Jump to content

Talk:Blackwater (company)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)
This section read like an advertisement for Xe. First Bhutto asks for help--fr/ Xe & others, then she's assassinated. Result shows better security might have averted death. Attempt to show that had Black, er Xe been hired, things might have been OK. Ergo removed. Better addressed in article about Bhutto. Tapered (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
We should consider rewording the paragraph. There may have been a WP:SYNTH problem, as you indirectly pointed out, but the fact the Bhutto requested more security from XE/Blackwater is important. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 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.

Resource

Contractor Tries to Shed Blackwater Past in 29.september.2011 WSJ by Nathan Hodge 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Transporting Congressman Grayson

Xe rescued US Congressman Alan Grayson from Niger after a coup erupted during his trip to that country:

http://www.alternet.org/world/145807/blackwater_rescued_progressive_house_rep._alan_grayson_from_niger

http://alleyesonabama.blogspot.com/2010/02/blackwater-rescued-progressive-house.html

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/02/blackwater-xe-rescue-alan-grayson

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/grayson-caught-in-niger-coup/?fbid=nYzz4wMrFmG

This is notable and should be mentioned on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.8.239 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The previous entries ran afoul NPOV and weren't encyclopedic in tone never mind the sheer real estate given over in the article being pretty undue. Still, a private military contractor as prevalent in the industry as Xe evacuating a former Congressman who made a living as a trial lawyer and a platform as a politician going after PMCs is pretty indisputable in it's notability. I'd say a brief mention is warranted. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"Notability" is measured when evaluating the suitability of a subject for a Wikipedia article, not when certain text is going to be introduced into an already existing article, as we have in this situation -- this falls under WP:WEIGHT. Moving people out of volatile situations, even state representatives, isn't exactly an encyclopedic bullet-point. Even if the misconceptions given above about Grayson were true. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm unsure of what misconceptions you are referring to, could you clarify? I'm familiar with how the term "notability" generally works in the context of Wikipedia; no need for Wikipedia 101, but thanks. The GNG is often used by editors as a short hand to determine whether or not a particular portion of an article is worthy of inclusion. If it meets the GNG it probably warrants mention. After all if its obtained significant coverage from independent sources its probably worthy of note. WEIGHT is chronically misunderstood as it primarily deals with the amount of real estate given over to varying view points, not the encyclopedic cataloging of events surrounding or involving notable topics. I see no reason to not include this particular portion of the corporate history nor why it would be constructed as a "bullet point". It seems no less notable than most of the other portions of its history already included here. Could you explain your reasoning? TomPointTwo (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if my comment came off as "Wikipedia 101", I was just trying to be helpful. Of course you are correct that some editors try to use the WP:GNG to determine if inclusion of specific content in an existing article is appropriate; that may be why it was deemed necessary to reiterate in the lead (and even the "In a nutshell" header) that: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." As for WP:WEIGHT, it deals with not only how much real estate specific content warrants, but whether or not that content deserves mention at all. When that content is about a living person, there are, additionally, even more restrictive concerns that I'm sure I don't need to spell out for you.
Back to the topic of introducing Grayson trivia into an article about Xe Services. The sentence that was removed, and that we're presently discussing, intended to convey a certain point of view about Grayson, while conveying nothing of encyclopedic interest about Xe Services. Hence my edit summary stating (wrong article, this is about Xe). I have no objection to describing the "corporate history" of Xe, if that is your intent. The article already conveys that Xe Services provides contract security services and transportation to U.S. government personnel. Looking at the single relevant source cited above (yes, just 1 ... the esteemed "alleyesonabama" and "alternet" merely mirror the Mother Jones piece, and the CNN blog makes zero mention of Xe Services), I don't see the "significant coverage" you mentioned. As for your qualification of Grayson above, made a living as a trial lawyer and a platform as a politician going after PMCs, I had to chuckle at that. I've also heard that described from a completely opposite POV as Grayson being a critic of "companies who have been found to cheat the American people, defraud our government, and unnecessarily risk the lives of members of our military, all in the name of making a profit." While you can "make a living" suing medical practitioners who are guilty of negligence and malpractice, you aren't likely to successfully make a living out of merely "suing doctors", as others would misdescribe it. The sentence we're discussing was correctly removed from this article as grossly inappropriate. If you are proposing that a "brief mention" of something be introduced to this article, I'll reserve further comment until I see that actual relevant content (and the reliable sources from which it is derived). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming again

Someone willing to rename the article again? It's now Academi, and Erik Prince is no longer involved in the company. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/11/blackwater-gets-an-even-bigger-makeover/ . Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made the rename and tried to adjust the naming in the article such that references to the company as it existed at some point in the past use the appropriate previous name, and references to the company as it exists now use the new name. But I've probably missed some cases.  Sandstein  19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest that the article should be under Blackwater or Blackwater/Xe because that is where the company gained its fame (read notability). I would also accept Blackwater/Xe/Academi. This new name is unrelated to the notorious company. --Bejnar (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Normal standard is that the article reflect the current company name. The old names are linked, so if someone searches for Blackwater (or has an old link), they'll end up here. There are certainly enough comments about the predecessor company names that nobody is going to get confused. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
With the substantial change in corporate governance we may need to make an editorial decision as to whether or not Blackwater warrants a historical article and the current corporate body a separate treatment. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What is there to separate? Besides the name it is still the same company with all the good or bad in their history. When a person changes their name it's still the same person and our BLP on them would still be the same besides reflecting the new name.TMCk (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Niteshift: there is no need to "link them together" as they are simply one and the same.TMCk (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stating the obvious.....I know there is nothing to link together. Did you see anything indicating I supported separating them? I was pointing out that if we did separate them, people would waste time linking them again. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

Now that Blackwater/Xe has changed its name to the much more generic Academi, I propose moving this page to Academi (private military company) and placing a disambiguation page at Academi to help differentiate it from Literature Wales and Platonic Academy. Gobonobo T C 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Academi spelling is common specifically for Plato's Academy as a closer transliteration from the Greek. But even if it weren't, the fact remains that the name Academi is unrelated to the core notability of the company. --Bejnar (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Academic use. --Bejnar (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In the future, let's take note of WP:COMMONNAME and specifically WP:OFFICIALNAME, which particularly cautions against dependence on "official" names because they "may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current." I'll hazard that reliable sources regularly reference "Blackwater" for clarification when identifying this entity because it is the most recognizable name. Sticking with one name in the future would also obviate these successive naming disputes. ENeville (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you come up with examples of reliable sources still referring to the company as Blackwater? I've occasionally seen references to "the company formerly known as Blackwater", but never seen a reputable source just using the name Blackwater when referring to the current company. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
That is what ENeville is saying, they refer back to the consistent name "Blackwater" even when using the new name. Also it depends upon context, when you are reading about their indiscretions it is invariably "Blackwater" since that was the name they had when those acts were committed. --Bejnar (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Update the page to the present

General updating needed: The entire section 'Iraqi courts and legal action' is well out of date. One source from 24 months ago: cnn.com iraq.blackwater Jan. 3, 2010.

New section needed - 'Contractor misdeeds lead to U.S. military leaving Iraq' All forces and contractors now (as of 2012) subject to Iraqi law is the reason and that is due to past abuses by contractors in Iraq.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Cannenbere (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In general, the page needs to be reformatted. Some info is left out, and a lot of the subsidiaries are dated. Not an easy task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.71 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Structure should be aggressively edited.

We have no sources for the current corporate structure. This is a company that has undergone name changes, change of management, change of corporate ownership, and re-organization. There is no RS for the corporate structure section. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since we haven't any sources for the current organization structure, I have edited to services and products (as opposed to business units). I can find no evidence that the Airships unit or product still exists though. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a source for organization structure of blackwater that clarifies much of pre-renaming org. It is Mother Jones. I will edit and add ref.Capitalismojo (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blackwater Security Consulting

Why does the article for Blackwater Security Consulting still exist? The Academi/XE article contains better-written, more up-to-date writing that covers essentially the same content. Should the Blackwater Security Consulting article be deleted? (Jefftravishenderson (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

This seems to have long ago been taken care of (that page now redirects to Academi), commenting here so it doesn't appear that this is an open issue. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Too Much Left Out

I don't see anything about the sanctioning of the rape of female US citizens, or creating a culture of perpetual warfare and military industrialism. Some Blackwater marketers must come here and edit the facts out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.80.243 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy you need to look at is Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. The other point you need to look at is Wikipedia:NPOV - no matter how strongly you feel about a subject, please present only facts documented by said reliable sources, avoiding speculation or adding your own interpretation to the article. Your talk comment here violates those. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A bigger ommission is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide/Archive - At the time of writing this, there was no link to it on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't generally link from Wikipedia articles to talk page archives. Again, see WP:RS for what should be included. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood the previous IP, or maybe you misunderstand what an "article" is. Either way, talk pages are not articles, and talk pages for an article are supposed to link to archived talk pages for the same article. Just because the page has been renamed doesn't change that. Anyway, I think the issue is that Talk:Xe Services/Archive needs to be moved to Talk:Academi/Archive. As I understand it, the header on this talk page will take care of the rest. --24.86.250.212 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Tarlneustaedter, 93.97.143.19 specifically said "no link to it on this talk page". And 93.97.143.19 was completely correct. The omission of moving and linking the talk archives is inexcusable. A talk page needs its archive like a memory. The way it was (at my request, the talk archives have now been moved here), we were essentially recreating Blackwater/Xe/Academi's intended public amnesia about its past. This is the most structurally corrupted and systemically POV we can possibly get. Nevermind that the article itself is far from accurately reflecting the huge majority of negative press the corporation is actually getting. --85.197.8.70 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Who is Jamie Smith

An IP from Morocco has been long-term repeating the addition a statement to the corporate history saying Its first Director was then Vice President of Blackwater USA, former CIA Officer Jamie Smith. Several editors have reverted the statement, it doesn't seem meaningful to that part of the article, no citation is provided which might explain the relevance (or even truth) of the statement. Does anyone have a guess at what's going on beyond vandalism? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

O.k. - I've found numerous references to a former CIA operative Jamie Smith who worked with Prince in founding Blackwater. If we want to add this information to the article, we can, but we should probably have more disambiguation because Jamie Smith is a very common name and even finding references to the person in question is difficult through the noise. The question at this point is notability - is there some reason it's interesting that he was the first director of blackwater, since no other directors are mentioned? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant and mentioned in both Jeremy Scahill's book "Blackwater" and Robert Pelton's book about Blackwater. Jamie Smith was hired by Erik Prince immediately after 9/11 as VP of Blackwater USA. Smith asked as a condition of employment that Blackwater Security be formed. It was and he was the first Director. It's not coincidence that he is former CIA and the first contract was with CIA. Showing this detail further establishes the historical links, showing them to be deep and going back over a decade. My apologies for continuously adding that information. I wasn't aware of the "talk" page. I assumed it to be Academi who was changing the information in an attempt to continue to hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.228.77 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for bringing this here. What we need is a specific citation - please see WP:CITE on how to specify the material you are quoting. Since you are indicating a long association, it's worth indicating where the association started and what form it took - and what the relevance is. I should mention that the fact that someone used to work for the CIA, does not itself mean that the CIA as an institution controls their future actions, so be careful on that subject.
In the future, you might want to look at the edit history of articles when changes disappear - click on the "view history" tab above the article to see what changes have been made and by whom. Normally, editors would see comments made on their own talk page, but since you don't use an account, and your IP address was always changing, we had no way of reaching you. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

“But while Blackwater raised its profit margin and profile with its training services in the aftermath of 9/11, its true fame and fortune would not be gained until it formed Blackwater Security Consulting in 2002 and burst into the world of soldiers-for-hire. As with Blackwater’s founding, Erik Prince would once again provide the medium for another’s idea. This time, it was the vision of former CIA operative Jamie Smith.” (Excerpt From: Jeremy, Scahill. “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” Perseus Book Group-A, 2008-12-30T08:00:00+00:00. iBooks. Page 410 of 2387.)


“Like Al Clark a few years earlier, Jamie Smith didn’t have the means at the time to start his own private security company, and while the demand was certainly there, it was not overwhelming. Then, after 9/11, Smith says Prince “called and said, ‘Hey, I’d like you to consider a full-time job and come back to work with us,’ and I told him that was interesting to me and that I would consider doing that with the caveat that we could create this security company.” Prince agreed. But, Smith contends, Prince didn’t see the payoff in what would shortly become Blackwater’s biggest moneymaker. “I was told, ‘You can’t devote all your time to this because it’s not going to work.’ They said, ‘You can devote about 20 percent of your total time to this, but no more than that—you need to stick to what you’re doing now,’” Smith said. Smith joined Blackwater full-time in December 2001, and Blackwater Security Consulting was incorporated in Delaware on January 22, 2002. Within months, as the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and began planning the Iraq invasion, Blackwater Security was already turning a profit, pulling in hundreds of thousands a month from a valuable CIA contract.” (Excerpt From: Jeremy, Scahill. “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” Perseus Book Group-A, 2008-12-30T08:00:00+00:00. iBooks. Page 412-414)


“Prince joined Jamie Smith as part of the original twenty-man contingent Blackwater sent to fulfill its first CIA contract, which began in May 2002, according to Robert Young Pelton’s book Licensed to Kill.108 Most of the team guarded the CIA Kabul station and its assets at the airport, but Smith and Prince also went to one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan, Shkin, where the United States was establishing a base four miles from the Pakistani border.” (Excerpt From: Jeremy, Scahill. “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” Perseus Book Group-A, 2008-12-30T08:00:00+00:00. iBooks. Pages 422-423)

“Pelton, Licensed to Kill, p. 38.

Ibid., pp. 36-41.

Ibid., pp. 38-41 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.228.77 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You got the citation format wrong. I'll fix them later today. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Please note correct form of citation for future changes. See template:citation. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry Ted.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
If you go to "Blackwater" at Wikipedia it brings you here. Nobody is going to get rid of the Blackwater redirect. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:22, 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)
It does not matter whether there is today a company called Blackwater - it suffices that there USED to be a company called Blackwater who murdered 17 people. I came to Wikipedia for that event, and NOT for the company, so why am I being redirected to Academi? They just renamed the company again to "Constellis Holdings" but what do I care about this company in 2014? I am interested in their mass murder of 17 people, and the name of the company back then was "Blackwater", so please make the link TOWARDS that event easy for me to follow, and do NOT redirect from Blackwater towards Academi INSTANTLY. Make Blackwater a separate article, that then links towards Academi, and then Academi can link towards "Constellis Holdings". But right now we are being forced a redirection automatically, and that just is wrong for historic reasons. 84.113.183.242 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia polices are that an existing company will be in an article under its current name. The past names will redirect to the current articles name. This is in general common with how other encyclopedias work. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Tarl is correct. The company article should be under its current name. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackwater_(company)/Archive_3&oldid=1142379423"