Talk:Erik Prince: Difference between revisions
m Talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB |
Removed unsigned rant |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
The section is somewhat misleading. Erik Prince isn't known as a [[philanthropist]], yet this section is listed before his more notable sections. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.86.54.182|72.86.54.182]] ([[User talk:72.86.54.182|talk]]) 01:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The section is somewhat misleading. Erik Prince isn't known as a [[philanthropist]], yet this section is listed before his more notable sections. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.86.54.182|72.86.54.182]] ([[User talk:72.86.54.182|talk]]) 01:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:So giving to Focus on The Family isn't philanthropic? Does that mean anyone who gives to the Ford Foundation or the MacArthur Foundation is not going to be listed as a philanthropist? Both of those organizations support left wing causes that many, many people would find offensive, myself included. However, I don't go around challenging such distinctions. Such pettiness is a hallmark of this supposed "encyclopedia" and is one of the main reasons most people don't consider it one. Another would be poorly sourced accusations being presented as fact. The Nation is being used as a sole reliable source and the accusations therein are repeated as if they were the gospel truth. The Nation? The Freakin Nation? You have got to be kidding me. That magazine's well known animus towards Blackwater should immediately disqualify it as being used as the sole source for a particular accusation. And before someone spouts the ridiculous "we don't care if something is true, we only care if it can be verified" bullshit again (leaving aside the fact it is absolutely ludicrous that an encyclopedia is not concerned with the truth), it takes more than one source to verify something. That would seem to be inherent in the definition of the word verify itself. |
|||
==Prince & the Grand Rapids Press== |
==Prince & the Grand Rapids Press== |
Revision as of 23:52, 8 August 2013
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Grammar
There are many grammatical errors in this article. It seems to be below the normal standards not only for Wikipedia, but for English in general. Bad English seems to be a trend more and more prevalent. Is it a generational thing?
Family
Okay so I was reading the whole unfaithful to his wife thing and it just seems to be quoted by a book and of course anything else I can find on the internet just basically quotes the article, therefore I think it should be obviously removed due to the fact its just a claim in a source that no one but people who own the book can access, but I'll wait before I edit it because I already know as soon as I do it somebody is going to undo it. FreedomIsNotEvil (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read the book and failed to see the referenced statement in the page number mentioned? Only that would be a reason to challenge it Zencv Whisper 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I still think this is questionable. One anonymous person makes an lurid accusation, an author says he was told this (shielding him from being responsible for the libel) and prints it. Now we repeat it. Something like this should be corroborated by other sources, not based on the say so of one person who can't even prove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- What matters is verifiability, not truth(well, it could well be truth as well as we don't know). If he had ever denied it and we have sources for that, we may include that as well..Removing a sourced statement is not the way to go.. Zencv Whisper 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, keeping something contentious out, even though it was said in a "reliable" source isn't without precedent. Recently the issue came up in an AfD, where the subject was labelled as a member of organized crime. One news paper had stated it as fact, all the the rest said it was an allegation. Without his ties to organized crime, the man failed notability. The debate moved to the WP:RSN. You can see it here: [1]. As you can see, the end consensus was that while that paper is a "reliable source", but they were the only one stating it as fact and did so with no verifiable documentation, so calling him a member of organized crime was disallowed. This case parallels that one. You have a single source, stating something as fact, without any verifiable proof. Considering the number of people in the mainstream media that strongly dislike Prince and his company, don't you think more would jump on this bandwagon? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have posted this to the BLPN. [2]. Removing the material until this is resolved per WP:GRAPEVINE. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Something like infidelity is always contentious, then if it had been referenced in a Biography or something similar, then that is worthy to be included however unflattering it is. As for the notability of his infidelity, Erik Prince is well known for his religiosity, so something that is hypocritical is interesting for the readers. Your example - I dont find any strong parallels to this. Other stuff exists will only make the case to include it stronger, as there are many BLPs in WP where subjects' infidelity is mentioned based on an interview in their biography Zencv Whisper 14:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- How can you NOT see the parallel? In both cases, you have a single source, stating something as fact, with no other sources doing so. Other sources termed it an allegation. The other case had an even stronger argument in that they actually showed the source (ie court records), which doesn't happen in the Prince case. And, in the Prince case, nobody else is even calling it an allegation. This case has a weaker argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Fear of terrorist reprisals
"Some have claimed that this media-shyness is due to fear of terrorist reprisals for his role in creating Blackwater USA."
The article cited said nothing of the sort, so I deleted this sentence.--24.83.107.213 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the article does say that, but at the top of the 2nd page.--Pleasantville 09:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it does not. It simply states "there are ongoing projects by terrorist groups to collect information on private contractors." Nowhere does it state that he fears terrorist reprisals, that any have been attempted, or that any such plans are in the works. I'm removing it once again.--24.83.107.213 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Born in 1209? Appeared on MTV Cribs? Purple cancer?? Funny, but might to time to protect from vandalism. 70.160.240.45 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the link to the Nation article cited b/c it deals primarily with Blackwater. Erik Prince is mentioned in the article in only one sentence.--Davidwiz 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article actually has five pages, and Erik Prince is mentioned several times- especially on the last page, but I suppose the article doesn't specifically mention the allegations. I'll add more citations. johnpseudo 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, none of the lawsuits were filed against Eric Prince specifically, so they shouldn't be mentioned on this page. Furthermore, the link to the Huffington Post blog by Robert Greenwald is just Greenwald trying to peddle his film. --Davidwiz 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted an admin and asked him to put this page on his watch list. As someone who has been a public critic of Blackwater (under my real name, Kathryn Cramer) I feel a bit odd acting as Erik Prince's Wikipedia bodyguard against some fairly meanspirited vanadalism. (How low do you have to be to make fun the cause of someone's wife's death? Ick.) --Pleasantville 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer
- His place of residence is listed as a "hotel in Abu Dhabi". So if he lived in Virginia would his place of residence be given as a "house in Virginia" or an "apartment in Virginia"?
Inclusion of family
Basic family information (married? kids?) is notable for any biography. Exclusion of this information, with the verifiable sources it has, would be quite conspicuous. Just look at any other biography. johnpseudo 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's getting added in. • Lawrence Cohen 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Children: "6; 4 from his first marriage and 3 from his second" needs to be corrected in some fashion. Mycophile2 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Better image
That one I found on defenselink.mil is alright, and free, and clearly him, but not great. We need to find an even better free image. • Lawrence Cohen 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
October 2007 Congressional Testimony
We should probably be collecting relevant quotes from reports of his congressional testimony.
(1) Prince declined to provide info about Blackwater's financials when asked for it in testimony. (Rise of the white-collar mercenary, Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, October 3, 2007.)
CSPAN video of the quote on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbDmwsuyrKA&mode=user&search= --Pleasantville 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(2) Quote explaining the lack of remedies the company has for misdeeds by its employees:
The Blackwater employee fled to a guard post, where he said he had been in a gunfight with Iraqis who were chasing him and shooting at him. But the guards had not heard any shots.
Mr Prince said the employee had been sacked and fined. Asked why he had been whisked out of Iraq within two days without being charged, Mr Prince said the company had no power to detain anyone. "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him," he said.
(Iraq security firm denies trigger-happy charge by Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, October 3, 2007.) --Pleasantville 18:00, 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 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Middle name
I think the middle initial stands for "Dale" which was also his father's middle name. Does anyone know if that is correct, and can we source it? --Pleasantville 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- cryptome.org says it stands for Dean, if you still want to add. http://eyeball-series.org/erik-prince/erik-prince.htm Zmbe (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Philanthropy & Donations section
It seems to me like this could be worded a little better. Everything it references isn't by defenition philanthropic per se, they're all fairly polarizing causes - Focus on Family, Republican campaigns et cetera. I don't want to jump in and do it immediately, I'm sure this article tends to be fairly contentious, and due to the nature of the edit I somebody new to the article making it would probably be construed as vandalism by some. A bit of preemptive discussion would probably be useful. - Mbruno42 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Christian Freedom International is probably viewable as legitimate philanthropy; they claim to help those in need. Focus on the family, etc., certainly are not as they are political advocacy groups. I renamed the section, if that helps. • Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The new title works for me. --Pleasantville 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it as well. --Mbruno42 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The new title is good. NB, though: most of Focus on the Family's work is not political advocacy, even that gets most of the public profile. --143.58.160.62 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The section is somewhat misleading. Erik Prince isn't known as a philanthropist, yet this section is listed before his more notable sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.54.182 (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Prince & the Grand Rapids Press
Erik Prince apparently wrote an article for the Grand Rapids Press quoted here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/23/1429259 Can we find the source for this?
Also Talking Points Memo has a press quote from 22 year-old Erik Prince to the Grand Rapids Press here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054744.php
The then-22 year old Prince told the Grand Rapids Press, "I interned with the Bush administration for six months. I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with -- homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kind of bills. I think the administration has been indifferent to a lot of conservative concerns."
Can we find the citation for this? --Pleasantville 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Picture
That picture is horrible...he testified in Congress and nobody has a better one? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- No free one yet, that I've seen. I've Googled around .gov and .mil sites but with no luck as of yet. • Lawrence Cohen 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- blurry pic should be removed--Djgranados 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This guy is a shadow. Nobody has a better photo? hexbase 0:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC -3)
It's amazing how all these companies were founded by such wealthy people. you know the media story about Michael dell is bullshit too. michael dell's family was quite well off too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.203.254 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- here is a pic of him testifying before congress, hosted by cryptome. i think it's possibly AP but i'm not sure of it's origin. since cryptome is using it, it's probably fair game, but hopefully someone else knows for sure? http://eyeball-series.org/blackwater/erik-prince-07-1002.jpg Zmbe (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The picture should be removed - it is no longer the cropped version of the phooto from the hearing as the description says. I assume it is from cryptome, but that link doenst work anylonger either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.121.92 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Charlie Rose and 60 Minutes interviews
Anyone seen these? • Lawrence Cohen 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Robert Young Pelton has been posting transcript excerpt to the PMC list. --Pleasantville 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- PMC? • Lawrence Cohen 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yahoo Private Military Company discussion list administered by IPOA organizer Doug Brooks. Email me at kathryn.cramer@gmail.com and I can send you copies. --Pleasantville 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- PMC? • Lawrence Cohen 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- He mentions there that he is of Dutch heritage, i added that to the article 76.217.46.100 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo request
Does anyone have access to a good "free" photo of Prince, that would not need be copyrighted? The free one I found from a US Military source is passably acceptable, but it is hardly the best image. • Lawrence Cohen 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Defamatory Edwards Quote
The quote by John Edwards is defamatory and seems to violates Wikipedia's rules for bios of living persons. Even if it is not defamatory, the quote serves no purpose other than to promote Edwards' viewpoint and would thus seem to violate NPOV.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. The sentence you removed stated:
- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has characterized Prince as one of George W. Bush's "political cronies."
- WP:BLP says:
- The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics...
- John Edwards is a very notable figure, and Prince's and Blackwater's connections to the Bush administration are central to the reasons why both have become the centers of public discussion; the AP article in which Edwards is quoted is a classic reliable source; the tone of the sentence is a neutral and factual report of Edwards' statement; the sentence is very short relative to the article and certainly does not represent disproportionate space for a minority view. I am restoring the quote.
- Kalkin (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is one thing to add an opposing viewpoint, it is another thing entirely to repost a defamatory statement. Calling someone a "political crony" is defamatory. Whether the quote is accurate or if the person who said it is "notable" isn't relevant.--Davidwiz (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Crap. For one thing, if a statement is true, it's not defamatory, by definition. But more relevantly, it's not Wikipedia's place to decide whether or not it's true, or defamatory. The Wikipedia criterion of inclusion is notability and reliable sourcing, not truth, and certainly not whether a comment is mean. Kalkin (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the United States, "defamatory" statements include true statements. So you are wrong, "by definition". I'm wearing panties and I know more than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- From United States defamation law: "Truth is currently almost always a defense.". Fribbler (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the United States, "defamatory" statements include true statements. So you are wrong, "by definition". I'm wearing panties and I know more than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This entire article reads like a hatchet job and is going to be one more indictment in the inevitable class action lawsuit brought by the thousands of people slandered by Wikipedia. Most of whom of course are Republicans, Conservatives or others deemed to have inappropriate thoughts not approved by Liberals.131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Spy?
I just read an article that indicates that he is a spy, and came here for more info, and was surprised there was no mention. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/blackwater-201001 http://rawstory.com/2009/12/blackwaters-prince-cia-role/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepace (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Catholic conversion?
Anyone know anything about his rumoured conversion to Catholicism? WjtWeston (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Crusader?
The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe":
To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.
Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis." http://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder
I think this is an important side of his personality that must be referred to in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.192.110.224 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You mean the "declarations" made by anonymous people in a lawsuit that has since been dismissed? Not unless the re-wrote WP:BLP when nobody was looking. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Biased photo
Hi all. I don't know about that photo. It strikes me as a bit, ummm... shall we say, biased? He looks like a doofus! Heinleinscat (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Head of new Mercenary Force in UAE and his role
This is front page news on NYTimes. Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all. Probably need to update this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.216.105 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Myths and Rumors section
Should we have a section that contains only one piece of information from a group linked with Al Qaeda? Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- excuse me, the Taliban Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- The source calls it far-fetched. It is a passing mention by the source. There is nothing indicating that it has any bearing on Prince personally. This is his bio, not a respository for rumors about the company. I removed it per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Where does the source call it far-fetched? I can't find it. JamesChambers666 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right where it talks about the rumor. "So infamous is the Blackwater brand that even the Taliban have floated far-fetched conspiracy theories, accusing the company of engaging in suicide bombings in Pakistan" I have removed it again. It does not belong in a BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- excuse me, the Taliban Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget the sex rings, very important.67.190.86.13 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
College Degree
The article lists his degree as "Austrian Economics" however, Hillsdale does not offer this degree (http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/majors.asp). They do offer one year long course in Austrian economics within the broader econ major. (http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/majors/eba/economics/courses.asp) Although it is possible that this has changed since the time Mr. Prince attended, I am not aware of any schools in the United States that offer degrees encompassing only one school of economic thought. This is neither feasible nor practical given the availability of texts and faculty, particularly with a heterodox school such as Austrian.
Austrian economics has become a podium for many who have begun to identify themselves as "libertarian" (see Ron Paul) and it is likely that this is used here to boost the credibility of Mr. Prince's identification as libertarian later in the article.
I hesitate to put a "citation needed" in the article, because a proper citation would need to be either his transcript or diploma which are obviously not available. However, unless Hillsdale was able to assemble an entire faculty of Austrian economics devotees for only four years, granted only one degree, and was able to conceal the existence of this program from the general public completely, it is safe to say that it is impossible for Mr. Prince to have a degree in "Austrian Economics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.187.187 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No mention of murder allegations?
Who is editing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.217.204 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many of us edit it. If you have a reliable reference ( see WP:RS ), provide it and either edit the article or ask someone else to do so. Generally, unsubstantiated allegations don't go into biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP ). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (military) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles