflecting that it is a wonderful source to use. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Find a source that says otherwise," you might say, but that's why this system is rigged to be POV. No opposing newspaper is going to lead the reader that BW didn't make logo changes in light of the incident, that's a non-story. There are only going to be insinuations that they did. Therefore, the simple fact that the NYT made the connection means it can go into Wikipedia unchallenged, and it becomes accepted by default. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, your opinion or mine doesn't matter. You can state such arguments again, but it is irrelevant. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you imagine tomorrow's NYT headline reading, "Abu Graib Prison Running Smoothly, 'A-OK,' says UN Chief." It's a non-story. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Imagine I found articles in the WashTimes that, through presentation of the facts, implicate the Iranian government in material support to insurgents/terrorists in Iraq. Theses articles exist. However, despite the fact that WashTimes is a reliable and accurate source, there is no way in hell I would be permitted to present those facts in a similar fashion here on Wikipedia. "Where's the proof," I'd be asked, and the information would be taken down. There is a very real double standard, and Wikipedia policies do not attempt to hold editing standards higher than either newspaper (save for WP:BLP). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Iranian articles. If you find such a source for an Iranian article, from a respected news source, feel free to add them as you see relevant under policy. • Lawrence Cohen 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I presenting ideas that are way over everyones head? I don't understand how you failed to realize that I was making an analogy and describing how this current system favors fabricated plot lines as opposed to facts. There aren't going to be any news articles that simply state Blackwater's logo change as a matter of fact, they're all likely going to be connected to recent events. Without proof, it's a fabrication on the part of the news agency. Sure, it's all very interesting, but it isn't journalism. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Miller, the owner of MDesign, a graphic design firm in New York, commented on the logo change, "“I would say it’s a highly significant change; they’re repositioning themselves. The old logo suggests that they’re targeting people. The new logo is a more ambiguous, more safe corporate logo.”

• Problem: This is a poor standard for a reference. This person had no part in designing the new symbol and therefore has no information from the company as to why it was changed, or what the changes are supposed to reflect.
• Problem: Miller's comments are erroneous. The old logo suggest that they're targeting bears more than people. There is still an SVD still reticle in the new logo. Moreover, Blackwater is a defensive security force and does not take part in "direct action." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. We don't get to decide who is a credible authority from within the context of an article; the New York Times feels that this is a noted designer, so their opinion is a relevant weight and authority. The previous designer of the old logo would be a primary source, and never a neutral commentator on the logo therefore. Whether or not Blackwater is a defense force, a mercenary band, or singing barbers would be irrelevant, if it were your opinion or mine. Our opinions do not matter in regards to that. • Lawrence Cohen 06:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then all someone has to do is find a designer, or even a notable individual that says the exact opposite. Then we'll really have one joke of an article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you find one, sourced to a reliable source, feel free to add it. I'd be happy to build out Blackwater Worldwide logo if there was enough material provided by you to me. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's a non-story. People are only going to rush to say "I suspect they did it for reason X!" No one is going to stick their neck out and say, "they didn't do anything abnormal." Furthermore, no news agency is going to report that so-and-so said that BW didn't do anything out of the ordinary because that wouldn't be a development in the story. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to you, it's a non-story. I think the whole thing is fascinating, which is why I began helping on these articles. Again, find me sources on their logo, and I'd cheerfully build an article on it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. This article is a story. An article 12 months ago about a logo change would have been a non-story. The NYT melded one uninteresting fact about a logo change with the recent incident, and boom, we have a new story, a plot. It's a total fabrication by definition. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed the point I've made multiples times. WP:Original resarch applies to us. It does not apply to the New York Times or other external, acceptable sources. They can do what you describe--that is what journalism is at times (please don't debate on this--it is what it is, and it's beyond the scope of our role as editors to debate that, nor will it help this article). Therefore, outside news sources are perfectly fine to do this. And, in turn, for us to report what they find or report. • Lawrence Cohen 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that system is inherently flawed. Not imperfect, but flawed. Moving on, please address my specific complaints with regard to reference [29] as opposed to a debate surrounding the conduct of the NYT as a whole. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My response is (again) the same: The New York Times is one of the most respected news sources on the planet. It's multiple awards and Pulitzers, long-standing reputation of respect and quality, and consensus acceptance of the New York Times as a valid source on Wikipedia trumps concerns that a turn of phrase in one article may be POV. Which, even if it hypothetically were POV, is irrelevant to Wikipedia. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and all the rest, apply to us. Not the New York Times. That is not up for debate. • Lawrence Cohen 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the article is now marginally acceptable to me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why only marginal? What else don't you like? • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. You need to actually read reference [29]. If you think that is a neutral article, then I must respectfully ask that you find another project to work on. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Title POV: Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate
• POV: lettering that looks to have been ripped from a fifth of Jim Beam Apparently they're drunken rednecks.
• POV: undergone a publicity-conscious, corporate scrubbing. Says who?
• POV: serif lettering draped over the crosshairs on a menacing black field. "Menacing?" Says who?
• POV: the overall look is far less “kick your butt” and much more “quarterly report,” Says who?

As a side note, I flat out don't believe the quote from the phantom "former contractor who worked for Blackwater in Baghdad" but the article is still woefully biased without it. Most of the articles that I've read from the NYT surround fairly dry topics, but this is just shameless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether you believe it is irrelevant, unfortunately, for Wikipedia's purposes and project. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're skirting the larger issue and focusing on my admitted opinion, which is entirely dishonest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, quite the opposite. Rather than either of us waste valuable editing time discussing an issue that neither of us can change (and this is the wrong venue, anyway), I'm cutting the cord on pointlessness. We don't inject original research. Your view of Blackwater is irrelevant. My view of Blackwater is irrelevant. Neither belong in the article. This article has been praised for it's neutrality. Whether you with your self-admitted bias disagrees is fine, you are welcome to disagree! However, we still won't put a sympathetic point of view in here, nor will we deprecate the views of a reliable source because one editor dislikes that source for whatever reason. • Lawrence Cohen 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. Look at the bulleted quotes from reference [29]. Those are biased statements. Regardless of the persuasion, I can point out bias in any article - it's an empirical process. Why you're appealing to NOR makes no sense to me, and appealing to the broad acceptance of the NYT is fallacious - this specific article is biased. Period. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not appealing to NOR, I'm invoking it. Someone added the logo passage to this article, sourced to the NYT. It will stand, as we can't comment in article space on the value or merits of this NYT article--you may feel it's biased. Someone else may feel it isn't, but it's not our place to make that decision. Because the NYT is an accepted source, and so barring a major change in how we do business here to deprecate their value as a source, this article stands as a reliable source for talking about Blackwater's logo. Take it up on the reliabe sources noticeboard here. • Lawrence Cohen 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you don't agree that the article is biased, I'd like to see the adjectives and phrases "macho, Jim Beam-esque, publicity-conscious, corporate scrubbing, menacing, and 'kick your butt' incorporated into the article. If they aren't, I'll be sure to include them using said article as the gospel reference it continues to be. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't violate WP:POINT. The New York Times is a completely acceptable reference and source. Lets wait until others weigh in. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty sure you'd come back with that bureaucratic answer, but the irony is I could include those terms based on, The New York Times is a completely acceptable reference and source. Which is it? No, you won't answer that question - it's easier to reference WP:POINT and ignore the evidence in addition to my obvious sarcasm. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What evidence am I ignoring? That the New York Times is a historically acceptable source for essentially all news topics about third parties besides itself? • Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the bulleted evidence of bias taken directly from said article. It's not biased in my opinion, those bulleted statements are factually biased. I don't know how else to explain it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't change or report our own take on what others report. That would be original research. We can only use data for the article from a reliable source, such as the New York Times. I'm sorry if you feel this is some sort of circular Catch-22, but it is what it is, and it's designed to keep our own views out of the article. • Lawrence Cohen 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're opposed to me adding more information from the article claiming that it would be OR. That makes no sense whatsoever - it's directly from the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My previous response isn't good enough. Lawrence Cohen, the terms in bold are either facts, or they are opinion (which I believe is a fair dichotomy to present). If they are facts, then you nor anyone else should have a problem using "kick your butt" in the article. If they are opinions, then the article itself is opinion and should therefore not be referenced (since facts should be readily available across media outlets). It's quite simple Cohen, yet for some reason you refuse to come to terms with the obvious. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia editors to present information from sources as a dichotomy as you suggest. Doing so is essentially vandalism, as it compromises the encyclopedia. We do not allow our own original thought into these articles. We only allow information from acceptable sources, presenting their sourced information as factual. We don't inject our views. A blog is more acceptable for that. I fear you may be implying (reviewing all these talk page contributions here) that our viewpoints on the topics we write about have merit for inclusion in the articles themselves. On any level, they don't. Perhaps this is the wrong project for that sort of ideal. • Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you again to read reference [29]. Apparently you have no idea what I'm referring to. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to emphasize this more. The terms in bold CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE THAT IS BEING REFERENCED. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And that is quite fine, because the New York Times is an acceptable source. As I suggested you do, and as a favor to you, I've posted your concerns to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for review. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's fine, then there should be no problem with the bold terms being in the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read and reply to Eleland's long statement on this matter, directly below. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

resetting the indents
Hmm, there seems to be a strange interpretation of policy operating here. We don't evaluate third party articles for NPOV, original research, etc. We do evaluate the publishers of such articles for reliability, and the New York Times news pages clearly meet those standards; in fact, they fall in the top tier of journalistic sources.

When there is more than one side to a controversy, we try to identify which viewpoints there are, so we can present them in rough proportion to their significance. In this case, there does not appear to be much of a controversy within reliable sources; an editor may personally disagree with the content of the NYT piece but this does not a controversy make. So using roughly the same viewpoint and conclusions of the Times piece is not a problem.

Using the exact language (Jim Bean's, etc) would be problematic, since the NYT is a newspaper and writes its articles in a certain narrative voice which may be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However, that does not seem to be the issue here - nobody is suggesting, so far as I can see, that we should say something like "The old lettering resembled the font used on bottles of inexpensive whiskey[29]".

Can we discuss, specifically, what language in the encyclopedia article is questioned, rather than perform a blog-style Fisking of the NYT piece? <eleland/talkedits> 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? If we're accepting the article as reliable reference, the entire contents of the article are therefore usable for this Wikipedia entry. Yet, if I wanted to make an edit that included any one of the terms in bold from the article, an erroneous appeal to NOR would be made. NOR has nothing to do with this. If the information is coming from the reference, it isn't OR. The only reason menacing lettering that looks to have been ripped from a fifth of Jim Beam is not in the article is because it makes it plainly obvious that the author of the NYT article is biased, or simply a bad journalist, which would undermine the veracity of the entire article, therefore making it impossible to insert the insinuation that Blackwater changed their logo in light of the shooting incident. There. That is a logical deduction. Anyone supporting parts of this NYT article but not others, is POV by virtue of logic. The lid has been blown. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my impatient tone, but we're either wholly accepting a reference or we aren't. Selecting parts of this NYT article but sternly rejecting others is OR. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...and it's not as though unrelated topics of this article are being rejected (such as unrelated background info, etc) rather, the author's own perception of the new and old logos is being rejected, yet, this is what the section deals with - the evolution of the logo. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC on logo section and overall article neutrality

has individually expressed ongoing concerns in the past month about his perceived view of the neutrality of the article Blackwater Worldwide. In particular, the Logo section is the current point of contention. Haizum argues that the New York Times article, "Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate" is a biased and individualy a possibly unacceptable source for information on Blackwater USA changing it's logo recently. From reading the entirety of this article talk page, he has also expressed that the article does not meet NPOV standards. An extensive review would be appreciated by outside eyes, as traffic on this talk page has significantly dropped, as the article has stabilized, except for User:Haizum's concerns. Aside from his concerns and some citation formatting clean-up, there is no other hold up now to starting this article on the GA/FA path, and we need to get this conclusively addressed. So, two issues to be addressed: 1. Review of that NYT article, and the logo section; and 2. the overall neutrality of this article, Blackwater Worldwide: is it fine? If not, why? !! time=21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Reason for RfC: Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has individually expressed ongoing concerns in the past month about his perceived view of the neutrality of the article Blackwater Worldwide. In particular, the Logo section is the current point of contention. Haizum argues that the New York Times article, "Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate" is a biased and individualy a possibly unacceptable source for information on Blackwater USA changing it's logo recently. From reading the entirety of this article talk page, he has also expressed that the article does not meet NPOV standards. An extensive review would be appreciated by outside eyes, as traffic on this talk page has significantly dropped, as the article has stabilized, except for User:Haizum's concerns. Aside from his concerns and some citation formatting clean-up, there is no other hold up now to starting this article on the GA/FA path, and we need to get this conclusively addressed. So, two issues to be addressed: 1. Review of that NYT article, and the logo section; and 2. the overall neutrality of this article, Blackwater Worldwide: is it fine? If not, why?

Please also read Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide#Logo directly above this section, for more background and discussion of the merits (or lack) of this source and section. • Lawrence Cohen 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this RfC, but let's not initiate it with a distortion. My overall opinion of the NYT is negative, but irrelevant. However, I do feel there are flaws in the article Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate that are universal. This RfC should be centered around the "Logo" section of this talk page, not past discusssions. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as the NPOV thing keeps trickling up, we may as well kill two birds with one permanent stone. Overall neutrality yay then from you currently, excluding the present Logo section, which is a nay? • Lawrence Cohen 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Positive changes were made some weeks ago because of my concerns and the corresponding talk sections do not adequately reflect that. If you continue to include that isolated discussion with this RfC, I'll simply abstain from commenting. Widening the goalposts is not an honest way to conduct this RfC. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC) _{Resolved --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}

To clarify, I'd like the "reason for RfC" to reflect the "Logo" section and downward. You're trying to make this an RfC about whether or not the NYT is a reliable source overall, which I find quite dishonest considering the primary focus of my concerns. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) _{Resolved. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}

(edit conflict x2) Not widening the goalposts, I'm simply kicking for a resolution for where they already were. As ongoing conflict on an article and POV tags will prohibit a GA/FA attempt, we need them addressed. I've modified the RfC slightly to be yet more specific. • Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the "liberal sources" bit was already resolved. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, given that Wikipedia doesn't grade, value, or devalue sources based on how individual editors may perceive a source's political slant. I'll remove that bit from the RfC statement. • Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree 100% with Lawrence Cohen that the NYT is a reliable source, but I am somewhat baffled that the issue of the change in the logo is given so much space in the article. Actually I had to look at the image several times to figure out which was the new and the old logo, and it was not easy to tell which was the more warlike version. I'd suggest that less article space is needed for the logo issue, though I see nothing wrong with citing the NYT. Is it possible that the logo issue can be mentioned, but with fewer words? The NYT article seems like a human-interest story, in that much is being made over rather subtle artistic issues. EdJohnston 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You agree with Lawrence Cohen because he isn't fairly shaping this discussion. This has nothing to do with the NYT overall, but the specific article referenced in the "Logo" section. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC) _{Resolved. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}

The length of the logo paragraph is honestly because the issue is getting a lot of coverage for what would typically be a trivial issue, indicating that the matter has weight as an event in Blackwater's history. There seems to be no end of Blackwater coverage these days, after the September shootings. They were a hyper-secretive company for ten-plus years, and everyone and their cousin is researching everything now it seems like, from news sources, to books. I've personally been inclined to include all interesting and notable facts--this article has already forked four spin-offs, of which only one is still technically stub length (see the Blackwater template on the article page). We could easily get Blackwater Worldwide corporate history, or something with a better title, in the next few weeks/months. • Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think of the overall neutrality of this article? • Lawrence Cohen 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the problem we have here is that the two main protagonists are actually arguing entirely different things. On the one hand, yes the fact that the NYT prints something is WP:V and WP:RS, but merely being verifiable from a reliable source doesn't actually make something WP:NPOV. All it means is that somebody expressed a POV, and it has been reported as such. We can account the POV as being notable, because the NYT chose to quote him. However, the requirement for NPOV doesn't amount to an edict that any comment that somebody might disagree with should be excluded. It simply means that we should include a balance between all non-WP:FRINGE viewpoints. So, I would suggest to Lawrence that he needs to actively seek out the contrary POV, and attempt to include it, rather than relying on the false premise that a WP:RS makes it WP:NPOV. I would then suggest to Haizum that he accept that the NYT reported comment is notable, and must be allowed to remain and that he should also seek out a WP:RS for a contrary POV and include it. If neither party can find a WP:RS that gives a contrary view of the logo change, then the contrary view would have to be regarded as WP:FRINGE Mayalld 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:FRINGE really applies. Multiple sources are commenting on the changes, as seen her, along similar lines. Would it help if I broke it down to more sources? I could probably create the same virtual paragraph from 4-5 total unique sources. And I agree, on a counter, if such exists. I'd be happy to include it myself if Haizum needed me, if he supplied a valid RS. Also, what do you think of the overall neutrality of this article? • Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • If all the sources say pretty much the same thing (and are in line with what is in the article) then we are in a position that the existing section covers all non-fringe opinions. Now clearly Haizum would not be happy with that, so it is incumbent on you to go the extra mile to write for the enemy to achieve neutrality. Mayalld 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that is a bit... odd, since we're hardly adversaries, and I wouldn't wish to approach it from that standpoint. I was more looking for an additional opinion on the overall neutrality concerns, as it's been bubbling for a while. Haizum said he was generally satisfied with it now, so I'm looking to see if consensus exists on that point--the article overall being neutral. • Lawrence Cohen 05:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The account of the logo change as originally stated at the beginning of the "Logo" discussion above is certainly suggestive of a certain correlation, even more so than the NYT article. However, the current description of the logo change seems sufficiently neutral, while still noting the alleged connection to the September shootings. As for the entire NYT article debate, I agree in principle with Haizum. Not everything can be sorted out through some Wikipedian dogma; once in a while a little common sense is required to determine whether or not an item is neutral. Nevertheless, the Blackwater logo font was indeed quite reminiscent of a bottle of Jim Beam. Bottledmark 05:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo section update

Haizum, take a look at this. • Lawrence Cohen 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Using multiple sources is a step forward. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like it meets all NPOV requirements. --Marvin Diode 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the required reference for the logo section could come from a source other than the specific article being used. It could even come from another NYT story. I simply take issue with that particular article for the aforementioned reasons. If that is accomplished, I have no significant problem with the article as it is currently written (at the time of this signature). Good work. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody home? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Currently the logo part is very subtle and pretty much avoids the issue. We here at Wikipedia are pretending that nothing really happened, all in the name of NPOV. The FACT is that they changed the logo from one that clearly shows crosshairs to one that does not. Why did they make the change? The company spokesperson when asked why it was changed says it was, "just modernized.", which means absolutely nothing. She also says the old logo was probably more fitting when the company was starting out as primarily a trainer of military and law enforcement personnel. So they did make the change for a reason, exactly what the reason is, they don't say. However, other people do say. So you have one "side" says it was done to make them appear less threatening, and the official corporate spokesperson basically saying nothing of substance, in fact, really denying it without explanation, which is meaningless. Yet we here at Wikipedia have decided that rather than show this, we should all pretend nothing happened. Fact, the logo was changed for no reason the public was given, other than "modernized". Fact, some professional graphics experts, given the absence of any real official explanation, have concluded that it was done to make the company appear less military. And we have Wikipedia pretending that nothing happened. A sad day for Wikipedia. -- Fanra (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that we need solid reliable sources that demonstrate this. If you can supply them here on the talk page by Googling around, I would be more than happy (as would others!) to integrate them into the article for you. • Lawrence Cohen 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Next steps and to-do list

I've been staring at the article for the past few days, as its not up to 65kb in size, which is too large. Theres not really a practical way to fork off a section yet, though, unfortunately. We can't do Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq, as that would functionally be the whole article. We shouldn't do Blackwater Worldwide controversies, unless that gets so overwhelming we have no choice--but thats a ways off. Blackwater Worldwide operations is probably the best bet, but needs more meat.

We have a ton of sources in the article not properly citation formatted, I'm going to start up on that again this week. So we can get 1-7 done. We also need to integrate all the sources that are listed under external links that Cla68 added. Beyond that, there is going to a huge amount of additional sources, especially as the arms smuggling investigations around Krongard have progressed in Congress, and the Nisoor Square killings have turned into an international lawsuit. Nisoor square will be a very long article on its own before all is said and done. So, short to-do list:

1. Overall citation formatting corrections--formating, cite templates
2. Integrate the huge pool of material and sources Cla68 found us
3. Collect/insert new material on Krongard, Waxman congressional investations, Nisoor lawsuits
4. Re-evaluate then where/how/if to fork another child article

Am I missing anything? Other areas of interest that merit a section on the article? List them all; we can always add them here first then ship them off in detail to the other articles, while leaving a reference here on this one. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercenaries?

before anybody makes anymore changes concerning mercenary and contractors, put down on this page why it should be one or the other. I personally believe they are more like mercenaries and in the traditional sense of the word, they are mercenaries but they are referred to as contractors.

^ it seems a lot of folks on the free-idea-exchange Internet recognize that Blackwater is nothing more than a gang of unaccountable mercenary thugs, but sadly the mainstream media has all but ignored this issue, other than for example Jack Cafferty of CNN, and the sneaky (?) writers of the CBS series "Jericho" where they depicted "Ravenwood" soldiers as an obvious reference to Blackwater :o ) 199.214.28.244 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll jsut call them contractors and put a note saying that while they are called contractors, they are mercenaries or something like that.Bubbleboys 22:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

they are mercenaries and they are contractors in both senses they are mercenaries because they have units that are paid and combat trained that go in "battle" (some even died in iraq) and they're contractors because they are contracted out by the gov't to do other tasks like logistics/integrated communications stc. they are also able to contract out themselves hopefully this will help you with your disagrement also check out their website [www.blackwaterusa.com]

errm, can someone add more relating to there new found role in helping out with the NO disaster as mentioned here http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml (very biased) and on there homepage http://www.blackwaterusa.com

I have added a brief rehash of Blackwater's press release and Jeremy Scahill's article. Nick

I do believe the correct "modern" term for them is "PMC" or "Private Military Company" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nollendorf (talk • contribs) .

My father works for the company, so i had the pleasure of touring the grounds. they are trained to protect highly visible VIP's, not "attack" front line enemy troops. This article has a lot of bias, but even bias has its citable sources. Ill see if i can get some good info from my father and maybe hellp make this article betterSponge1354 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It has to be reliable published sources. Punkmorten 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sponge, you hardly sound like an objective source. You saw a very small part of a very large organization. Ask your father about extraordinary renditions to Eastern Europe, or "interrogation techniques" at Abu Graib. ----Rawckuf.

the company says blatantly on it's website that you must be a US citized to apply there. therefore, unless someone can provide some evidence that blackwater does indeed hire (not just work with...remember people: multinational force in iraq, americans work WITH people from other nations all the time) non US citizens, the line regarding the term mercenary being correct only for non US citizens, i'm deleting the sentence. oh, one more thing to be deleted is the statement regarding 'private security contractors aroused anger in iraq'. it is not specifically citing blackwater, so why is it there? you wouldn't put a blurb about wal-marts worker comp fraud on k-mart's page, would you?

Would you consider BBC as a reliable source? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7008058.stm for referrence to "231 third country nationals and 12 Iraqis"Pustelnik 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater hired Chilean commandos. They have an entity based in the barbados which manages their foreign mercs. --KaliqX 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that they are mercenaries. That should be in the first sentence on the page. I assume the only reason it's not in the first sentence is because of blackwater employee's who wiki-propaganda. -- firefight 18:00, 19 Sept 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence Cohen claims that there is "consensus" on the use of the term "mercenary". Frankly, I don't see any such consenus.--Davidwiz 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Just because some newpaper reporters use the word "mercenary" doesn't mean that Blackwater is.

They are, or they are not, it doesn't matter. What matters is that many Reliable Sources call them mercenaries, and that's what goes in Wikipedia Niczar 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of the "reliable sources" are websites that, if you look around them, are very anti-Iraq war, anti-Republican and biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is far more common for reliable sources to refer to Blackwater employees simply as "employees" or "contractors". It seems incredibly P.O.V. to apply the highly negative term "mercenary" to Blackwater employees objectively firstly because it is not clear that they are acting as soldiers. The company defines their role in Iraq and other places they are contracted by the US govt as being security guards or bodyguards. When they have been involved in violent actions, they have been protecting a convoy carrying some civilian diplomat or businessman, not a military action. Secondly, for them to be mercenaries they would have to be soldiers fighting for a foreign government. Blackwater USA is staffed by US citizens working on behalf of the US govt in a US conflict, so the term mercenary again doesn't make sense. Jeremy Scahill has been the most vocal critic of Blackwater, and he has alleged that Blackwater hired Chileans or other non-US nationals to work in Iraq. If those Chileans worked as soldiers rather than simply as guards or logistical workers, then those Chileans could be called mercenaries, but only those Chileans. Scahill does not seem to be an objective source here, based on his extremely POV interviews on the partisan site Democracy Now. Scahill and virtually every source that refers to Blackwater with the pejorative term mercenary are opposed to the US invasion/occupation of Iraq and usage of this term seems to be more an expression of dislike for the US actions in Iraq than a sincere judgement that Blackwater employees are fighting for the highest bidder. Nearly all regular soldiers expect compensation, both in salary and often benefits as well. But a mercenary is one who will fight for any army at all, with no concern for any particular cause except his own financial gain.Walterego 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This terminology as used by the press is in flux as discussed elsewhere on this page. What was in common usage immediately after Fallujah was "civilians" or "civillian contractors". No one calls them that any more. All of the terms in use to describe the guys with guns who work for Blackwater in Iraq are POV, hence the consensus decision to supply alternate terms. --Pleasantville 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Just because Democracy Now! has a left wing POV doesn't mean they're unreliable. They regularly open their mikes to right-wing people. They also are accountable, and follow-up thoroughly on stories, unlike the corporate media. They do not have advertising, and are therefore independent of corporate pressure.

Similarly some very right wing sources such as the WSJ are considered very reliable (NOT the editorial page, though), with an excellent track record (so far ...), such that even left wing academics such as Chomsky cite them profusely.

2. This is an ad hominem attack on Scahill. Criticize his work on its merits, not because you happen to disagree with the politics of the people he associates with. Niczar 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the National Review has started calling Blackwater's American employees mercenaries recently. As I say, terminology is in flux. (This page is a real mess in that these issue just keep getting discussed over and over as though previous discussions never took place.)

Indeed, whether the term used to describe these Guys with Guns is euphemisic or not does tend to correspond to whether the person writing approves of their deployment in Iraq and elsewhere, and the NRO piece is perfect example of that. The seemingly neutral coinages that were current in the press for a couple of years (after everyone gave up on the term "civilians"!) were invented by PMC industry PR people. They seem neutral only to those unaware of the hisory of the terminology. --Pleasantville 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Love that NRO article, looks like someones worked out why 25 americans die for every brit and we are 6 months to a year from leaving totally. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

i cannot make contributions yet, but i think it would be appropriate for someone to add the following the in the "controversial" section. it should be noted the scary similarities between blackwater and the nazi SS, here is one referance- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen_SS

above the law, "to protect political people", best of the best personnel,... and cold blooded killers like many others have pointed out.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksheepwiggins (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't cite your own viewpoints in an article, sorry. --arkalochori ^|talk| 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i hadn't thought of it as "viewpoint". rather, a factual mirror of how the 2 are the same. aside from only the point in time in which they exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.230.70 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the comparison is relevant is, in my view, what makes it a viewpoint. It might not be if there were a reputable source making the comparison, though it is unlikely that one exists. To add your assertion to the article would be akin to me adding a comparison to Hitler in an article about a man with a moustache. Bottledmark 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to state that I think the term "Mercenaries" should be removed from the infobox. Its fine to point out that BW is called a mercenary organization by many sources, as long as both sides of the argument are given, but its not OK in the infobox. Private security is fairly nuanced, and yes, its easier to label a company a merc outfit than it is to explain the shades of grey, so sure, label them a merc outfit, but not in the infobox where theres not going to be any discussion on it. Its intellectually lazy. Tmaull (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

New mercenaries discussion

Before I would violate 3RR, I would like to expand on this but while people have criticized Blackwater USA to be a mercenary organization but what people failed to realize is that Blackwater USA / Worldwide is predominantly hired by the United States to carry out missions protecting diplomats. They do not participate in direct warfare as mercenary organizations are hired to do. Executive Outcome would be a good example of a mercenary organization because they were hired to carry out an agenda in direct warfare for which the host country desired. For example, the Polish ambassador in Iraq was attacked in October 2007 and Blackwater USA was assigned to protect him which they did carry out the job and brought the ambassador out safely. While the controversy over Blackwater being discussed as a mercenary organization, they are predominantly US Nationals under United States rules rather than their organization rules. I read through all the 5 source which all of them are Opinion/Ed articles but nothing based on NGO or official government assigned terms. Blackwater Worldwide is recognized by the UN and United States as a Private Military Company but not designated as a mercenary company. People will disagree that they are indeed mercenary but you have to prove that that they are fighting on behalf of a host country in direct warfare. Would you say a bodyguard assigned to an ambassador who is paid by the same organization is also a mercenary in another country? Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Private Military Company page states that However, contractors who use offensive force in a war zone could be considered unlawful combatants, thereby referring to the ”concept” being implicitly mentioned in the Geneva Convention and explicitly specified by the Military Commissions Act. unlike what Blackwater Worldwide does by participating in defensive action assigned to a task. ViriiK (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, in the Geneva Convention I under Article 47 states

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, 'take a direct part in the hostilities;'

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) 'is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;'

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Now, the above text directly from the Geneva Convention under Article 47 for Mercenary must include all fields. The Iraqi Government has sanctioned the company itself to do duties but they are nonetheless subjected to United States rules under the old CPA rules. The Mercenary page states that the French Foreign Legion and Gurkha's are not mercenary organizations because they follow the host country's rules and are not there for private gains. Also, another good example is a Canadian or any other commonwealth member can enlist in the British Military because the pay could be better than their own country but nonetheless they are still not mercenaries because they fall under the British Military's rules. Also article 47 states that the PMC must have a direct part in the conflict but this isn't the case as it is in Iraq. As they've been assigned to defend convoys and diplomats in Iraq, they are not seeking out hostile actions but rather being on the defensive for it thus indirect action. ViriiK (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi ViriiK. I agree that the legal definition is significant in and of itself, but at the same time, we don't adhere to that per our sourcing policies. That is, if a law states that person x is profession y, that is fine. But, at the same time, we have multiple international reputable sources that all refer to Blackwater as a mercenary corporation, which is ultimately what we are required by Wikipedia policies to go with. A discussion on Blackwater as mercenaries is definitely interesting, but unfortunately it doesn't change what we can do. You might want to read WP:SYN, which is policy:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[4] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

That is what would be happening here. We have sources that say Blackwater is x type of agent or guard or soldier. We have sources that say x type of agent or guard or soldier according to this set of laws may or may not be a mercenary. The problem is, as far as Blackwater goes, we have a variety of international 3rd party independent sources that refer to them as mercenaries. Thats all we can do, as well. Lawrence Cohen 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The 5 sources that are being used as an argument are being based on opinion/ed articles and one from a country that is vehemently against the effort in Iraq. Not to mention, all of the opinion pieces have an agenda against the Blackwater USA / Worldwide organization. While you state you have factual articles to base this on but it goes against the Wikipedia:Verifiability section. The articles are contentious because these authors do have an axe to grind regarding the company as they've displayed in all 5 of the articles. Not to mention, they are questionable sources due to their personal opinions regarding the organization's status and not based on official or factual findings. You claim that they are international reputable sources but I don't see it when they are opinion based articles rather than from official or factual findings. Not to mention, I have read WP:SYN in regards to this but that is not to be the final word whatsoever as I've pointed out regarding reliability. Afterall, journalism is about finding the facts, not making them. No official organization especially the United States Government, Iraqi Government, or the United Nations have declared Blackwater USA / Worldwide as a mercenary organization but rather as a Private Military Company with the rules clearly defined why they are so in the Geneva Convention I. ViriiK (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:SYN and WP:OR are at all times the literal final word that binds us all here, along with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. Anything that goes against those is removed from articles or doesn't go in at all. We're also not here to find journalism, or truth, or find facts. We're here to report what other sources say, never more, never less. We're never supposed to be more than a tertiary source. Ever.

On that note, I don't think we're going to agree, but I could be wrong and hope I am, and that you agree to go along with our policies. Policy is policy, especially on Original Research. Let's let others weigh in. As that citation has been supported and without any legitimate policy-based or policy-supported challenge for months, I strongly advise you to leave it in for now. Edit warring it out is not a good idea, because from WP:3RR it appears quite a few people will simply edit it back in, supported by policy. Others will need to weigh in on this, but this conversation has ended the same so far every time its happened. Policy supports including the mercenaries characterization, since we can only report what others say. Lawrence Cohen 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that calling Blackwater mercs in its company discription is needlessly POV and the link to the mercs article is already (justly) in the lead. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hypno. I'm certainly not going to edit war over it. Lets let a few more people weigh in, and I'll go with consensus. Lawrence Cohen 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are or are not a mercenary organization (and what the definition of that word even is) isn't really the point. This latest round started with the removal of a wikilink to the Mercenary article. The link clearly should not have been removed, as that article discusses Private Military Companies (PMCs) extensively and specifically the role of these companies, including Blackwater, in the Iraq war. If someone wants to try and make the case on that article's talk page that all discussion of PMC's should be removed, then go ahead. I imagine it would be a pretty tough sell. I think a lot of this simply comes down to the fact that the word "mercenary" has gained a somewhat pejorative context in modern usage, although it isn't inherently so. Thus, there are often attempts to sanitize the language wherever it occurs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me state again that having mercenry in the company info box is very POV. We don't add "obesity provider" to McDonalds company info box, but we do discuss obesity in the body of the articles. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that Blackwater don't work exclusively for the US gvnmt in Iraq. They also have other contracts in other countries which don't get nearly the same press as the Iraq involvement. They may not qualify as mercenaries in Iraq but it is quite likely they do in other countries, and that needs to be in the article in some form.Ticklemygrits (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think having mercenaries in the title box is wrong and POV. Its an opinion which DOES belong in the main article. But opinions, while important, should not be stated unequivically in an infobox without the subtleties discussed in the article. Its a great oversimplification to be stated without the context of the article. Tmaull (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No-bid

Prince did indeed confirm that on live television. Lawrence Cohen 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He may have. But the SOURCE you posted didn't support that. Notice that I didn't make the change in any other area of no-bid discussion, only that one. Do you think there is a reason I picked only one? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not only Prince confirmed this, but the State Department and Congress during the hearings. This is what Black Water was operating on, a no-bid contract. This is a common thing with government contracts when a specific item is needed in a specific amount of time.MustangSixZero 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Prince has questioned the use of the term "no bid", pointing out that they were already a contractor and that many of the jobs were already on the GSA bid schedule. Again, my single revision was where the cited source did not support the statement. As a side note, I think that the article is somewhat biased. It makes mention of the "no bid" thing several times, never providing any mention of Prince talking of being a contractor already or the GSA schedule. Why not one mention, provide the counter-view, and be done with it? Why the need to bring it up over and over? That seems to me to be somewhat of an agenda. Just my view, I could be wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, totally agree with you on that. That is an issue I have always had with the whole thing is people are quick to jump on the no-bid(bad thing, evil, must point to something wrong bandwagon) when in reality it goes on a lot, is part of the process, and Blackwater is not the first nor the last contractor that has utilized no-bid.MustangSixZero 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Much like the people talking about Halliburton and "no-bid" contracts, totally unaware of the LOGCAP program and that Halliburton had gone through bid processes twice, once under Bush41 and once under Clinton, winning both times. Political agendas. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We would need sourcing for the counter views, but I've got no problem adding them in. We shouldn't use primary sources right from Prince or BW corporate, though. Secondary sources are needed. But I certainly have no problem adding them. When I did a first pass of working on the sourcing here I added stuff along those lines. If possible, lets do fact and citation tags on unsourced bits first? All the material here is sourceable from rereading this many times, and easily, it just looks like some was added some time ago willy nilly. The article truthfully can be another 1/2 again as long, and will be once I begin expanding it out next month. Unless others beat me to the punch. The article is actually pretty darn neutral, as virtually everyone here has commented. The problem, thoughh, is that BW is a very secretive company, so something like 95% of the press coverage, reporting, and book work is negative in tone: thats all the world gets to see.

Unfortunately, due to BW's secretive nature, that is the tone the article has to take, but that is in line with NPOV as well. If only bad things exist that are reported on, we can only report on bad things. I recently picked up a copy of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which has literally thousands of citations on basically anything and everything Blackwater. Once I get going through it this article should expand exponentially. There will be a ton of great information. I was thinking of bringing this to Featured Article status, but in hindsight I can see at least 1-2 articles of that length and hopeful quality, and a few others bringing up the rear behind that. Lawrence Cohen 07:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For example an event not mentioned in the article, but was all over the mainstream media, was in Oct. 2007 when Poland's ambassador to Iraq was rescued by a Blackwater helicopter after his convoy was attacked. Blackwater was not working for him, they just happened to be available. [9] [10] Also, the article seems to gloss over their role as a training facility. Prior to the war in Iraq, Blackwater was primarily known as one of the premier training facilities for law enforcement and military firearms and tactical training, as well as training available to the civilian sector. This fact seems like almost an afterthought in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're complaining; it's a wiki. Feel free to expand the article with sourced material! It will save me some work, since no one else has seemed interested in expanding it recently. :) Lawrence Cohen 08:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because I still have difficulty making new source footnotes and don't want to screw up your article. Also, I stand corrected, your article did mention the rescue of the Polish ambassador. My bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no problem, and it's certainly not my article. Even the ones I started aren't mine, I'm just a caretaker when I help out. Same as you. If you want just wrap the sources in basic ref tags, I can clean it up later. Or list them here, either works. Lawrence Cohen 08:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Blackwater'?

Are they named after sewage or what? --RucasHost (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly tells how they arrived at the name. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Black bog water in the region where they opened their facility. Lawrence § t/e 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently reverted edit

Is there a reason this edit was reverted? It appears to be sourced. - Tmaull (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I read it wrong the first time. I restored it Jons63 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. - Tmaull (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

BLACKWATER USA IS AN "INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST" ORGANIZATION, AS DEFINED IN 18 USC 2331, ET SEQ.

---

The above statement that claims,"BLACKWATER USA IS AN "INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST" ORGANIZATION, AS DEFINED IN 18 USC 2331, ET SEQ." is completely false. The US Code collection can be found at the following link: [11]

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— 
   (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; 
   (B) appear to be intended— 
      (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; 
      (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or 
      (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and 
   (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; 

The purpose of wikipedia.com is to pass along "facts" to those seeking answers and to those who believe in researching something before formulating an opinion. This article was mostly spin and biased towards one-side. How is anyone going to gain any kind of knowledge on something that is so obviously filled with controvertable "facts"? I hope people will take the time to truly research the Blackwater company before formulating a perception, especially based on this article.

Cultural reference

The villain in the recent Knight Rider TV movie was "Blackriver security", a firm with contracts in Iraq... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

I've started reviewing this, but I'm afraid I'll have to finish tomorrow night. Sorry! I have some thoughts already though, figured I'd give them so you can get working on them. Most are very minor and won't stop it passing; however, the citation issues do need to be dealt with before it can pass. I've included even very minor issues that you may want to have dealt with before going to FAC.

• "...it claims is the world's largest" - minor point: maybe a different word than 'claims', which kind of suggests that it's a dubious claim. I would have changed this myself, but couldn't think of a word. 'Says'? 'Holds'?
• Too many uses of the word 'opposition' in the sentence starting with "Opposition focused on a potential for wildfire increases..." and the one before it: repetitive.
• "...application to set up a facility in San Diego County.[citation needed]" must fix all cn tags before this can be passed.
• "Many referred to the change as having eliminated the previous "cross hair" theme..." 'Many' is weasel wording. Who specifically said it?
• Democracy Now! rocks my world, but I would hesitate to call it a reliable source. Can you find another source for the info?
• For the sentence beginning "It is estimated by the Pentagon and company representatives that there are 20,000 to 30,000...", you should deal with the commented-out concern; it's important to faithfully represent sources.
• "Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security staff was involved in 195 shooting incidents; in 163 of those cases, Blackwater personnel fired first. 25 members of staff have been fired for violations of Blackwater's drug and alcohol policy and 28 more for weapons-related incidents." These 2 sentences are non-sequiturs; the first part of the paragraph is about international hirees.
• "...murdering him while drunk"--I think this means the killer was drunk, is that right? This could possibly be clarified a bit.
• "The crash site was secured by a personal security detail, callsign "Jester" from 1/26 Infantry, 1st Infantry Division." could this be translated or explained for those of us who don't speak military?

This is just a start, I'll have more in a bit. delldot on a public computer talk 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More:

• "Three Iraqi insurgent groups claimed responsibility for shooting down the helicopter, however, this has not been confirmed by the United States.[citation needed]"--All {{cn}} tags need to be dealt with.
• I have added a couple fact tags. At a minimum, all quotations and statistics need citations (WP:GACR).
• You should do away with terms like 'recently' per WP:DATED.
• References should be expanded to include author, date, publisher, title, and access date (e.g. this one).
• Choose either U.S. or US for the whole article.
• "Blackwater helicopters were dispatched to evacuate the Polish ambassador following an insurgent assassination attempt on October 3 2007" Does this have to do with the rest of the paragraph? I'm not clear on how, but that could be my own denseness.

More to follow. Once again, the only really serious problems are the citation issues. delldot on a public computer talk 10:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article review (part II)

Important stuff

• Is the youtube video in the references of copyrighted material? We can't link to copyright violations per WP:EL.
• There are some flow issues. Sometimes there are non-sequiturs within a given paragraph (I do understand the need to avoid short paragraphs though). If you have more than one topic in a paragraph, give it a topic sentence that covers each point, so the reader's prepared. For example, in the paragraph beginning "In late May 2007, Blackwater contractors opened fire on the streets of Baghdad twice in two days...", you could introduce it by saying "there have been several controversies in the news..." (but don't actually say that, because that's extremely crappy, and it's important to be careful with NPOV) My point is to have a topic sentence that will cover everything you're going to talk about in the paragraph. If it can't, you might have too many different things in that paragraph. For example, the last two sentences in that paragraph I mentioned don't seem to fit.
• "Overall, Blackwater had a "visible, and financially lucrative, presence..." reads like an NPOV problem. This is a source with an opinion, we shouldn't be stating it as fact. You could, however, identify who said it and put it at the end of that paragraph to back up the point that the involvement in Katrina was controversial. I think the whole article should be given an NPOV check by an uninvolved party, it's such a difficult issue. The whole article is sprinkled with these highly contentious facts. Not that they should be kept out, but some do seem a little out of context.

Stuff that's not that important, but I figured I'd mention it

• Might want to explain what "renumerative contract" means.
• "Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion..." should be changed to "Between June 2004 and [whenever this statistic is from]..." per WP:DATED.
• You should go through and check all the bot generated titles, filling in all the missing citation info.
• "...following the controversy related to Blackwater's conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan." Which one? Specify.
• For the dead links ("URL not found"), did you try going through web.archive.org to find them?
• Maybe you could split the "Iraq war involvement" section into smaller "general" and "events" subsections or something (the "general" wouldn't need its own subheader). A lot of that section is kind of a timeline of different scandals they were involved in.
• It seems odd to split the September 16, 2007 events between the Iraq war and legal sections, but I can't think of how you'd combine them.
• The sentence beginning "A Committee on Oversight and Government Reform staff report, based largely on internal Blackwater e-mail messages..." doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of that paragraph or the one before. Maybe it should be moved to the criticism section.
• The sentence "The legal status of Blackwater and other security firms in Iraq is a subject of contention" belongs higher up in the legal status section--it's introductory.
• "The Iraqi government said that it expects to refer criminal charges..." Who said that?
• It seems like the "legal status" and "litigation" sections should be kept together; they cover some of the same topics, and the non-Iraq services section breaks the flow there. Also, it further strains the reader's memory: "...Scott Helvenston... Remember Scott Helvenston?" :P I don't know where it should be moved, though. Maybe before the Iraq section?
• Find something to link to for "high-altitude euphoria", or explain what it is.
• This sentence needs more clarification: "The article discussed the removal of the word "armored" from already-signed contracts, and other allegations of wrongdoing." Why was that wrongdoing?

Hitting save now, more to follow. delldot on a public computer talk 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More:

• The sentence beginning "Blackwater, which he had hired for protection before his arrest, allegedly helped him escape" needs a citation and it needs to be clarified who alleges that.
• Raw URLs should be expanded to complete references. This is the case for the external links section too, though it's not as important.
• The external links section should be pared down to just the few links that offer useful info that's out of the scope of the article. Many are news stories, maybe some can be used as references (e.g. you can replace the less reliable sources like Democracy Now!).

I'm putting this on hold for now. The main problems I see are the citations needed, which have been tagged, the flow issues needing some reorganization, and a few NPOV things. The other stuff I mentioned would be nice to get fixed but aren't deal breakers.

I feel like I've been exceedingly harsh here; you've really done a great job with a very difficult topic, getting all the info in and keeping it NPOV for the most part. Definitely keep up the good work, there's nothing here to stop this from becoming a GA and beyond once these main issues are fixed. I'm glad to help however I can, definitely keep me posted and let me know if I can offer any clarification or other aid. delldot on a public computer talk 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article's been on hold for over a week, the review's received no response, and the GA nominator has not edited in a week. So I'm going to fail the article. By all means, though, feel free to bring it back to GAN when the important points from this review have been fixed! Leave me a message on my talk page if you have anything to discuss. delldot on a public computer talk 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS RIFE WITH WEAZEL WORDS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.155.104 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "OversightContract1" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20061207151614-43671.pdf |title=Agreement for security services |accessdate=2007-12-30 |date=2004-03-12 |format=PDF |publisher=United States House of Representatives }}
  • Blackwater Worldwide Oversight records.

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Worst Wikipedia Article?

This article is arguably the worst in Wiki history. The first paragraph alone is not only poorly written but also almost entirely (and heavily) POV. The inclusion of so many anti-Blackwater talking points just in the first 500 words is appalling for an alleged "encyclopedia," even by Wikipedia's usually shoddy standards. When people laugh at Wikipedia ... this article illustrates precisely why.

If any of you actually care about journalistic integrity and want Wikipedia to look something like a real encyclopedia, go grab one - a real encyclopedia - and check how they treat the subject. Then erase this whole article and start over. Begin the entire first section with NPOV, objective description. Since you won't be able to help yourself from including your bias, add those in later sections on controversy and criticism.

As it reads now, this is a one-sided embarrassment. I don't care how deep you are in your own brand of Kool-Aid, you should be able to recognize just how bad this article truly is. Imagine an article on President Clinton that begins with the alleged murder of Vince Foster and several alleged rapes, before going on to point out that he was the 42nd President. That's precisely how biased this article is.

74.185.105.135 (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like good advice, but you're stretching it a bit with your Clinton analogy. The only reason I've ever heard of Blackwater is because of the controversy, i.e. that's what makes them a notable organization to a general reader, at least an international reader like me. 137.122.200.168 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article obviously is biased and I think needs to be rewritten. It seems to consist of all the controversial actions of this company but doesn't include much history of the company. Also, the Najaf incident could be detailed more.

Alot of material on Wikipedia that is about private military companies is controversial and needs to be rewritten from a neutral view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's cute how all the IPs are chiming in. The only reason Blackwater is notable is because of the controversy they create. Be serious. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

-Anonymous user again-With the current article, it tells the reader that Blackwater Worldwide (when it's actually Blackwater Security Consulting-a division of Blackwater Worldwide) mostly about Blackwater's contracts and operations in Iraq. I think that there should be information about Blackwater's state of the art training facility (some of the best targets in the world and a complex simulation of a school crisis situation) and also Blackwater's contracts throughout the world (training the Georgeian military, guarding the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea-see Caspian Guard-, and they were recently in a contract that would put them in South America to fight drug cartels.

This article needs to be rewritten so that it is not biased at all and completely informative, just like what an encylopedia article should be written like. The current article just presents information that leaves the leader with a biased opinion of Blackwater. Does anybody understand what I'm trying to say? Thanks, I'm just trying to help make Wikipedia better in topics that I know alot about and have a strong interest for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a strong interest, then find the information, provide citations, and add it. Don't expect other people to do the work for you. And also don't expect the controversy stuff to go away, because as I pointed out, it's why Blackwater is notable. Having some state-of-the-art training facility pales in comparison to murdering innocent people. Sorry. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will be putting some stuff in very soon. I ask that somebody reviews what I wrote to make sure it is formatted correctly and meet's Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just put some stuff in. I couldn't figure out how to cite it correclty so my sources are within the article. Help please in fixing that. I just noticed that my edits do not appear. I am unfamiliar with how editting works but I'm assuming it's being reviewed by somebody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism & changes

There was some recent vandalism with critisicism against Blackwater that violated several of Wikipedia's rules. I deleted the vandalism.

Also, I made some changes but they were deleted reffering to Caspian Guard. I'm going to rewrite Caspian Guard with better citations so it hopefully meets Wikipedia's requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What are those rules that were violated? If you're referring to vandalism such as "bunch of fag army reject" and the like, there's no need to mention it here, just delete it with a proper log msg.

And I don't see your changes in the change log. Could you consider registering? It's not very expensive, you know. Niczar ⏎ 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)