Talk:Blackwater (company)

Naming

Just coming to this page for the first time (so no baggage for this editor) and I have to say its a little odd that after a company changed its name 2 years ago wiki is refusing to reflect that change based on a consensus of editors who clearly have a particular position on this company. Those that have formed the consensus are very clearly do not view this org favorably. Not to suggest this eliminates their views from being valid or considered but at the same time it does raise an npov issue. I would suggest the page be renamed to XE World Wide with it being made very clear, first line of the lede, that this is the former Blackwater. Additionally all iterations of blackwater (worldwide, inc, usa, etc.) be redirected to XE Worldwide. What does everyone think? 207.216.253.134 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually concur, it really does need to be changed. Were the company to no longer exist common usage would be acceptable but as Xe very much exists to tie its entry to a name no longer in use is inappropriate. I purpose that the article's tile be changed to Xe, little in the body of the article would need to be modified. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, The page should be renamed to Xe, whilst making it clear that the company was formally known as Blackwater Adjective Noun (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually disagree. Even though the official name is Xe Services, pretty much every time it's mentioned in a reliable source, it's referred to as "Blackwater (which renamed itself Xe Services )" or somesuch. e.g. [1] —Ashley Y 20:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually can't believe, along with the initiator of this section and a couple of more months having passed now, that the name change hasn't yet taken place. Yes, headlines like today's "Former Blackwater firm moves to Washington area" in the Washington Post will keep referring to the former name, and Wiki's disambiguation pages Xe, now, and redirect pages Xe (company), now, and possibly even article name -- Xe Services LLC (formerly Blackwater) I can certainly live with, though I think it's a bit muddier than just having the new name -- will keep the name-change from confusing anyone. Companies change their names. Yes, they can be trying to get away from past associations. Wiki doesn't want to let confusion develop as a consequence. But it also needs to reflect the world as it is.

Or do we have to move to two articles, with the Blackwater article being a history article? I think that's worse, but it's getting to that point I think.

One can also see, in Footnote 4 of the article, that UPI said "Xe Services, formerly Blackwater" on the name change story. Wiki's out of the loop as it stands today, I think. Swliv (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it should be Xe Services LLC. Anybody peeking at the article can see immediately that it used to be called Blackwater. That should satisfy the people who claim to oppose Blackwater because of some of these incidents.

If we're taking another vote, I'd vote for naming the article as though this is a company, which it is.

But on the bright side, by keeping the old name here, anybody can see what kind of an article this is. It serves as its own kind of subtle NPOV tag in that way.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Randy. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto

Should we include this article? It suggests that Bhutto requested private security from Blackwater shortly before her assassination.http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/could-the-us-have-prevented-benazir-bhuttos-death/239282/ Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My initial but not concrete opinion is no. The Atlantic is generally a reliable source and no red flags immediately crop up about Brian Till in this context but even within the article Blackwater is merely "speculated" as being a firm that Bhutto "considered" but never actually employed. I don't really think it's a noteworthy event in Blackwater's history but it's most certainly belongs on the Benazir Bhutto article and/or the "Background" section of the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article, especially with the original reporting from the Telegraph. Note though these sort of publications have a long illustrious history of screwing this sort of reporting up or blowing things like this out of proportion. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this information should be included on Bhutto's website. However, I also think it belongs here. According to the article (which cites another article), she asked Blackwater for additional protection, and the UN investigation said that "Ms. Bhutto's assassination could have been prevented if adequate security measures had been taken." Give the amount of criticism Blackwater has received for being reckless mercenaries, I think something like this demonstrates that private security contractors can serve a desirable purpose. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually just found a story about this online while I was browsing around online. This is a fascinating find and it seems like it couldn't hurt to at least mention it within the page. PSBFAN21 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Corporate History

Maybe its me, but it seems as if there are unnecessary details listed under the corporate history section. Example: "In 2009, Prince announced that he would relinquish involvement in the company's day-to-day business and in December along with some of his ownership rights. He is also considering becoming a teacher.[36] In late 2010, Prince moved to Abu Dhabi to be able to spend more time with his family.[37]" (emphasis added). Shouldn't this be relegated to the Prince page? Thanks for your input! PSBFAN21 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation Problem

In the Ongoing Controversy section I noticed that the following information was cited from one article in Pilotonline.com: In March 2006, Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater USA, allegedly suggested at an international conference in Amman, Jordan, that the company was ready to move towards providing security professionals up to brigade size (3,000–5,000) for humanitarian efforts and low-intensity conflicts.[178] The company denies making this claim.[179] (179 is a dead link from the same website and should either be fixed or removed).

My question is, is PilotOnline a legitimate source for this kind of information? My concern lies with the fact that we have a decent size paragraph in a controversy section based solely on information from this one source that seems a bit questionable to begin with.PSBFAN21 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Move? (2)

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

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Blackwater Worldwide → Xe Services –

• Someone has mentioned this move in my user talk page. I better get it re-discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blackwater is still used in the media even when the actual controversy isn't being referred to. Marcus Qwertyus 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Blackwater does not exist anymore. Many of the personnel previously in Blackwater have left. For the remainder the company, the board, the management and the business model have all substantially changed over the past three years. Xe is not Blackwater and the colloquial association in the media for the layman does not lend encyclopedic credence to keeping the name of a former company on a different company's article. Not to say that two articles might not be out of the question, but to tie Blackwater's article to Xe demonstrates a subjective judgment on the part of editors. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The article makes clear that Xe was formally Blackwater.Tommyboy1215 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The company legally changed its name, the article should do the same for NPOV. -- Randy2063 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support They changed their name, this is really a no-brainer. V7-sport (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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