Talk:Blackwater (company)

Soft propagandizing

This article and the one on Erik Prince seem to be aimed at downplaying serious controversy while creating a favorable view of their subjects. It's subtle, and not obvious POV, but I think the content is selected and structured in a very manipulative way. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

• No mention of any controversy in lead, which is incredible given the volume of scandals.
• Inclusion of admirable but largely unimportant facts like the supplying of food and water during a disaster and the rescue of a wounded Marine.
• Stating that Blackwater fired first in 163 out of 195 shootings, then placing a mitigating statement by Prince (that doesn't actually comment on the shootings) directly after, then mentioning one scenario leading to gunfire (vehicles not stopping) but not elaborating further or describing other cases.
• Very briefly touching on weapons smuggling allegations, then immediately stating that no charges were filed, conveniently not including that Defense and State Dept. analysts believed there was enough evidence to bring charges. Also ignored is the fact that in 2012 Blackwater paid out a large settlement for weapons smuggling.
• Saying leaked documents "argue" that Blackwater engaged in misconduct, as if they're taking part in a debate. These docs are field reports generated by the U.S. Army. They don't "argue" anything; they state soldiers' observations about events. The specific content of the reports is, of course, absent.
• Amazingly, only passing mention of the Nisour Square bloodbath, which is described somewhat deceptively as a "shootout" despite that the incident began when Blackwater personnel shot first at a civilian and a policeman. Following this is, guess what, a possible mitigating detail and a statement by Mr. Prince about being victimized by the government who funds his company.
• The only time accusations by ex-employees (about murder, prostituion, etc.) are brought up is in a sentence where Prince complains about "baseless" claims.
• A paragraph about a closed investigation into bribery fails to mention that Blackwater officials confirmed approval of bribes.
• Reporting the dismissal of charges for Nisour Square but not the reinstatement of them. Also, not including the testimony of a Blackwater employee who said that his team at Nisour Square fired on unarmed civilians.

Overall it looks as if this article intentionally omits the broader criticisms of Blackwater's operations. The unfavorable information that does appear is scattered throughout and described fleetingly and selectively.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive to potentially biased editing, but something's fishy with this page. 63.230.55.64 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's generally a bad idea to put controversial material in the lede of an article. The lede is for a general synopsis of what the subject of an article is, not for details or contentious material. If it's important and well sourced than it can be handled in the body of the article. I'd disagree that your two provided examples of unimportant material are actually unimportant. As for the rest, broadly, if you have good sources and think you can improve the article then I'd encourage you to do so. If someone has an issue with any of it they'll bring it up. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Do be careful, this article has been a magnet for biased edits. The very existence of Academi is anathema to many people who have seen this article's purpose as purely an archive of criticisms. Keep in mind WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And your mission is to keep this article clean from too prominent mention of the considerable controversies which accompany basically every single media discussion involving this corporation? Magnet for biased edits indeed... --85.197.24.76 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see each critical thing you mention is in the article. We link to the [ Blackwater Baghdad shootings] for those that want in depth details. If you want to add additional ref'd RS information go ahead. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Per WP:LEDE, the lede is to present a summary of what's discussed below. Reverted THIS change. Discuss it here. Mercy11 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be a summary. Calling out a single item from the history to put in the lead seems odd. I'm concerned that this article periodically gets runs of people trying to add negative items or place them in more prominent placement, simply because of their dislike for the nature of the company. Does this single item deserve to be one of two or three sentences describing the company? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.
My bolding.TMCk (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. Is Academi defined by that particular incident? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed defined in part by controversies like this one which is (I'd say) one of the most notable out there.TMCk (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll concede the point. If I was picking a particular incident which brought them to attention, I would have picked Fallujah, however. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling in the opening paragraph

I can't edit it but "company" is spelled wrong in "The comapny received widespread publicity in 2007 when a group of its employees shot at Iraqi civilians " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.226.19 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.TMCk (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Denial isn't a river in the Ukraine

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/greystone-firm-accused-disguising-mercenaries-ukrainians/story?id=23243761

Too newsy to mention? Hcobb (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's too speculative at this moment - it's not clear what is actually being alleged. Certainly if it acquires traction either as reality or rumor with its own effects, it will need mention here - although it's also worth nothing that Greystone doesn't seem to have ties with Academi at this point. Perhaps its time for Greystone to acquire its own article? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Germany's leading media now report around 400 Academi mercenaries being deployed in eastern Ukraine according to German foreign intelligence service BND: Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 11:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but apparently untrue. The Speigel article attributes the report to "Russian state news agency "Ria Novosti" They specfically say that this is denied. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We're probably seeing the direct effects of a propaganda machine. I notice someone has already added to the article that Academi denies being involved, if the Russian pronouncements continue it's probably worth adding pointers to the article of what's being denied. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. I'm a native speaker, but Google Translate yields the same result: The first 2 paragraphs in the article are about the allegations of Russian news agencies, like RIA Novosti, from March 17th and April 7th, and that there was no independent confirmation for these allegations. The 3rd paragraph starts by saying that these previously stated allegations now seem to be the truth after all, according to the BND report that is cited by Bild am Sonntag. The 4th paragraph goes into where that information came from, the US intelligence services, and that this information was presented to the head of the Chancellor's Office during the regular meetings of German intelligence.

I guess if we wait a day or two English speaking news media will take up the reports from the German media, so you can read it yourself. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, lets wait until everyone can weigh in. Let me note that in the articles one newspaper said that sources in German intelligence said this. German intelligence did not, not confirm this in any of the refs. Everyone is dismissing it as ridiculous. Wikipeia is WP:NOTNEWS, and it is certainly not unreliable news. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There are allegations. There are denials. There are reports. My edit says nowhere that the allegations are true. The allegations are marked as such. The reports and sources are reported as such. And since these allegations and reports are noteworthy, they should remain in the article. I ask you to refrain from undoing my edit, as this violates the 3 revision rule. If you think that my edit is in any way a violation of Wikipedia policies and that I am not willing or incapable of understanding your point, please get a third opinion or a request for comment here. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 19:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you are a relatively new user, please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. This is the essence of collaborative editing. You have made a Bold edit. That has been Reverted. Then we Discuss. Let's reach consensus before re-adding. I agree that if this develops further in RS it will be an excellent addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a new user. I rarely do things, but I am far from new or inexperienced. This line of "intimidation", especially with regard to your comment on my user talk page, should have no place here. You are free to point out inaccuracies or anything wrong, but so far you haven't done any of the sorts.

If you take a close look, you'll also see that the other comment from Tarl.Neustaedter said "it's probably worth adding pointers to the article of what's being denied", which I did, didn't I? The current section is far superior to the weird sentence "Academi denied being involved in the Ukraine turmoil 2014", which – apart from even lacking proper punctuation – doesn't even state the context of why Academi would issue such a denial. Now it does: It says there were allegations in the Russian media and a subsequent denial. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 19:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement page

The products and services description appears to be too promotional. It doesn't accomplish to Wikipedia rules --84.73.78.229 (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're concerned about. I don't see pricelists or any effort to sell product in that section. Which specific passages and which specific Wikipedia rules do you think are in conflict? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit over trademark/name infringement by Academy Sports + Outdoors

Can someone work this info into the article? http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2012/07/academy-sports-outdoors-sues-over.html --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just being sued isn't notable. If there was a ruling against them that made them change their name (which there apparently hasn't been) or a significant penalty, then maybe. And where is the outcome? It's 2 years old. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)