Jump to content

Talk:Blackwater (company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MustangSixZero (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 30 December 2007 (→No-bid). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

Template:ACIDnom

Mercenaries?

before anybody makes anymore changes concerning mercenary and contractors, put down on this page why it should be one or the other. I personally believe they are more like mercenaries and in the traditional sense of the word, they are mercenaries but they are referred to as contractors.

^ it seems a lot of folks on the free-idea-exchange Internet recognize that Blackwater is nothing more than a gang of unaccountable mercenary thugs, but sadly the mainstream media has all but ignored this issue, other than for example Jack Cafferty of CNN, and the sneaky (?) writers of the CBS series "Jericho" where they depicted "Ravenwood" soldiers as an obvious reference to Blackwater :o ) 199.214.28.244 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps we'll jsut call them contractors and put a note saying that while they are called contractors, they are mercenaries or something like that.Bubbleboys 22:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

they are mercenaries and they are contractors in both senses they are mercenaries because they have units that are paid and combat trained that go in "battle" (some even died in iraq) and they're contractors because they are contracted out by the gov't to do other tasks like logistics/integrated communications stc. they are also able to contract out themselves hopefully this will help you with your disagrement also check out their website [www.blackwaterusa.com]

errm, can someone add more relating to there new found role in helping out with the NO disaster as mentioned here http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml (very biased) and on there homepage http://www.blackwaterusa.com

I have added a brief rehash of Blackwater's press release and Jeremy Scahill's article. Nick

I do believe the correct "modern" term for them is "PMC" or "Private Military Company" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nollendorf (talk • contribs) .

My father works for the company, so i had the pleasure of touring the grounds. they are trained to protect highly visible VIP's, not "attack" front line enemy troops. This article has a lot of bias, but even bias has its citable sources. Ill see if i can get some good info from my father and maybe hellp make this article betterSponge1354 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be reliable published sources. Punkmorten 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sponge, you hardly sound like an objective source. You saw a very small part of a very large organization. Ask your father about extraordinary renditions to Eastern Europe, or "interrogation techniques" at Abu Graib. ----Rawckuf.

the company says blatantly on it's website that you must be a US citized to apply there. therefore, unless someone can provide some evidence that blackwater does indeed hire (not just work with...remember people: multinational force in iraq, americans work WITH people from other nations all the time) non US citizens, the line regarding the term mercenary being correct only for non US citizens, i'm deleting the sentence. oh, one more thing to be deleted is the statement regarding 'private security contractors aroused anger in iraq'. it is not specifically citing blackwater, so why is it there? you wouldn't put a blurb about wal-marts worker comp fraud on k-mart's page, would you?

Would you consider BBC as a reliable source? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7008058.stm for referrence to "231 third country nationals and 12 Iraqis"Pustelnik 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater hired Chilean commandos. They have an entity based in the barbados which manages their foreign mercs. --KaliqX 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that they are mercenaries. That should be in the first sentence on the page. I assume the only reason it's not in the first sentence is because of blackwater employee's who wiki-propaganda. -- firefight 18:00, 19 Sept 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence Cohen claims that there is "consensus" on the use of the term "mercenary". Frankly, I don't see any such consenus.--Davidwiz 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Just because some newpaper reporters use the word "mercenary" doesn't mean that Blackwater is.[reply]

They are, or they are not, it doesn't matter. What matters is that many Reliable Sources call them mercenaries, and that's what goes in Wikipedia Niczar 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that a lot of the "reliable sources" are websites that, if you look around them, are very anti-Iraq war, anti-Republican and biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more common for reliable sources to refer to Blackwater employees simply as "employees" or "contractors". It seems incredibly P.O.V. to apply the highly negative term "mercenary" to Blackwater employees objectively firstly because it is not clear that they are acting as soldiers. The company defines their role in Iraq and other places they are contracted by the US govt as being security guards or bodyguards. When they have been involved in violent actions, they have been protecting a convoy carrying some civilian diplomat or businessman, not a military action. Secondly, for them to be mercenaries they would have to be soldiers fighting for a foreign government. Blackwater USA is staffed by US citizens working on behalf of the US govt in a US conflict, so the term mercenary again doesn't make sense. Jeremy Scahill has been the most vocal critic of Blackwater, and he has alleged that Blackwater hired Chileans or other non-US nationals to work in Iraq. If those Chileans worked as soldiers rather than simply as guards or logistical workers, then those Chileans could be called mercenaries, but only those Chileans. Scahill does not seem to be an objective source here, based on his extremely POV interviews on the partisan site Democracy Now. Scahill and virtually every source that refers to Blackwater with the pejorative term mercenary are opposed to the US invasion/occupation of Iraq and usage of this term seems to be more an expression of dislike for the US actions in Iraq than a sincere judgement that Blackwater employees are fighting for the highest bidder. Nearly all regular soldiers expect compensation, both in salary and often benefits as well. But a mercenary is one who will fight for any army at all, with no concern for any particular cause except his own financial gain.Walterego 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This terminology as used by the press is in flux as discussed elsewhere on this page. What was in common usage immediately after Fallujah was "civilians" or "civillian contractors". No one calls them that any more. All of the terms in use to describe the guys with guns who work for Blackwater in Iraq are POV, hence the consensus decision to supply alternate terms. --Pleasantville 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Just because Democracy Now! has a left wing POV doesn't mean they're unreliable. They regularly open their mikes to right-wing people. They also are accountable, and follow-up thoroughly on stories, unlike the corporate media. They do not have advertising, and are therefore independent of corporate pressure.
Similarly some very right wing sources such as the WSJ are considered very reliable (NOT the editorial page, though), with an excellent track record (so far ...), such that even left wing academics such as Chomsky cite them profusely.
2. This is an ad hominem attack on Scahill. Criticize his work on its merits, not because you happen to disagree with the politics of the people he associates with. Niczar 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the National Review has started calling Blackwater's American employees mercenaries recently. As I say, terminology is in flux. (This page is a real mess in that these issue just keep getting discussed over and over as though previous discussions never took place.)
Indeed, whether the term used to describe these Guys with Guns is euphemisic or not does tend to correspond to whether the person writing approves of their deployment in Iraq and elsewhere, and the NRO piece is perfect example of that. The seemingly neutral coinages that were current in the press for a couple of years (after everyone gave up on the term "civilians"!) were invented by PMC industry PR people. They seem neutral only to those unaware of the hisory of the terminology. --Pleasantville 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Love that NRO article, looks like someones worked out why 25 americans die for every brit and we are 6 months to a year from leaving totally. (Hypnosadist) 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i cannot make contributions yet, but i think it would be appropriate for someone to add the following the in the "controversial" section. it should be noted the scary similarities between blackwater and the nazi SS, here is one referance- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen_SS

above the law, "to protect political people", best of the best personnel,... and cold blooded killers like many others have pointed out.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksheepwiggins (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite your own viewpoints in an article, sorry. --arkalochori |talk| 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i hadn't thought of it as "viewpoint". rather, a factual mirror of how the 2 are the same. aside from only the point in time in which they exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.230.70 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the comparison is relevant is, in my view, what makes it a viewpoint. It might not be if there were a reputable source making the comparison, though it is unlikely that one exists. To add your assertion to the article would be akin to me adding a comparison to Hitler in an article about a man with a moustache. Bottledmark 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to state that I think the term "Mercenaries" should be removed from the infobox. Its fine to point out that BW is called a mercenary organization by many sources, as long as both sides of the argument are given, but its not OK in the infobox. Private security is fairly nuanced, and yes, its easier to label a company a merc outfit than it is to explain the shades of grey, so sure, label them a merc outfit, but not in the infobox where theres not going to be any discussion on it. Its intellectually lazy. Tmaull (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation

Under the litigation section can be found a reference of slain Blackwater contractors' families testimony to Congress regarding drafting of laws governing DoD contractors.

These laws already exist.

Blackwater is under contract with the State Department.

As for the diasambiguation page, politics and newsworthiness have no place in an encyclopedia. Blackwater is black water is Blackwater.

The reference section, btw, is similar to using Westlaw for cooking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.180.164 (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next forking - suggestions

The article is getting big again. Possible options:

  • Blackwater USA operations - for all their military/business operations that are covered and reported on. Basically, a complete lift of the involvement sections--Iraq, overseas, domestic.
  • Blackwater USA corporate history - might be just as big, in the end. Not like the businesses fork I did, which can eventually cover all their outfits in deal, but the actual history of the company. History section would be a start.

I'm inclined to say the operations one, first. It will likely grow the most, besides the legal. This article could well spawn yet more of these. Thoughts? I'd be willing to do the heavy lifting in a few days again. • Lawrence Cohen 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to help you on the operations page, I think its a good idea. Tmaull 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Should this page be moved to Blackwater Worldwide given the name change? Tmaull 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that. Have they officially gone ahead with it, at this point? • Lawrence Cohen 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dang. They have. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

The "See Also" is blatantly POV. It won't be long before "military-industrial complex" and "fascist" are added to that list. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you remove, and why under policy, and what would you like added? Please note you are of course free to edit the article per policy. • Lawrence Cohen 06:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to edit the article per policy as well. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After an incident on September 16, 2007 when a Blackwater team guarding a State Department convoy in Baghdad fatally shot 17 Iraqis near a bustling traffic circle, Blackwater unveiled a new logo.

  • Problem: Leading. The reader is led to believe that the change was made due to the alleged incident despite a representative saying otherwise. Whoever created this edit believed coincidence had more weight than the company's statement. Blatant POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore, clarified directly from the source now. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After an incident on September 16, 2007 when a Blackwater team guarding a State Department convoy in Baghdad fatally shot 17 Iraqis near a bustling traffic circle is still in the section and has no business being there without proof that the change was made due to the incident itself. The fact that you can't see this as being a problem means you should recuse yourself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I shall not recuse myself, as I am editing civilly in good faith to address any valid concerns that come up. The mention of the Nisoor Square shootings is not POV in any sense, as all sources I can see refer to them in context to the name change. They reference it; so shall we. • Lawrence Cohen 06:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the proof? It's nothing more than appeal to the chronological order. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need no proof. We report on reported facts from reliable sources. We don't do any original research here, we report what others research. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is a reliable source, but they didn't report the motivation for the logo change as fact, they just made an insinuation. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that the NYT is biased is noted, but the rest of Wikipedia I would argue does not agree with you that they are an unacceptable source here. • Lawrence Cohen 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going that far, I'm simply saying that this article is biased. When trying to look at it as empirically as possible, it is. I'm baffled as to how you can deny this. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't denied anything; I've simply been saying again and again that my opinion of the New York Times doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter, either. • Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the standard, then I've discovered yet another loophole in the useless NPOV policy. If one wants to make the article POV, simply reference a POV source. Just because popular media erroneously creates the connection doesn't make it so. Proof makes it so. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the New York Times is not a reliable source in some way? If you feel that is the case, you are welcome to take it up on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and I would encourage you to follow that thread there. Not here. We will not remove or minimize any sources from the New York Times because one editor feels they are not an acceptable source for certain topics. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is reliable in the sense that they are within the scope of reasonable accuracy when reporting. How they compile information is another thing. It is possible to be reliable, accurate, and still biased. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC
If you feel the NYT is biased, and therefore an unacceptable source on Wikipedia, please bring it up on a widely viewed page with your arguments. Note that it is a valid and accepted source in tens of thousands of Wikipedia's articles, reflecting that it is a wonderful source to use. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Find a source that says otherwise," you might say, but that's why this system is rigged to be POV. No opposing newspaper is going to lead the reader that BW didn't make logo changes in light of the incident, that's a non-story. There are only going to be insinuations that they did. Therefore, the simple fact that the NYT made the connection means it can go into Wikipedia unchallenged, and it becomes accepted by default. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your opinion or mine doesn't matter. You can state such arguments again, but it is irrelevant. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine tomorrow's NYT headline reading, "Abu Graib Prison Running Smoothly, 'A-OK,' says UN Chief." It's a non-story. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine I found articles in the WashTimes that, through presentation of the facts, implicate the Iranian government in material support to insurgents/terrorists in Iraq. Theses articles exist. However, despite the fact that WashTimes is a reliable and accurate source, there is no way in hell I would be permitted to present those facts in a similar fashion here on Wikipedia. "Where's the proof," I'd be asked, and the information would be taken down. There is a very real double standard, and Wikipedia policies do not attempt to hold editing standards higher than either newspaper (save for WP:BLP). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Iranian articles. If you find such a source for an Iranian article, from a respected news source, feel free to add them as you see relevant under policy. • Lawrence Cohen 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I presenting ideas that are way over everyones head? I don't understand how you failed to realize that I was making an analogy and describing how this current system favors fabricated plot lines as opposed to facts. There aren't going to be any news articles that simply state Blackwater's logo change as a matter of fact, they're all likely going to be connected to recent events. Without proof, it's a fabrication on the part of the news agency. Sure, it's all very interesting, but it isn't journalism. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Miller, the owner of MDesign, a graphic design firm in New York, commented on the logo change, "“I would say it’s a highly significant change; they’re repositioning themselves. The old logo suggests that they’re targeting people. The new logo is a more ambiguous, more safe corporate logo.”

  • Problem: This is a poor standard for a reference. This person had no part in designing the new symbol and therefore has no information from the company as to why it was changed, or what the changes are supposed to reflect.
  • Problem: Miller's comments are erroneous. The old logo suggest that they're targeting bears more than people. There is still an SVD still reticle in the new logo. Moreover, Blackwater is a defensive security force and does not take part in "direct action." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted. We don't get to decide who is a credible authority from within the context of an article; the New York Times feels that this is a noted designer, so their opinion is a relevant weight and authority. The previous designer of the old logo would be a primary source, and never a neutral commentator on the logo therefore. Whether or not Blackwater is a defense force, a mercenary band, or singing barbers would be irrelevant, if it were your opinion or mine. Our opinions do not matter in regards to that. • Lawrence Cohen 06:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then all someone has to do is find a designer, or even a notable individual that says the exact opposite. Then we'll really have one joke of an article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you find one, sourced to a reliable source, feel free to add it. I'd be happy to build out Blackwater Worldwide logo if there was enough material provided by you to me. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's a non-story. People are only going to rush to say "I suspect they did it for reason X!" No one is going to stick their neck out and say, "they didn't do anything abnormal." Furthermore, no news agency is going to report that so-and-so said that BW didn't do anything out of the ordinary because that wouldn't be a development in the story. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to you, it's a non-story. I think the whole thing is fascinating, which is why I began helping on these articles. Again, find me sources on their logo, and I'd cheerfully build an article on it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. This article is a story. An article 12 months ago about a logo change would have been a non-story. The NYT melded one uninteresting fact about a logo change with the recent incident, and boom, we have a new story, a plot. It's a total fabrication by definition. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you've missed the point I've made multiples times. WP:Original resarch applies to us. It does not apply to the New York Times or other external, acceptable sources. They can do what you describe--that is what journalism is at times (please don't debate on this--it is what it is, and it's beyond the scope of our role as editors to debate that, nor will it help this article). Therefore, outside news sources are perfectly fine to do this. And, in turn, for us to report what they find or report. • Lawrence Cohen 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that system is inherently flawed. Not imperfect, but flawed. Moving on, please address my specific complaints with regard to reference [29] as opposed to a debate surrounding the conduct of the NYT as a whole. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response is (again) the same: The New York Times is one of the most respected news sources on the planet. It's multiple awards and Pulitzers, long-standing reputation of respect and quality, and consensus acceptance of the New York Times as a valid source on Wikipedia trumps concerns that a turn of phrase in one article may be POV. Which, even if it hypothetically were POV, is irrelevant to Wikipedia. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and all the rest, apply to us. Not the New York Times. That is not up for debate. • Lawrence Cohen 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the article is now marginally acceptable to me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why only marginal? What else don't you like? • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind. You need to actually read reference [29]. If you think that is a neutral article, then I must respectfully ask that you find another project to work on. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title POV: Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate
  • POV: lettering that looks to have been ripped from a fifth of Jim Beam Apparently they're drunken rednecks.
  • POV: undergone a publicity-conscious, corporate scrubbing. Says who?
  • POV: serif lettering draped over the crosshairs on a menacing black field. "Menacing?" Says who?
  • POV: the overall look is far less “kick your butt” and much more “quarterly report,” Says who?
As a side note, I flat out don't believe the quote from the phantom "former contractor who worked for Blackwater in Baghdad" but the article is still woefully biased without it. Most of the articles that I've read from the NYT surround fairly dry topics, but this is just shameless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you believe it is irrelevant, unfortunately, for Wikipedia's purposes and project. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're skirting the larger issue and focusing on my admitted opinion, which is entirely dishonest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, quite the opposite. Rather than either of us waste valuable editing time discussing an issue that neither of us can change (and this is the wrong venue, anyway), I'm cutting the cord on pointlessness. We don't inject original research. Your view of Blackwater is irrelevant. My view of Blackwater is irrelevant. Neither belong in the article. This article has been praised for it's neutrality. Whether you with your self-admitted bias disagrees is fine, you are welcome to disagree! However, we still won't put a sympathetic point of view in here, nor will we deprecate the views of a reliable source because one editor dislikes that source for whatever reason. • Lawrence Cohen 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting surreal. Look at the bulleted quotes from reference [29]. Those are biased statements. Regardless of the persuasion, I can point out bias in any article - it's an empirical process. Why you're appealing to NOR makes no sense to me, and appealing to the broad acceptance of the NYT is fallacious - this specific article is biased. Period. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not appealing to NOR, I'm invoking it. Someone added the logo passage to this article, sourced to the NYT. It will stand, as we can't comment in article space on the value or merits of this NYT article--you may feel it's biased. Someone else may feel it isn't, but it's not our place to make that decision. Because the NYT is an accepted source, and so barring a major change in how we do business here to deprecate their value as a source, this article stands as a reliable source for talking about Blackwater's logo. Take it up on the reliabe sources noticeboard here. • Lawrence Cohen 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you don't agree that the article is biased, I'd like to see the adjectives and phrases "macho, Jim Beam-esque, publicity-conscious, corporate scrubbing, menacing, and 'kick your butt' incorporated into the article. If they aren't, I'll be sure to include them using said article as the gospel reference it continues to be. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't violate WP:POINT. The New York Times is a completely acceptable reference and source. Lets wait until others weigh in. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was pretty sure you'd come back with that bureaucratic answer, but the irony is I could include those terms based on, The New York Times is a completely acceptable reference and source. Which is it? No, you won't answer that question - it's easier to reference WP:POINT and ignore the evidence in addition to my obvious sarcasm. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence am I ignoring? That the New York Times is a historically acceptable source for essentially all news topics about third parties besides itself? • Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the bulleted evidence of bias taken directly from said article. It's not biased in my opinion, those bulleted statements are factually biased. I don't know how else to explain it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't change or report our own take on what others report. That would be original research. We can only use data for the article from a reliable source, such as the New York Times. I'm sorry if you feel this is some sort of circular Catch-22, but it is what it is, and it's designed to keep our own views out of the article. • Lawrence Cohen 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposed to me adding more information from the article claiming that it would be OR. That makes no sense whatsoever - it's directly from the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My previous response isn't good enough. Lawrence Cohen, the terms in bold are either facts, or they are opinion (which I believe is a fair dichotomy to present). If they are facts, then you nor anyone else should have a problem using "kick your butt" in the article. If they are opinions, then the article itself is opinion and should therefore not be referenced (since facts should be readily available across media outlets). It's quite simple Cohen, yet for some reason you refuse to come to terms with the obvious. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia editors to present information from sources as a dichotomy as you suggest. Doing so is essentially vandalism, as it compromises the encyclopedia. We do not allow our own original thought into these articles. We only allow information from acceptable sources, presenting their sourced information as factual. We don't inject our views. A blog is more acceptable for that. I fear you may be implying (reviewing all these talk page contributions here) that our viewpoints on the topics we write about have merit for inclusion in the articles themselves. On any level, they don't. Perhaps this is the wrong project for that sort of ideal. • Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you again to read reference [29]. Apparently you have no idea what I'm referring to. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to emphasize this more. The terms in bold CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE THAT IS BEING REFERENCED. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is quite fine, because the New York Times is an acceptable source. As I suggested you do, and as a favor to you, I've posted your concerns to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for review. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's fine, then there should be no problem with the bold terms being in the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and reply to Eleland's long statement on this matter, directly below. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resetting the indents
Hmm, there seems to be a strange interpretation of policy operating here. We don't evaluate third party articles for NPOV, original research, etc. We do evaluate the publishers of such articles for reliability, and the New York Times news pages clearly meet those standards; in fact, they fall in the top tier of journalistic sources.

When there is more than one side to a controversy, we try to identify which viewpoints there are, so we can present them in rough proportion to their significance. In this case, there does not appear to be much of a controversy within reliable sources; an editor may personally disagree with the content of the NYT piece but this does not a controversy make. So using roughly the same viewpoint and conclusions of the Times piece is not a problem.

Using the exact language (Jim Bean's, etc) would be problematic, since the NYT is a newspaper and writes its articles in a certain narrative voice which may be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However, that does not seem to be the issue here - nobody is suggesting, so far as I can see, that we should say something like "The old lettering resembled the font used on bottles of inexpensive whiskey[29]".

Can we discuss, specifically, what language in the encyclopedia article is questioned, rather than perform a blog-style Fisking of the NYT piece? <eleland/talkedits> 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? If we're accepting the article as reliable reference, the entire contents of the article are therefore usable for this Wikipedia entry. Yet, if I wanted to make an edit that included any one of the terms in bold from the article, an erroneous appeal to NOR would be made. NOR has nothing to do with this. If the information is coming from the reference, it isn't OR. The only reason menacing lettering that looks to have been ripped from a fifth of Jim Beam is not in the article is because it makes it plainly obvious that the author of the NYT article is biased, or simply a bad journalist, which would undermine the veracity of the entire article, therefore making it impossible to insert the insinuation that Blackwater changed their logo in light of the shooting incident. There. That is a logical deduction. Anyone supporting parts of this NYT article but not others, is POV by virtue of logic. The lid has been blown. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my impatient tone, but we're either wholly accepting a reference or we aren't. Selecting parts of this NYT article but sternly rejecting others is OR. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and it's not as though unrelated topics of this article are being rejected (such as unrelated background info, etc) rather, the author's own perception of the new and old logos is being rejected, yet, this is what the section deals with - the evolution of the logo. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on logo section and overall article neutrality

has individually expressed ongoing concerns in the past month about his perceived view of the neutrality of the article Blackwater Worldwide. In particular, the Logo section is the current point of contention. Haizum argues that the New York Times article, "Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate" is a biased and individualy a possibly unacceptable source for information on Blackwater USA changing it's logo recently. From reading the entirety of this article talk page, he has also expressed that the article does not meet NPOV standards. An extensive review would be appreciated by outside eyes, as traffic on this talk page has significantly dropped, as the article has stabilized, except for User:Haizum's concerns. Aside from his concerns and some citation formatting clean-up, there is no other hold up now to starting this article on the GA/FA path, and we need to get this conclusively addressed. So, two issues to be addressed: 1. Review of that NYT article, and the logo section; and 2. the overall neutrality of this article, Blackwater Worldwide: is it fine? If not, why? !! time=21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Reason for RfC: Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has individually expressed ongoing concerns in the past month about his perceived view of the neutrality of the article Blackwater Worldwide. In particular, the Logo section is the current point of contention. Haizum argues that the New York Times article, "Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate" is a biased and individualy a possibly unacceptable source for information on Blackwater USA changing it's logo recently. From reading the entirety of this article talk page, he has also expressed that the article does not meet NPOV standards. An extensive review would be appreciated by outside eyes, as traffic on this talk page has significantly dropped, as the article has stabilized, except for User:Haizum's concerns. Aside from his concerns and some citation formatting clean-up, there is no other hold up now to starting this article on the GA/FA path, and we need to get this conclusively addressed. So, two issues to be addressed: 1. Review of that NYT article, and the logo section; and 2. the overall neutrality of this article, Blackwater Worldwide: is it fine? If not, why?

Please also read Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide#Logo directly above this section, for more background and discussion of the merits (or lack) of this source and section. • Lawrence Cohen 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this RfC, but let's not initiate it with a distortion. My overall opinion of the NYT is negative, but irrelevant. However, I do feel there are flaws in the article Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate that are universal. This RfC should be centered around the "Logo" section of this talk page, not past discusssions. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as the NPOV thing keeps trickling up, we may as well kill two birds with one permanent stone. Overall neutrality yay then from you currently, excluding the present Logo section, which is a nay? • Lawrence Cohen 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Positive changes were made some weeks ago because of my concerns and the corresponding talk sections do not adequately reflect that. If you continue to include that isolated discussion with this RfC, I'll simply abstain from commenting. Widening the goalposts is not an honest way to conduct this RfC. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Resolved --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'd like the "reason for RfC" to reflect the "Logo" section and downward. You're trying to make this an RfC about whether or not the NYT is a reliable source overall, which I find quite dishonest considering the primary focus of my concerns. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Resolved. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x2) Not widening the goalposts, I'm simply kicking for a resolution for where they already were. As ongoing conflict on an article and POV tags will prohibit a GA/FA attempt, we need them addressed. I've modified the RfC slightly to be yet more specific. • Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the "liberal sources" bit was already resolved. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, given that Wikipedia doesn't grade, value, or devalue sources based on how individual editors may perceive a source's political slant. I'll remove that bit from the RfC statement. • Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree 100% with Lawrence Cohen that the NYT is a reliable source, but I am somewhat baffled that the issue of the change in the logo is given so much space in the article. Actually I had to look at the image several times to figure out which was the new and the old logo, and it was not easy to tell which was the more warlike version. I'd suggest that less article space is needed for the logo issue, though I see nothing wrong with citing the NYT. Is it possible that the logo issue can be mentioned, but with fewer words? The NYT article seems like a human-interest story, in that much is being made over rather subtle artistic issues. EdJohnston 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with Lawrence Cohen because he isn't fairly shaping this discussion. This has nothing to do with the NYT overall, but the specific article referenced in the "Logo" section. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Resolved. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the logo paragraph is honestly because the issue is getting a lot of coverage for what would typically be a trivial issue, indicating that the matter has weight as an event in Blackwater's history. There seems to be no end of Blackwater coverage these days, after the September shootings. They were a hyper-secretive company for ten-plus years, and everyone and their cousin is researching everything now it seems like, from news sources, to books. I've personally been inclined to include all interesting and notable facts--this article has already forked four spin-offs, of which only one is still technically stub length (see the Blackwater template on the article page). We could easily get Blackwater Worldwide corporate history, or something with a better title, in the next few weeks/months. • Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what do you think of the overall neutrality of this article? • Lawrence Cohen 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the problem we have here is that the two main protagonists are actually arguing entirely different things. On the one hand, yes the fact that the NYT prints something is WP:V and WP:RS, but merely being verifiable from a reliable source doesn't actually make something WP:NPOV. All it means is that somebody expressed a POV, and it has been reported as such. We can account the POV as being notable, because the NYT chose to quote him. However, the requirement for NPOV doesn't amount to an edict that any comment that somebody might disagree with should be excluded. It simply means that we should include a balance between all non-WP:FRINGE viewpoints. So, I would suggest to Lawrence that he needs to actively seek out the contrary POV, and attempt to include it, rather than relying on the false premise that a WP:RS makes it WP:NPOV. I would then suggest to Haizum that he accept that the NYT reported comment is notable, and must be allowed to remain and that he should also seek out a WP:RS for a contrary POV and include it. If neither party can find a WP:RS that gives a contrary view of the logo change, then the contrary view would have to be regarded as WP:FRINGE Mayalld 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:FRINGE really applies. Multiple sources are commenting on the changes, as seen her, along similar lines. Would it help if I broke it down to more sources? I could probably create the same virtual paragraph from 4-5 total unique sources. And I agree, on a counter, if such exists. I'd be happy to include it myself if Haizum needed me, if he supplied a valid RS. Also, what do you think of the overall neutrality of this article? • Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all the sources say pretty much the same thing (and are in line with what is in the article) then we are in a position that the existing section covers all non-fringe opinions. Now clearly Haizum would not be happy with that, so it is incumbent on you to go the extra mile to write for the enemy to achieve neutrality. Mayalld 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that is a bit... odd, since we're hardly adversaries, and I wouldn't wish to approach it from that standpoint. I was more looking for an additional opinion on the overall neutrality concerns, as it's been bubbling for a while. Haizum said he was generally satisfied with it now, so I'm looking to see if consensus exists on that point--the article overall being neutral. • Lawrence Cohen 05:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The account of the logo change as originally stated at the beginning of the "Logo" discussion above is certainly suggestive of a certain correlation, even more so than the NYT article. However, the current description of the logo change seems sufficiently neutral, while still noting the alleged connection to the September shootings. As for the entire NYT article debate, I agree in principle with Haizum. Not everything can be sorted out through some Wikipedian dogma; once in a while a little common sense is required to determine whether or not an item is neutral. Nevertheless, the Blackwater logo font was indeed quite reminiscent of a bottle of Jim Beam. Bottledmark 05:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo section update

Haizum, take a look at this. • Lawrence Cohen 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple sources is a step forward. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like it meets all NPOV requirements. --Marvin Diode 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the required reference for the logo section could come from a source other than the specific article being used. It could even come from another NYT story. I simply take issue with that particular article for the aforementioned reasons. If that is accomplished, I have no significant problem with the article as it is currently written (at the time of this signature). Good work. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody home? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the logo part is very subtle and pretty much avoids the issue. We here at Wikipedia are pretending that nothing really happened, all in the name of NPOV. The FACT is that they changed the logo from one that clearly shows crosshairs to one that does not. Why did they make the change? The company spokesperson when asked why it was changed says it was, "just modernized.", which means absolutely nothing. She also says the old logo was probably more fitting when the company was starting out as primarily a trainer of military and law enforcement personnel. So they did make the change for a reason, exactly what the reason is, they don't say. However, other people do say. So you have one "side" says it was done to make them appear less threatening, and the official corporate spokesperson basically saying nothing of substance, in fact, really denying it without explanation, which is meaningless. Yet we here at Wikipedia have decided that rather than show this, we should all pretend nothing happened. Fact, the logo was changed for no reason the public was given, other than "modernized". Fact, some professional graphics experts, given the absence of any real official explanation, have concluded that it was done to make the company appear less military. And we have Wikipedia pretending that nothing happened. A sad day for Wikipedia. -- Fanra (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, though, is that we need solid reliable sources that demonstrate this. If you can supply them here on the talk page by Googling around, I would be more than happy (as would others!) to integrate them into the article for you. • Lawrence Cohen 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search and Avoid missions

What about 'Search and Avoid Missions' in Iraq. I don't like Blackwater, but to be fair it's worth noting why such organizations can thrive in hostile Zones. Why, because it's dangerous and nobody on a soldiers salary would do it.

See this Article: (scroll to bottom of article for summary)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66160?page=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzantine Dragon (talk • contribs) 07:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Innnaccuracies/Biases

I completely admit to my naivete in knowing how to do this, but here I go: First and foremost, my dislosure: I have written extensively on the topic of Modern PMCs and Blackwater in particular; I wrote my MA thesis on the topic. That said, I would not claim to be an experrt and as such my word should not be taken as gospel. 1)I take issue with the "no-bid contract" mentioned in paragraph 2. Though Blackwater has undoubtedly received no bid contracts, as Erik Prince noted himsel in his testimony before congress the vast majority were bid via the typical government contracting process. The article cited says that 2/3 of those being looked at were no-bid, not all contracts; furthermore, I take issue with the ability to actually differentitate between no bid contracts and the actual process of writing a "catalog entry," and the government then choosing. Either way, the entry is misleading.

2)I take much more significant issue with the citation of the $445,000/year in the second paragraph. later in the entry there is a discussion of Erik Prince's refuting this number as outlandish, this should either be included in the second paragraph or the number should be excluded. Simply because Congressman Waxman, not exactly a non-biased source, creates this number, doesn't make it legitimate.

3)Within the Iraq War section: Blackwater is not protecting The American Embassy per se. It is more accurate to say that they are guarding US Embassy Personell, as the US Military is largely responsible for guarding the Green Zone in which the Embassy is contained. Blackwater is famous, or infamous, not for standing around guarding a gate, but running around with State Dept. employees.

4)Post Citation 37, the article would benefit from some explanation as to the higher numbers of fire first incidents and the placement of 195 engagements within the thousands of operations they have run. Even Chairman Waxman included this in his report.

5)In regards to the picking up the injured US Marine; three things would be worth noting: 1)that this was outside the realm of their contractual obligations, in other words they did it because they wanted to save a fellow American, 2) the pilots who did this were chastised for doing so because it was outside their contractual obligation (see RYP Licensed to Kill), 3)according to Erik Prince as least come ground elements in Baghdad carry the Blackwater Helos call signs to come bail them out when necessary

6)After the notation of Blackwater pulling out of IPOA, it would be worth noting that Blackwater is forming their own organizaiton, including holding a conference to deal with similar issues the Doug Brooks and IPOA normally deal with.

7)After citation number 68, in the discussion of Erik Prince's rebuttal to the characterization of his men as mercenaries; he also defined mercenary as Foreigners hired into military service. It could be noted that while the average blackwater employee, being american, is not by his own characterization a mercenary, those chileans or third party nationals blackwater hires are in fact mercenaries.

Overall, I would say that the article is biased against Blackwater, which of course is not difficult to understand given the current public opinion of Blackwater; however, I think these changes could be beneficial in making it more neutral. Wnegley 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article contains a certain level of bias, though much lower than one might imagine. Notably, the fuzziness of the picture of Erik Prince engenders negative feeling against him in similar fashion to how politicians use dark, grainy photos of their opponents in commercials. I realize it is difficult to obtain a free image, particularly of Mr. Prince, but it really is necessary to improving the quality of the article. Also, the phrase "Unqualified Blackwater staff" in the "Controversy and criticism" section should be referenced--the claim that the staff were unqualified, that is.
  • As noted previously, the article has numerous organizational issues. For example, it seems the November 2004 plane crash is discussed twice in the article. Additionally, many paragraphs start by talking about one subject and then end on something entirely separate. On a related matter, grammatical issues abound. For instance, of the six sentences making up the first paragraph of the "Controversy and criticism" section, only one (maybe two) is grammatically sound.
Wnegley: The key issue is Wikipedia standards of sourcing. Though in my opinion all your quibbles are correct, corrections to the article need to cite sources which, in this case, means mostly media coverage. Appropriate media write-ups may or may not exist to support your corrections. See WP:RS for more detail on the kind of sources recommednded for use on Wikipedia. --Pleasantville 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Charlie Black links to a stub for a basket ball player born in 1920. I don't know but I don't think that this is the same Charlie Black. Ender8282 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out, it isn't the same person. --arkalochori |talk| 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New mercenaries discussion

Before I would violate 3RR, I would like to expand on this but while people have criticized Blackwater USA to be a mercenary organization but what people failed to realize is that Blackwater USA / Worldwide is predominantly hired by the United States to carry out missions protecting diplomats. They do not participate in direct warfare as mercenary organizations are hired to do. Executive Outcome would be a good example of a mercenary organization because they were hired to carry out an agenda in direct warfare for which the host country desired. For example, the Polish ambassador in Iraq was attacked in October 2007 and Blackwater USA was assigned to protect him which they did carry out the job and brought the ambassador out safely. While the controversy over Blackwater being discussed as a mercenary organization, they are predominantly US Nationals under United States rules rather than their organization rules. I read through all the 5 source which all of them are Opinion/Ed articles but nothing based on NGO or official government assigned terms. Blackwater Worldwide is recognized by the UN and United States as a Private Military Company but not designated as a mercenary company. People will disagree that they are indeed mercenary but you have to prove that that they are fighting on behalf of a host country in direct warfare. Would you say a bodyguard assigned to an ambassador who is paid by the same organization is also a mercenary in another country? Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Private Military Company page states that However, contractors who use offensive force in a war zone could be considered unlawful combatants, thereby referring to the ”concept” being implicitly mentioned in the Geneva Convention and explicitly specified by the Military Commissions Act. unlike what Blackwater Worldwide does by participating in defensive action assigned to a task. ViriiK (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, in the Geneva Convention I under Article 47 states
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, 'take a direct part in the hostilities;'
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) 'is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;'
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Now, the above text directly from the Geneva Convention under Article 47 for Mercenary must include all fields. The Iraqi Government has sanctioned the company itself to do duties but they are nonetheless subjected to United States rules under the old CPA rules. The Mercenary page states that the French Foreign Legion and Gurkha's are not mercenary organizations because they follow the host country's rules and are not there for private gains. Also, another good example is a Canadian or any other commonwealth member can enlist in the British Military because the pay could be better than their own country but nonetheless they are still not mercenaries because they fall under the British Military's rules. Also article 47 states that the PMC must have a direct part in the conflict but this isn't the case as it is in Iraq. As they've been assigned to defend convoys and diplomats in Iraq, they are not seeking out hostile actions but rather being on the defensive for it thus indirect action. ViriiK (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ViriiK. I agree that the legal definition is significant in and of itself, but at the same time, we don't adhere to that per our sourcing policies. That is, if a law states that person x is profession y, that is fine. But, at the same time, we have multiple international reputable sources that all refer to Blackwater as a mercenary corporation, which is ultimately what we are required by Wikipedia policies to go with. A discussion on Blackwater as mercenaries is definitely interesting, but unfortunately it doesn't change what we can do. You might want to read WP:SYN, which is policy:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[4] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

That is what would be happening here. We have sources that say Blackwater is x type of agent or guard or soldier. We have sources that say x type of agent or guard or soldier according to this set of laws may or may not be a mercenary. The problem is, as far as Blackwater goes, we have a variety of international 3rd party independent sources that refer to them as mercenaries. Thats all we can do, as well. Lawrence Cohen 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The 5 sources that are being used as an argument are being based on opinion/ed articles and one from a country that is vehemently against the effort in Iraq. Not to mention, all of the opinion pieces have an agenda against the Blackwater USA / Worldwide organization. While you state you have factual articles to base this on but it goes against the Wikipedia:Verifiability section. The articles are contentious because these authors do have an axe to grind regarding the company as they've displayed in all 5 of the articles. Not to mention, they are questionable sources due to their personal opinions regarding the organization's status and not based on official or factual findings. You claim that they are international reputable sources but I don't see it when they are opinion based articles rather than from official or factual findings. Not to mention, I have read WP:SYN in regards to this but that is not to be the final word whatsoever as I've pointed out regarding reliability. Afterall, journalism is about finding the facts, not making them. No official organization especially the United States Government, Iraqi Government, or the United Nations have declared Blackwater USA / Worldwide as a mercenary organization but rather as a Private Military Company with the rules clearly defined why they are so in the Geneva Convention I. ViriiK (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:SYN and WP:OR are at all times the literal final word that binds us all here, along with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. Anything that goes against those is removed from articles or doesn't go in at all. We're also not here to find journalism, or truth, or find facts. We're here to report what other sources say, never more, never less. We're never supposed to be more than a tertiary source. Ever.
On that note, I don't think we're going to agree, but I could be wrong and hope I am, and that you agree to go along with our policies. Policy is policy, especially on Original Research. Let's let others weigh in. As that citation has been supported and without any legitimate policy-based or policy-supported challenge for months, I strongly advise you to leave it in for now. Edit warring it out is not a good idea, because from WP:3RR it appears quite a few people will simply edit it back in, supported by policy. Others will need to weigh in on this, but this conversation has ended the same so far every time its happened. Policy supports including the mercenaries characterization, since we can only report what others say. Lawrence Cohen 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that calling Blackwater mercs in its company discription is needlessly POV and the link to the mercs article is already (justly) in the lead. (Hypnosadist) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hypno. I'm certainly not going to edit war over it. Lets let a few more people weigh in, and I'll go with consensus. Lawrence Cohen 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are or are not a mercenary organization (and what the definition of that word even is) isn't really the point. This latest round started with the removal of a wikilink to the Mercenary article. The link clearly should not have been removed, as that article discusses Private Military Companies (PMCs) extensively and specifically the role of these companies, including Blackwater, in the Iraq war. If someone wants to try and make the case on that article's talk page that all discussion of PMC's should be removed, then go ahead. I imagine it would be a pretty tough sell. I think a lot of this simply comes down to the fact that the word "mercenary" has gained a somewhat pejorative context in modern usage, although it isn't inherently so. Thus, there are often attempts to sanitize the language wherever it occurs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me state again that having mercenry in the company info box is very POV. We don't add "obesity provider" to McDonalds company info box, but we do discuss obesity in the body of the articles. (Hypnosadist) 06:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps and to-do list

I've been staring at the article for the past few days, as its not up to 65kb in size, which is too large. Theres not really a practical way to fork off a section yet, though, unfortunately. We can't do Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq, as that would functionally be the whole article. We shouldn't do Blackwater Worldwide controversies, unless that gets so overwhelming we have no choice--but thats a ways off. Blackwater Worldwide operations is probably the best bet, but needs more meat.

We have a ton of sources in the article not properly citation formatted, I'm going to start up on that again this week. So we can get 1-7 done. We also need to integrate all the sources that are listed under external links that Cla68 added. Beyond that, there is going to a huge amount of additional sources, especially as the arms smuggling investigations around Krongard have progressed in Congress, and the Nisoor Square killings have turned into an international lawsuit. Nisoor square will be a very long article on its own before all is said and done. So, short to-do list:

  1. Overall citation formatting corrections--formating, cite templates
  2. Integrate the huge pool of material and sources Cla68 found us
  3. Collect/insert new material on Krongard, Waxman congressional investations, Nisoor lawsuits
  4. Re-evaluate then where/how/if to fork another child article

Am I missing anything? Other areas of interest that merit a section on the article? List them all; we can always add them here first then ship them off in detail to the other articles, while leaving a reference here on this one. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-bid

Prince did indeed confirm that on live television. Lawrence Cohen 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may have. But the SOURCE you posted didn't support that. Notice that I didn't make the change in any other area of no-bid discussion, only that one. Do you think there is a reason I picked only one? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not only Prince confirmed this, but the State Department and Congress during the hearings. This is what Black Water was operating on, a no-bid contract. This is a common thing with government contracts when a specific item is needed in a specific amount of time.MustangSixZero 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince has questioned the use of the term "no bid", pointing out that they were already a contractor and that many of the jobs were already on the GSA bid schedule. Again, my single revision was where the cited source did not support the statement. As a side note, I think that the article is somewhat biased. It makes mention of the "no bid" thing several times, never providing any mention of Prince talking of being a contractor already or the GSA schedule. Why not one mention, provide the counter-view, and be done with it? Why the need to bring it up over and over? That seems to me to be somewhat of an agenda. Just my view, I could be wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, totally agree with you on that. That is an issue I have always had with the whole thing is people are quick to jump on the no-bid(bad thing, evil, must point to something wrong bandwagon) when in reality it goes on a lot, is part of the process, and Blackwater is not the first nor the last contractor that has utilized no-bid.MustangSixZero 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackwater_(company)&oldid=180941365"