Talk:Blackwater (company)

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)

It is incumbent upon the editor who is proposing a new addition to make the case for the addition. You have not yet made a strong case for inclusion. Here are my problems with it. I suggest that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I further suggest that the German news accounts are of unknown RS. I see no overriding reason why, absent of well-regarded RS media reports, we need to add this at this time. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The article we ref for this says "Eine Bestätigung für den Bericht gibt es bisher nicht." Why are we putting this up if the article itself is saying that there is no confirmation and that German intelligence is denying it? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The other thing we need to be careful of is what I think we actually have done - propagated propaganda. At the moment, it looks like the comments are carefully enough phrased to make it clear that it's unconfirmed allegations, and probably from a common source. The allegations are dubious; in these days of internet and cameraphones everywhere, it's not really possible for 400 americans to be actively working in a mercenary role in Ukraine without confirming the identity of a single member of the alleged group. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, please start to read carefully. I repeat one last time what I already stated above: The first paragraph in the Spiegel article is about the denial of Academi from March 17th. The second paragraph is about allegations against Academi from RIA Novosti from April 7th – allegations for which there has been no independent confirmation. "Until now", the third paragraph starts saying, as there is now an article from BamS citing a report by the German foreign intelligence service BND about 400 Academi mercenaries in eastern Ukraine. The BND officially declined to comment on the article, it did not deny it.

And again, I did not add a new topic to the article, I merely expanded the Ukraine section in this article from the completely unintelligible, since out of context, sentence "Academi denied being involved in the Ukraine turmoil 2014" to what it is now. As such it is not WP:NOTNEWS. Nor is it in any way sensationalist or stating something with absolute certainty. The allegations are serious enough to justify adding two sentences to the section. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 17:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The concern I have is that the allegations are anonymous and pretty clearly unsubstantiated propaganda, presumably intended to smear the Ukrainian government and the west. By giving them any credence at all, we carry out their dirty work. In a situation as dicey as Ukraine finds itself today, that's an uncomfortable position for us to be in. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

German media have been very, very pro-West and are still full of anti-Russian propaganda lately – something all 3 former (living) German chancellors decried publicly. The idea, that they turned around by 180 degrees alls of a sudden and are now just spewing pro-Russian propaganda, has a snowballs chance in hell. Besides, "substantiated" means in Wikipedia to cite reputable/reliable sources, that have a long history of careful fact-checking and editorial oversight. The 3 German newspapers cited above are such reputable/reliable sources. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 18:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still anonymous and unsubstantiated, all from what appears to be a single common source which offers no evidence. This in an environment where one party wishes to justify its actions by claiming the other party is being run by subversive influences from the west. It has the proper aroma to be propaganda, and were it up to me, I'd give it no credence until evidence showed up. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article presently. Bild is a tabloid. The source is anonymous. BND declined to confirm it. The only ones running with this are Russian state organs. There is not a consensus for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would note again that BRD process does not mean that we re-add material without consensus. Quite the opposite. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth, i.e. allegations don't have to be proven true before being included, they have to be relevantly spread in reputable sources. As such, it is not for us to determine whether these claims are true or not, nor does its truthfulness matter in terms of Wikipedia policy.

Second, Bild-Zeitung is a tabloid, but this wasn't published in Bild-Zeitung, it was published first in Bild am Sonntag, which is a Sonntagszeitung – Sonntagszeitungen are similar in layout than their daily counterparts, but boast more and better editorial staff to do things like fact-checking. I know it can be confusing that similarly named newspapers are different, but "Bild" is a brand, that is used for many different magazines not just the tabloid daily Bild-Zeitung.

Third, German news media are not Russian state organs. Nor does the fact, that Russian news media quickly grabbed this story from Germany, devalue or diminish the original story in any way. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 07:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild am Sonntag is a tabloid, as the German article on it clearly states in the first sentence: "Die Bild am Sonntag (BamS) ist eine Boulevardzeitung". Still, it seems reasonable to me to shortly report their claim (plus the denial) in the article, but BamS should be referred to as a "tabloid", not "news media". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not news. WP:NOTNEWS This is a WP:RECENT unreliable report from unreliable sources. It shouldn't be here. The argument for inclusion has not been made successfully. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BamS itself is unreliable, but their report has itself been reported by reliable newspapers like FAZ, Spiegel and Zeit, as linked above, or the LA Times. Therefore it could be shortly mentioned (as a rumour) using these reliable "secondary" sources...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The report was reported as bogus by the LA Times. There has been a full month for people to provide actual proof as oppose to referencing gossip. There is no evidence. Russell Teapot - You need to prove that there are 400 U.S. mercenaries in Ukraine, not the other way around. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column.Hilltrot (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the LA Times article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's 6-8 lines up. Hilltrot (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To simplify: here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:05, 13 June 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)

Redirection

I disagree with the redirection. I came to read up on the blackwater company. Now I am forcibly redirected to Academi. I would like to see the old article about Blackwater retained, and instead then add a link displayed to Academi. I did NOT come to find out the new name of the company! I wanted to find out the historical links, what crimes they commited in Iraq. What does Academi have anything to do with Blackwater in this regard? I did come for Blackwater, NOT for Academi! 84.112.136.52 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Academi _is_ Blackwater. The name has changed (twice - it was also called Xe Services for a while). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read that the Blackwater owners have retained the rights to the name; the new owners have renamed it Academi. The new owners are mentioned as Monsanto on a Swiss webpage.Obviously, this needs to be verified because it may well be propaganda. The German BILD Zeitung gives BND as a source, which is the secret service Bundesnachrichtendienst. This is astonishing in the extreme as BILD and their publisher used to have a great big reputation as being system compliant. I am just writing this as something to watch out for. 121.209.56.80 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild has a much stronger reputation as being a blatantly unreliable tabloid. And it's not exactly "system compliant" to trigger the resignation of the German President with an investigative report, as Bild did in 2011/12... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

To the second comment, the name has changed yet *again*, so what is your point here? That we follow the policy of 100x redirections? I want a historic reference, and care significantly less about how often they attempt to rename the company; a redirection attempts to lessen that role. The most important aspect is the mass killing that Blackwater did back then - whether they now have another name simply is of no interest to me as a reader. I need a stable link to Wikipedia and the role that Blackwater played back then. They now call themselves "Constellis Holdings" but of what interest is this when I wish to point out that this criminal event occurred back then, when they had another name or other owners? So I disagree with the redirection heavily, I came to Wikipedia for Blackwater, and NOT for "Academi" or the present-day company! 84.113.183.242 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

At the moment there are two different articles about the same company. Therefore, these articles should be properly merged. Redirecting just one page to another is not enough in this case. Also both articles' talk pages should be attributed with the proper templates to preserve the history. Beagel (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Blackwater Security company. that was a separate company from Blackwater itself, I don't know if that was part of the sale of the company which became Academi. Do you have any references one way or the other? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I just accidentally discovered the redirect link above the other article and find from the history that the other article was before 2008 redirected to Blackwater Worldwide which was later moved to Xe Services and then to the current title Academi. There was a talk page discussion claiming that it is the same company. I am not familiar with the issue and my only concern was that the redirect/merger action was done not correctly and was not completed, so I started the formal request for merge process. If they are different things, it should be clarified. Beagel (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Blackwater Security Consulting was a unit of Blackwater. I see nothing critical in the BSC article that isn't in the Academi article. BSC should be deleted and redirected here. If there is some critical information it should be added here. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this press release Academi is not Blackwater. The merge would be out of question then. Academi link Fayyar (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

But in this case the move to the current title back in December 2011 was incorrect. It seems from the talk page archive that the understanding back then was that this is the same company. Anyway, if the companies are different, all the information about Blackwater should be moved from this article to the Blackwater article. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not incorrect. There is no "Blackwater". The company that was "Blackwater" was first renamed "Xe" and later purchased and renamed "Academi", we have dozens of mainstream RS refs for that. The there is no reliable source that suggests that a company called "Blackwater" currently exists anywhere. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a question if Academi and Blackwater Security Consulting about the same subject and these articles should be correctly merged (which was not done), or they are different subjects and the Academi article should be cleaned-up and information about Blackwater should be moved into Blackwater Security Consulting or some other article. Questions for this RfC are:

1. Do Academi and Blackwater Security Consulting is the same company or different companies?
2. Should these articles do be merged or keep separated?
3. If there should be separate articles, what is the correct title for the Blackwater article?
4. If these are different companies and there should be separate articles, what is the correct target to move Blackwater information from this article? Beagel (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge As best I can tell, Blackwater Security Consulting was a wholly-owned unit of Blackwater, and appears to have been sold along with Academi. The addresses I can find for BSC are all addresses which now are marked as "Academi", and I can find no activity for BSC as such in recent years. Note, by the way, there is a "Blackwater Agency Security Consulting", which appears to be an entirely independent endeavor in Florida, but they appear to have simply appropriated the name. Thus, my opinion is that the two articles articles in question should presumably be merged. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Merge They are the same company, even if the lead of Blackwater Security Consulting says created 2001 (Infobox: 1997). I don't really care under what name they are merged because there will be a redirect, but most of the text and coverage is as "Blackwater". I don't know what possessed editor Tmaull to create this page over the clear redirect to Blackwater Worldwide in February 2008, but since Tmaull has not edited since June 2011, I doubt we can ask. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. I didn't realize that they hadn't been merged during the name change. This is the same company under a new name. Nothing really justifying separate articles. Keeping them separate is akin to having 2 BLP's, one before marriage and one after (with a name change). Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. Technically Blackwater Security Consulting was a division of Blackwater. They should have been merged long ago. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

<NO WAIT!> This is backwards. I just re-read the OP. BSC is a small division of what was Blackwater and is now Academi. The material from that smaller article should be added here to the main article. We can't throw material from the main article into a subsidiary. That would be inaccurate and we would have no RS refs that would allow it. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I assumed merging into Academi was a given - Wikipedia policy is articles about companies should have their current name. Had the merge gone into BSC, a rapid rename to Academi should have followed. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's great. It just seemed to read backwards in the RfC description. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment actually two articals (this one and Blackwater Worldwide businesses were merged in 2009, but in 2008 Tmaull decided to create a new Blackwater Consulting page. The ancient history is with this article which went to "Blackwater Worldwide" to "Xe Services" and then here at "Academi". --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• 12 December 2011‎ Sandstein (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (102,072 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe Services to Academi:
• 3 August 2011‎ ErikHaugen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (100,856 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe Services
• 24 June 2009‎ R. Baley (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,711 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe (Blackwater) to Blackwater Worldwide
• 24 June 2009‎ CnrFallon (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,711 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe (Blackwater)
• 8 April 2009‎ Pmanderson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,057 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe (company) to Blackwater Worldwide
• 8 April 2009‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,057 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe (company)
• 11 March 2009‎ 33rogers (talk | contribs)‎ . . (98,210 bytes) (+21,902)‎ . . (→‎Corporate history: merge not opposed december 2008 - [merge in from Blackwater Worldwide businesses]
• 19 February 2009‎ Parsecboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (76,603 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe (company) to Blackwater Worldwide
• 14 February 2009‎ Jnelson09 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (75,514 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe (Company)
• 10 February 2008‎ Tmaull (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,033 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (added wikilink) [to the newly created Blackwater Security Consulting, continues to edit main Blackwater article until 1 May 2008]
• 10 February 2008‎ Tmaull (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,636 bytes) (+15,602)‎ . . (page created) [over redirect at Blackwater Security Consulting, Tmaull did not discuss the creation on this talk page, nor even mention it.]
• 31 October 2007‎ Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (57,773 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater USA to Blackwater Worldwide
• 16 October 2007‎ Tmaull (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,170 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (→‎Other employments) (Tmaull begins making edits at Blackwater USA)
• 1 April 2004‎ Fuzheado (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (#REDIRECT Blackwater_USA) [from Blackwater Security Consulting]
• 1 April 2004‎ Fuzheado (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,122 bytes) (+1,122)‎ . . (started) [page created at Blackwater USA]

Just a short history for quick reference. --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Merge taking care not to delete referenced info, and leave a redirect here that points readers to the Blackwater article. Darx9url (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Merge since they are obviously the same multinational corporation, indeed the same notorious organization that has employed numerous names and identities for purposes of obscurity. More to the point people performing research will wish to be presented with encyclopedic completeness, there's no point in asking researchers to click on an "also known as" link to get the rest of the information they seek. Damotclese (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Merge as they're pretty much the same company. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I was asked by a bot to participate here. It appears you have consensus without me. I suggest you proceed. Jojalozzo 01:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Merge into Academi. For articles about companies, there should be one article with the current name that contains the history. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)