Talk:Nisour Square massacre

message: The following sentence in section 1 is worded oddly: "US Military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault in the incident." The sentence is vague and does not state its purposed meaning clearly: that Blackwater was found guilty to using excessive force and killing civilians. Language is a powerful tool with which meaning can be understated or overstated. Just read Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics of the English Language". I am changing it to "US military reports confirm the Iraqi government's claim that Blackwater was guilty of using excessive force and opening fire without provocation."
If you have contrary suggestions or improvements, I'll be glad to see it changed to something even better.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.218.179 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: THere is new info  here. I don't have time to change this article now, if someone else wants to do it. Tmaull 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Info

message: I hope someone will update the article to include information found by the US Army Investigation  shortly after the event. US soldiers: Blackwater attacked fleeing Iraqi civilians
'American troops investigating the deadly Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad found no evidence that security contractors were fired upon.'
By Arthur Bright 
Blackwater Guards Fired at Fleeing Cars, Soldiers Say 
'First U.S. Troops on Scene Found No Evidence of Shooting by Iraqis; Incident Called Criminal'
By Sudarsan Raghavan and Josh White 
Blackwater: From the Nisour Square Massacre to the Future of the Mercenary Industry 
12.156.61.100 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigations

message: This article was the result of a split from a huge section in Blackwater USA, created to maintain a readable parent article/avoid undue weight issues/avoid this section completely swallowing up the rest. Could use a fair bit of cleanup to provide adequate context, cleaner section titles, etc. Could also use a run through to make sure that no links left out initially due to being redundant need to be restored/placed here. MrZaiustalk 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I've nominated these articles for In The News on the front page of Wikipedia, and it appears to have some support. • Lawrence Cohen 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes me happy to know something I helped edit made it there. No vandals yet though.. --Nosfartu 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the News nomination for main page 

message: To my ears, this is a weasel-word for "stun grenade".  mdf 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah. it was the same wording as the NYT though Tmaull 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the NYT used weasel words is irrelevant to our own behavior.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.78.11 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound bomb? 

message: A lot of info on this page is out of date. There was no infant in the car, it was the woman's son. The evacuated diplomats were not in the convoy at the time of the shooting. The Blackwater shooters were part of a Quick Reaction Force that had been called by the Blackwater PSD in response to the VBIED which exploded near the meeting point with USAID. There are refs for all that, but I don't have the time to devote right now. Tmaull 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Errors 

message: This article implies, but does not state, that the non-Iraqis working for Blackwater are immune to prosecution (otherwise why would the new bill described be necessary?).
If this is the case, how did this state of affairs come about?  Shouldn't this be described in the article?  Democracy Now! has on occasion reported that this is because contractors in Iraq were given immunity during the Bremner administration?  If this so?  On what legal grounds did Bremner, or the US government, have the right to exempt a contractor for actions that would otherwise be crimes?  Does the Iraqi government not have the legal and sovereign right to investigate and prosecute crimes against its citizens, on its territory, irrespective of the identity of the accused?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.126.102 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Immunity?

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "NYTBW-103" :
** 
** From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths - New York Times
DumZiBoT (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Regardless of how anyone feels about it, the incident is subject to an ongoing investigation. You'd never know that from the article, which, even in the introduction section leads one to believe that the case is closed and Blackwater is a murderous, terrorist organization. This article reeks of POV and should either be rewritten or deleted. -66.41.64.73 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to jump in, if someone bites you for it, just report them. If undeserving of said bite that is :-) Nar Matteru (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You would like an article detailing the story of a corporation contracted and paid with the taxpayer money, whose employees (on multiple occasions) are accused by several eyewitnesses of intentionally killing innocent civilians without reason - to be deleted? Talk about POV. A mercenary agency such as Blackwater should be gracious everyone here at Wikipedia is forbidden from original research, otherwise we would have labeled their company as a paramilitary terrorist force long ago. F33bs (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Love those who can't help themselves about licking mercenary war criminal boots. 91.242.152.178 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: Moved from mainspace: " Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate. "
Is the State Dept. just a police dept? Or does more authority come w/ more responsibility? Even if the statement could be verified, is it not SYNTH to apply it to this occurrence? 24.5.21.150 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Dept. procedure same as police dept procedure? 

message: I just wanted to talk about some changes I made to the Incident section of this article. First, I changed part of the third sentence in the fourth paragraph (in my edit note, I said it was the third paragraph, but I just realized it was actually the fourth). That paragraph initially refers to a State department report mentioned in the Reference section. The third sentence, however, provides quotes not found in that report, even though the sentence originally began "According to the report..." as if those quotes were indeed from the same report. In the Time magazine article that sentence refers to, the writers of that article talk about those quotes coming from "an incident report prepared by the U.S. government" that Time had "obtained".
I also edited part of an update posted by the editor Gretakirsten where I got rid of what I thought was a superfluous clarification of Democracy Now's site address and added the link to their Wikipedia page so that readers can go there to see information or visit their site themselves. I also removed what I saw as unnecessary descriptions of the Blackwater's Youngest Victim report and moved it's hyperlink to the "exclusive interview" text so that readers could merely click on that link and see more information about it. I will also add this report to the list of links at the bottom or the article. If anyone has any objections to these changes, please let me know. --Enderandpeter (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident section changes 

message: Another editor claims "no reason to have infobox for this article" I disagree. Kai9045 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been waiting for more than a day but the other editor did not engage in a discussion about the issue here on the talk page. So i re-add the info box as it is common practice and useful to have one. Kai9045 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained that here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well civilians have been attacked. 17 Iraqi civilians died. 20 Iraqi civilians have been wounded. Kai9045 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I disagree with you do not see any reason not to include this box. Do you know any other infobox that could be included instead? Kai9045 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I added  a box with the names of the victims to the article as it is notable information and common practice. See also Kandahar massacre, Haditha killings, Virginia tech and many other.
Another editor removes it" Claiming it would be POV. 
Violation of WP:NPOV to name the victims?? Unexplained and most likely false so that i re-added the box. Kai9045 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the vitims 

message: I added a link to photos of the Car and the Blackwater guards as it is notable information and there seems to be no free images that we can include directly. 
Another editor removes it" Claiming it would be POV. 
Violation of WP:NPOV to add a link to this notable information? That is unexplained and most likely false so that i am going to re-add it. Kai9045 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to external media 

message: I added FBI in the lead to the list of parties that say the attack was unprovoked.
Another editor removes it" Claiming it would be POV. 
Violation of WP:NPOV to add notable verified information? That is unexplained and most likely false.
I have added the source: The FBI concluded that the Blackwater guards were unprovoked when firing on the crowd Kai9045 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI says civilian attack was unprovoked 

message: I added text to the article that has been removed:
Another editor removes it. Claiming that would not be in the source. 
The source says: "The so-called Nisour Square massacre was the single bloodiest incident involving American private security contractors during the Iraq conflict."
Removed Text: The resulting casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war.
What is wrong with this interpretation? Could you please explain and help to improve the article instead of simply reverting everything? Kai9045 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an interpretation; that's what is wrong with it.  Find a source that says it is the "single highest casualty number involving American contractors during the Iraq war", and then you can include that text. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be called copyright violation. Want me to quote the original text? Kai9045 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced information 

message: Kai is attempting to add this to the lead: "The casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war." with these sources:  , neither of which make that claim. 
The first uses the term "bloodiest" but that is up to interpretation and it alone is not enough to make this statement. 
The second mentions "a string of incidents in Iraq during which [Blackwater's] heavily armed guards were accused of using excessive force," and then says "In the deadliest incident..."  It was clearly referring to the deadliest incident out of the incidents that Blackwater was involved in. It does not say that it was the deadliest incident of the Iraq war involving PSC's. 
These are not sufficient sources to say this had the single highest casualty number among PSC's during the Iraq war. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadliest incident

message: Something that isn't clear here is if they WERE taking fire, and 3 of the killings were "justified", were those 3 "civilians"? If that is the case then why are we implying "civilian" means unarmed/innocent/no threat to the convoy? The obvious attempt to sensationalize this event to malign US security contractors really leaves this article to be a confusing read at best. Batvette (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, please read the article and the sources, they were civilians. It is a simple undisputed fact. Kai9045 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What's not "undisputed" is why are they saying 3 deaths were "justified" if they were civilians and posed no threat to the convoy?  It appears there is a third "unidentified" person who was considered a justifiable shooting? When did we justify shooting civilians? Doesn't that mean he's a combatant? Weren't all the insurgents civilians? What Army was killing about 100 US soldiers a month in Iraq? What uniform did they wear?Batvette (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some quick answers. All victims are identified - all were civilians. Killing civilians is "justified" under certain circumstances. The US military killed hundreds of civilians at checkpoints including women and children. All "justified" to kill civilians. None of those killed by the Blackwater guards were insurgents. All were innocent civilians.  - apart form the policemen who was an innocent policemen and tried to stop the car after the driver had been killed. I know the article is confusing in many section so i recommend you do read the original sources to get a better picture. Kai9045 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

text: After reading more sources. Who is saying 3 deaths were "justified"? Please give me a reference. I do not think that is the case. Kai9045 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what is claimed by the FBI report per reference number 19. Batvette (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no "...may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force to be used in response to an imminent threat, the F.B.I. agents have concluded. They concluded that Blackwater guards might have perceived..." No the FBI says in the report that they found 14 killings were unjustified and the other 3 killings may or might be justified or not. Kai9045 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there is a distinction, but let me ask you this in context of the tone of "gunning down innocent civilians" most of these stories are written with: Since those who would be attacking such convoys, or our regular military troops, are not enlisted or commissioned in any formal military organization, and don't wear uniforms, isn't it unfair to use terms like "innocent civilians"? How would anyone know the difference? An insurgent could get shot and on the way to the hospital he tosses his AK-47 and later dies. For all anyone knows we killed a civilian, right? Batvette (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point but we can only put into the article what has been repeated by reliable sources.  I think the article has presented the incident pretty neutrally considering the controversy that surrounded it. The guy you were talking to recently was banned from editing and he was intent on making the article into a hit piece on Blackwater, calling it a massacre. Luckily he didn't succeed. RichardMills65 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I think then you can understand why I asked that question specifically of him. Batvette (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  If they killed 17 civilians but 3 were justified, does that make the 3 enemy combatants? 

message: Conclusion after closure:
"There is a rough consensus to include the name of the victims, as long they can be find in (at least) one reliable source." Armbrust The Homonculus 05:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Despite sockpuppetry by others, list of names killed returned as per RfC resolution 

message: I'm guessing that previous versions of this article gave some introductory detail about the convoy in question.  As it's written now, there is just this vague "convoy" mentioned throughout.  Was it a convoy of US State Department officials?  Or was it just a mass of vehicles deadheading? This article suggests that it was a convoy ("Raven 23"?) solely of Blackwater (Xe/Academi) employees who were doing traffic control.  Is there anything more recent/definitive? --Jhfrontz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convoy of ? 

message: Any chance someone a little more informed on Arabic transliteration could weigh-in on whether "Nisour" or "Nisoor" is the more correct spelling. Sources on the matter seem somewhat split. NickCT (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration Help - Nisour versus Nisoor 

message: *Support Changing the page's name to "Nisour Square incident". Meatsgains (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: Sorry, but I pretty much fouled up the opening sentence. My editing skills are poor. I was trying to fix the vagueness in the entire article, which obliquely refers to "the convoy" in places without explaining what it was and its relation to the Blackwater personnel. So I tried to simply insert the relevant words at the end of the opening section after "Baghdad." But I failed and it's a mess. Can someone restore the previous text but insert my attempted clarification as well as the former footnotes as well as the one I tried to insert? The point here is that Blackwater was escorting an embassy convoy that day, and this is surely something readers need to know. Many thanks. The NYT article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0    Isoruku (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nisour Square massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070918191738/http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/18/blackwater.iraq/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/18/blackwater.iraq/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reading the article, there is no clue what Donald Ball was accused of and why the charges were dropped. There is no description of what each man was accused of. So then it become a rag about American private guards versus Iraq, which is not as useful.
Assistance in fixing this?
Vowvo (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - I'm not super familiar with the Donald Ball thing. If you have specific facts you'd like to include and references to back those facts up, let me know! I'll be glad to help put them in. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is incomplete 

message: The map at the top of the article seems to broken. All it displays is "<maplink>: Couldn't parse JSON: Syntax error" Damianea103 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken map 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Someone cited a source about the trial and conviction and included “wrongly” tried and convicted. There was nothing to suggest anything was wrong about either. 71.201.50.216 (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding opinion on top of source 

message: I tried to edit a page got a warning for vandalism when what I posted I provided credible sources for. 2A00:23C7:5686:5C01:B08F:858A:5DCA:E6B5 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressing the truth on wikipedia