Talk:Nisour Square massacre

Language

The following sentence in section 1 is worded oddly: "US Military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault in the incident." The sentence is vague and does not state its purposed meaning clearly: that Blackwater was found guilty to using excessive force and killing civilians. Language is a powerful tool with which meaning can be understated or overstated. Just read Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics of the English Language". I am changing it to "US military reports confirm the Iraqi government's claim that Blackwater was guilty of using excessive force and opening fire without provocation."

If you have contrary suggestions or improvements, I'll be glad to see it changed to something even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.218.179 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New Info

THere is new info here. I don't have time to change this article now, if someone else wants to do it. Tmaull 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigations

I hope someone will update the article to include information found by the US Army Investigation shortly after the event. US soldiers: Blackwater attacked fleeing Iraqi civilians 'American troops investigating the deadly Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad found no evidence that security contractors were fired upon.' By Arthur Bright [1] Blackwater Guards Fired at Fleeing Cars, Soldiers Say 'First U.S. Troops on Scene Found No Evidence of Shooting by Iraqis; Incident Called Criminal' By Sudarsan Raghavan and Josh White [2] Blackwater: From the Nisour Square Massacre to the Future of the Mercenary Industry [3]

12.156.61.100 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Split

This article was the result of a split from a huge section in Blackwater USA, created to maintain a readable parent article/avoid undue weight issues/avoid this section completely swallowing up the rest. Could use a fair bit of cleanup to provide adequate context, cleaner section titles, etc. Could also use a run through to make sure that no links left out initially due to being redundant need to be restored/placed here. MrZaius^talk 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Name loosely based on the section name from Blackwater USA. Please Wikipedia:Be bold and move if a more appropriate name presents itself/has been adopted by the popular press.

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 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes me happy to know something I helped edit made it there. No vandals yet though.. --Nosfartu 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sound bomb?

To my ears, this is a weasel-word for "stun grenade". mdf 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah. it was the same wording as the NYT though Tmaull 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Errors

A lot of info on this page is out of date. There was no infant in the car, it was the woman's son. The evacuated diplomats were not in the convoy at the time of the shooting. The Blackwater shooters were part of a Quick Reaction Force that had been called by the Blackwater PSD in response to the VBIED which exploded near the meeting point with USAID. There are refs for all that, but I don't have the time to devote right now. Tmaull 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Immunity?

This article implies, but does not state, that the non-Iraqis working for Blackwater are immune to prosecution (otherwise why would the new bill described be necessary?).

If this is the case, how did this state of affairs come about? Shouldn't this be described in the article? Democracy Now! has on occasion reported that this is because contractors in Iraq were given immunity during the Bremner administration? If this so? On what legal grounds did Bremner, or the US government, have the right to exempt a contractor for actions that would otherwise be crimes? Does the Iraqi government not have the legal and sovereign right to investigate and prosecute crimes against its citizens, on its territory, irrespective of the identity of the accused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.126.102 (talk) 16:52, 9 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 :)

• "NYTBW-103" :
  • {{Cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/world/middleeast/03firefight.html | title=From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths | last=Glanz | first=James | coauthors=Alissa Rubin | publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' | date=[[2007-10-03]] | accessdate=2007-10-08 | page=2}}
  • [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/world/middleeast/03firefight.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=88d4f081e338e806&ex=1349064000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths - New York Times<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

bias

Regardless of how anyone feels about it, the incident is subject to an ongoing investigation. You'd never know that from the article, which, even in the introduction section leads one to believe that the case is closed and Blackwater is a murderous, terrorist organization. This article reeks of POV and should either be rewritten or deleted. -66.41.64.73 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in, if someone bites you for it, just report them. If undeserving of said bite that is :-) Nar Matteru (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You would like an article detailing the story of a corporation contracted and paid with the taxpayer money, whose employees (on multiple occasions) are accused by several eyewitnesses of intentionally killing innocent civilians without reason - to be deleted? Talk about POV. A mercenary agency such as Blackwater should be gracious everyone here at Wikipedia is forbidden from original research, otherwise we would have labeled their company as a paramilitary terrorist force long ago. F33bs (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

State Dept. procedure same as police dept procedure?

Moved from mainspace: " Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate. " Is the State Dept. just a police dept? Or does more authority come w/ more responsibility? Even if the statement could be verified, is it not SYNTH to apply it to this occurrence? 24.5.21.150 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)