Talk:Blackwater (company)/Archive 1

message: Right now there is a ridiculous disambiguation page. No one is searching for "Blackwater" as a geographical location. If they are, let them go to the disambiguation page. As it is, looking through that long list to find "Blackwater USA" is going to discourage those who don't know much about what is going on, and so may not have the time or even saavy to scan through such a long list. This seems fair.
:I've added a duplicate entry to the top of the disambiguation page, with an explanation on the Talk page saying it should be removed later when Blackwater USA is no longer in the news. I think that is the best solution. Renaming this article to "Blackwater" would be too drastic, in my opinion. --RenniePet 12:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest this page be moved to the default page for "Blackwater" searches. 

message: Previous edits of the Criticism section included Jeremy Scahill's book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (ISBN: 1560259795) . That reference has disappeared. What is up with that?
HC21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  purge of references to Jeremy Scahill's book 

message: A Mercenary is - Concerning a legal definition of mercenary, the Special Rapporteur's interim report to the General Assembly (A/55/334) provides information on, inter alia: mercenary. The report notes that the currently accepted meaning or use of the term primarily focusses on professional services that are paid to recruit soldiers to intervene in an armed conflict in a country other than their own. So before anyone tries to merge "contractors" with "mercenaries" there should be careful discussion on what services that company, who would be lumped into that category, has provided. SCG International Risk, for example, works only for the US Government and private US corporations.Ghostscg 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O.E.D. entry for 'mercenary' (1989, online revised 2nd edition) 

message: An article at "Backwater training centre" was being prodded; I removed the PROD and redirected it here. The content doesn't seem to be completely redundant, so I'm reproducing it here:
:1 Blackwater training centre
:The Blackwater training centre is a private security company that specialises in training security personnel.
:1.1 General
:Founded in 1997 by former US Navy Seal and current CEO Erik Prince the purpose of backwater is to provide additional training to civil and military security personnel as opposed to providing complete security training for a recruit or novice. located in North Carolina Blackwater is the largest training facility in the world at an astonishing 6000 acres with more than 20 target Rangers equipped with computerised target movement systems.
:1.2 Facilities
:The more than 20 target ranges include the world's only privately owned 1200 yard firing range Forsyth rifle training and can be concrete reinforced for 50 calibre or Gatling gun training and is often performed from the side of the recreation helicopter. There is also the "reactive steel" firing range. This range provides pop-up steel plate targets which can be configured to appear in a variety of sequences and timings in day and night scenarios.
:One of the largest firing ranges is the "are you ready high school" contains Hall's, classrooms, mannequins of students and hostile targets for critical incident training that is primarily themed on a high school shooting scenario. The high school consists of video and audio recording for post exercise evaluation as well as moving walls for a variety of floor plans to provide diverse training that forces the students to adapt their skills.
--maru   (talk)  contribs 06:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words they may not fit the legal definition of what a mercenary is to the military but, are mercenaries, according to the literal meaning of the word. (StarkeRealm 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate entry 

message: Someone managed to claim that Bethesda Softworks stooped so low as to include contemporary political satire in their fantasy game Oblivion. In this game, there is a mercenary company named the Blackwood Company which pursue unethical acts. What the author failed to realise, is that the company is named after the region in the game in which they base their operations, the Blackwood forest. The fictional world of this forest precedes Blackwater USA by three years. Joffeloff 23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Blackwood is a place name in earlier games in the Elder Scrolls region, this does not mean that there was no satire intended.  The world of these games is very detailed and has a large number of place names.  "Blackwood" is a very generic fantasy name, I would not be surprised to see it in many other fantasy settings.  They could have easily chosen that area because the name was close to Blackwater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.76.48 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oblivion 

message: the Line: Blackwater USA consists of five companies:  is followed by six lines of "subcompanies"... whats right? 5 or 6? --87.193.35.4 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscalculation? 

message: On a broadcast of Democracy Now, they mentioned that the founders of Blackwater were big contributors to Bush/ Cheney's election campaign. Do you think this is worth putting in the article? --Jml4000 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes put it there.. or place the reference here please.Cheers -- maxrspct ping me  22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedic entry on a company. Do we normally list the campaign contributions on articles about companies? This seems POV to me. — Linnwood (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important if the Company primarily profits from war or armed conflict, especially since they have played major roles in the current war in Iraq. --Jml4000 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important if the Company primarily profits from (Insert Government Action), especially since they have played major roles in the (Insert Government Policy) I mean you could fit that statement to any company that has people who donate to political campaigns. I fail to see how Blackwater USA is diffrent than any other organization (corporation, labor union, charity) in that way. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between a company profiting off of say, a highway or school being built by the federal government, and a company that profits off the bloodshed of human beigns. When Dick Cheney left the office of Secretary of defense under Bush 1, he hired a firm called Kellog Brown and Root (a subsidiary of halliburton) to brainstorm ways of how to privatize the U.S. military. This is the "revolution in military affairs" that's brought up many times by the Project for the New American Century.  --147.144.1.251 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but unless you have some sort of allegation about corruption, there is no difference. For all we know the founders of Blackwater USA contributed to Bush/Cheney '04 because they are big supporters of school choice or any other GOP plank. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was offered as a criticism by Democracy Now! there's no reason to exclude it from the article, as long as it is sourced and under the appropriate heading. The same would be true of any other company with a publicly-alleged conflict of interest. Aelffin 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The campaign contributions were done by Erik Prince, and should be mentioned in his part of the personnel section. Their relevance to the company does not warrant its own section. Arkalochori 22:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Campaign Contributions 

message: With your "contributions" to this article from your corporate IP range, you're currently NUMBER THREE on the list of Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs!
:Are you having trouble reading? The article clearly says Dow Chemical. They manufacture chemicals, they are not military or security contractors. Arkalochori 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Dow Chemical manufactured Agent Orange for the U.S. Military during the Vietnam War. (I think the list is constantly changing.) --Howrealisreal 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations, Blackwater! 

message: Blackwater's creative history of what happended in Al Najaf, Iraq in April 2004 is interesting but not completely true. As an eyewitness of the events that transpired in April 2004 in Al Najaf, here is the rest of the story: A team of Marines from 4th ANGLICO, attached to MND-CS, arrived on Al Ándalus to assist in repelling the attack by Al Sadr's Militia which lasted almost the entire month of April. The ANGLICO Marines were also joined by SSgt Allen Truesdale who was attached to a unit training the ICDC (Iraqi Civil Defense Corps). Upon their arrival at the base, the ANGLICO Marines exposed themselves to enemy fire while establishing a communication plan with the Spanish headquarters, the CPA headquarters, and an element from the MND headquarters. The ANGLICO Marines (SSgt Derrick Leath, Sgt Justin Foley, Sgt Luis Hernandez, Sgt Halain Suarez, Cpl Jeff Dusch, and Cpl Fahim Mortazavi) and SSgt Truesdale established an obervation post to maintain a view of the surrounding area and began coordinating Close Air Support to include Apaches, F-14s, F-18s, Hueys, etc. While directing aircraft to areas of interest the Marines receivied incoming enemy fire from Al Sadr Hospital which was a taller building on the perimeter of the base.
The Marines changed observation posts on several occasions to gain the best vantage point of the battlefield. After several days of no sleep, the ANGLICO team worked twenty-four hour operations with a two man watch. During this time, the ANGLICO team controlled a C-130 Gunship, Slayer 75, onto a vehicle after their position was attacked with RPG fire. Additionally, the ANGLICO Marines cleared the delivery of a 500lb bomb, with no collateral damage, on a building killing several combatants while. The ANGLICO team also directed the Spanish sniper team on the engagement of enemy combatants and controlled over twenty CAS missions.
It is curious, that Blackwater would leave out such an important factor in the April, 2004 defense of Najaf. Maybe it was because one of their own spray painted the ANGLICO vehicle and received the beat down of his life for showing such disrespect to a team of Marines who had been fighting along side of them for weeks.
SSgt Derrick Leath and SSgt Allen Truesdale won a Bronze Star with "V", Sgt Foley and Sgt Suarez won a Navy Commendation Medal with "V", and Sgt Hernandez, Cpl Dusch, and Cpl Mortazavi earned a Navy Achievement Medal with "V" for their actions in defending the garrison. The statement that "the U.S. military had declared the city unsafe and would not risk inserting U.S. troops" is a lie. I was there and witnessed the bravery of these Marines who have more than earned the right to be recognized as they lived up to the traditions set by Marines before them and weren't earning six figures doing their job.  source: http://anglico.net/news_040929.php   G8rlawdog 13:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackwater History in Al Najaf, Iraq (April 2004) - creative but not true. 

message: I am pretty sure that the border jail paragraph (currently the last paragraph in Controversy and Critisms) is not true, but I can't prove that. Is there anything to back that up? Tmaull 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Arkalochori 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-user reinstated it. So I redeleted it. Tmaull 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border Jail??? 

message: Most of the History and Controversy sections of this article are dedicated to information concerning the current Iraq war. It seems like a good idea to establish a separate section dealing with the role Blackwater plays in Iraq (how many employees, what kinds of missions, etc.) and criticism concerning this role (lawsuits, company's response to employee deaths in Iraq, etc.). Or, if the information about Blackwater's activities elsewhere, in Azerbaijan, for example, can be expanded, then a section pertaining to Iraq could fall under that larger category. Mcwabaunsee 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is an excellent idea. Tmaull 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Section on Involvement in Iraq 

message: Has anyone geo coordinates? I would like to check if there is anything visible on google earth... sounds interessting. --Nemissimo 10:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found their driving track on google earth at  36°27'28.71"N,  76°12'6.67"W   Tmaull 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facilities 

message: I think we should avoid including current events in an article summary. I know people are desperately eager to be the first to add breaking news to an article, but it's going to look ridiculous in a couple of years time when this information is still in the article summary even though by then it'll just be distant blip in the company's history.
Also, if 20 more things happen to the country in the next couple of years, are we supposed to put ALL this info in the article summary? If so, why bother having the summary at all if it's just becoming longer and longer?
I'm removing this information from the article summary for now because it looks ridiculous. 195.99.220.2 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A small amount of current information seems appropriate while it is ongoing, but I haven't been around the article as long so I won't reinsert.. --69.218.58.110 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Summary 

message: Is there enough to fork that off, yet, into it's own article? • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the House committee hearing on Blackwater is over in a week or so, I expect there will be ton of new, credible information on Blackwater's controversial activities that could be used to support several spin-off articles.  I've already added some new references to the reference list for anyone who wants to run with it. Cla68 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and began Blackwater USA arms smuggling. There are still another 5-10 sources I haven't used yet, and that is just through today. Once more comes out, as you said, it will only grow even further still. • Lawrence Cohen 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blackwater USA arms smuggling]] 

message: During a Govt. House oversight committee session headed up by Waxman Oct. 2nd, 20007, the question was directly asked to the CEO of Blackwater, who manages a smattering of personell compared to General Petraus' thousands, what his salary is compared to the General.  According to the CEO himself, he is being paid (via American taxpayers) around 9 to 10 times what the General is paid although he manages a paltry fraction of people.  Also, estimated profits were mentioned as well... mulitple millions of dollars?   Of course, the CEO who laughably claimed during the hearing that he "doesn't care" about money said he didn't know what the specific profits were of his company and said since Blackwater is a privately held company they didn't feel the need to let the American people know what their profits were anyway.  Basically, he admitted Blackwater is a rogue, anti-American taxmoney-sucking entity.  I think the least we can do for those seeking facts on Wikipeida is mention estimated Blackwater profits, salaries, etc. that are being paid by the American taxpayer.  It's the right thing to do.... and THAT'S how it is.  Sorry, I'm a bit furious right now when the traitors to our country are called "heros".  Real heros don't milk American taxpayers, real heros don't run, scurry and hide when light is shown upon them.  Real heros fight for America, not profit. ($*&$&ing bastards. Cowicide 07:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Be bold and fix it. Limit your additions to well-cited neutral text, however, or it may be boldly removed. There is mention, however, of costs in at least one of the two daughter articles to this (I believe it's the arms smuggling one). MrZaiustalk 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly too furious to be neutral right now and hope someone with a cooler head can take an unbiased look at this.  Maybe later when (and if I ever) cool down, I'll attempt it. Cowicide 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't honestly add neutral text to the article, just add your sources to the references/external links list and someone else will do it. Cla68 08:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Or at the very least they'll be there for when you do cool down. I'm registered (R) and got that ticked after reading this Rolling Stone piece that I called my Republican congressman and requested he move towards impeachment. It wore off after a couple of weeks. Oh, the opiates of the masses. You'll be fine with editing again in a couple days. MrZaiustalk 08:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are so many facts missing on Blackwater in this article? 

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)
thread_title:  In the News nomination for main page 

message: Prince Group currently redirects here, but isn't mentioned at all in the article. My understanding is that Prince Group predates Blackwater USA, though, being founded by Erik Prince's father as an automotive company, so perhaps it should have a separate article. It seems the automotive part has since been sold off, but Prince Manufacturing still remains one of the Group's major holdings besides Blackwater. --Delirium 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Group 

message: Unless I'm missing something, both of the Wikinews links are straight to the WN front page, rather than the articles themselves. 138.38.151.17 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: I don't know the Wikipedia tags for the Current Events template,, but this page is clearly involving current events and will be susceptible to edit wars and arguments with political motivations.  I suggest it is locked down or at least noted as current events. 68.1.79.246 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is it current? Miranda 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the article as current due to the congressional hearings. Miranda 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Matter what anyone thinks of Blackwater, this article is so monumentally imbalanced that is should go into the Wikipedia Hall Of Shame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.180.79 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. I just read this article for the first time, and am hugely impressed by its quality - as well as being extremely detailed, I think it does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. I think it should be nominated for GA status when the current speed of edits slows down and it approaches something like stability. (Not that I think it should be locked; I see no evidence that vandalism and/or edit-warring on this page has reached the point where the costs of semi-protection would be outweighed by the benefits.) Terraxos 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockdown, add current events tag 

message: Regarding the search for a secondary source interpretation of the Geneva convention definition of "mercenary", my recollection is that PW Singer's book Corporate Warriors is good on this point. --Pleasantville 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chiliean bit is kind of hanging at the moment. Because we're talking about a restrictive definition of mercenary without any context of why this matters. I had planned to remove it, then I was planning to hide it but decided to leave it for now but it would be good if someone could find a good secondary source for this. I didn't add the original section just moved it to the intro Nil Einne 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary source w/ interpretation of the Geneva Convention definition 

message: Thanks for rv yourself Nil Einne, the presence of these chilian nationals is i believe very important to the arguement as to if blackwater are mercs. They are mentioned by many sources, what do you want this section to say and why Nil? (Hypnosadist) 15:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the Chilean nationals employees of Blackwater or are they subcontractors working for Blackwater? There is a difference. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be no difference, and there's no reason to believe they're subcontracted anyway, in fact Scahill says otherwise in his interviews. Niczar 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the euphemisms used as terminology for the Guys With Guns providing private sector military force in Iraq is "security contractors." These "contractors" are employees of private military companies. The companies are the contractors, not the individuals, for the most part. My understanding is that the Chileans and other non-US citizen working under Blackwater' name in Iraq are employees with fairly stringent employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements, etc., to show for it. --Pleasantville 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have described above why I believe this section is a problem at the moment. Basically with the removal of the technical definition of the law bit, it's not clear to most readers why the fact that they are Chileans is relevant. Personally I don't give a damn whether they're Chileans or Americans, they're all merceneries. Clearly however there are reasons why it matters but this isn't clear in the current context. Indeed as I said above we currently say they fit even the most restrictive definition of merceneries without describing what this restrictive definition is. Note that we already mention there are Chileans, Filipinos and Bosnians in an earlier part. This part is fine. It's only the part under controversy and criticism that is a problem at the current time Nil Einne 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chileans have been a source of controversy for several reasons: (1) They undermine Blackwater's claim that the firm's employees are not mercenaries using one def or another; (2) Their hiring invokes Pinochet-era Chile and brings with it the taint of fascism, death squads, etc.; (3) Guys with guns hired by private military companies from places like Chile tend to be paid less and work in poorer conditions than their American counterparts. --Pleasantville 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chilians 

message: I see that someone has added Executive Outcomes to the See also list. EO is much more closely related to BW's competitor Aegis, so I'm not sure this is appropriate. Maybe we need a list of comparable firms? Or is that covered by categories? --Pleasantville 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think categories would be enough. Or else the See Also will be huge. • Lawrence Cohen 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also . . . 

message: Trying to add the following text, but people keep deleting it claiming it is unsourced. Notice that the two embeded external links point to the sources. What is wrong with it?
Fans of CBS drama series Jericho believe that the fictional company Ravenwood_Security is modeled after Blackwater USA. The theory triggered a heavy discussion about patriotism but the real world connection between the fictional company and Blackwater haven't been disputed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.159.61 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackwater in fiction 

message: We should probably have a section for the attorneys & PR firms helping them through their difficulties. See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5io26XfEe4F4LJr8KxWsRUyjO_SbwD8S34P3O0
What should it be called? Representation? --Pleasantville 19:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a representation section. (Hypnosadist) 04:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attorneys & PR firms 

message: This is interesting: allegations that the State Dept's Inspector General Howard Krongard has threatened to fire anyone from his office who testify in Henry Waxman's Congressional investigation. 
An Uncertain Fate for the Whistleblowers Who Took on State Department's Inspector General by Brian Beutler, Mother Jones, October 5, 2007: "The Blackwater investigation has fueled controversy about military contractors' abuses in Iraq. But it has also raised questions about where government whistleblowers can turn for protection."
See also this letter by Waxman: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070918105806.pdf
Where would this fit in to the current article structure? Should it perhaps be added to the section on the Congressional investigation?--Pleasantville 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations and Howard Krongard, which I've begun building up. All the material except any today (didn't look) that is available. I believe thats all. • Lawrence Cohen 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krongard  vs. Waxman ?!? 

message: * In the History section: "In each case, Blackwater received a no-bid contract. Overall, the company has received over one billion dollars in government contracts.US-IRAQ: Blackwater Blues for Dead Contractors' Families, by Bill Berkowitz, IPS, June 29, 2007." is queried with "Where in this citation is there a reference to this fact, much less to question the source of the citation". These claims are widely repeated and this should be easy to clear up.
* in the section Iraq involvement, "In 2006, Blackwater won the remunerative contract to protect the U.S. embassy in Iraq, which is the largest American embassy in the world. It is estimated by the Pentagon and company representatives that there are 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, and some estimates are as much as 100,000, though no official figures exist.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599682,00.html" Is queried with "The first citation makes no mention of the figure 100,000. The second citation makes note of 20 - 30 thousand armed contractors and a total of 100,000 contractors. Poster assumes all of the 100,000 are armed." If I recall correctly some of these figures are from congressional testimony, and there is a comment accessible via Google News from IPOA rep Doug Brooks quibbling with the specifics. Again, this should be easy to clear up.
* "Approximately six hundred former Chilean soldiers are currently hired by the USA to carry on military assignments, most of them motivated by the relatively high salaries. Coletazos de Guerra Sucia En Iraq" was removed because the source is not in English. Can we replace it? Also the issue was raised as to to whether the Chileans are "active combattants." It seems to me the real issue is whether they are armed, since Blackwater goes far out of its way to portray ALL of its employees as people who respond with force ONLY when attacked. UPDATE: DONE
--Pleasantville 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for better sourcing overnight, 10/5/07-10/6/07 

message: I was talking to a marine who was in Iraq (I don't know where), and his patrol witnessed Blackwater employees kill a little girl unprovoked, and the patrol arrested them on the spot. I asked him if it was an isolated incident, and he said "no, they do it all the time" and that these blackwater employees just go unlucky to have done it in the presence of a patrol. I'm sure he was exaggerating with "all the time" and probably meant that they are just known to do it. I know there was a video on the internet of some anonymous security contractors (not sure if they were Blackwater) taking pot-shots at cars on a freeway. 
The fact that the marine who told me this was very conservative, of the mindset that "we shouldn't be in Iraq, we should just blow the f'in place up" and isn't the type to make up tall tales, and along with the fact that there was video released I'm inclined to believe there is something to what he said. 
I would never add this to the article unless I could get it from a reliable published source. But I figure there has to be something published about it. That video was on the news for a while. Someone had to have investigated it. If a good source explaining the phenemenon could be found I think it would be good to add the info to the article. Brentt 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackwater killings 

message: The Blackwater USA page seems to be experiencing a high level of vandalism from unregistered users. Should we request that the page be protected for a short period of time? --Pleasantville 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote yes. Tmaull 02:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll request it. Good idea. • Lawrence Cohen 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was replying to this older message, thinking it was new. Oops. • Lawrence Cohen 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be protected? 

message: I updated Template:BlackwaterUSA a bit just now. Posting here to advertise that--what else would be appropriate for inclusion on the template? • Lawrence Cohen 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:BlackwaterUSA]] 

message: I've asked for very long term to permanent semi-protection for what is now an ultra high-profile article, given it's subject matter. The request is here, please weigh in with any support. • Lawrence Cohen 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection request 

message: It just struck me that "Personnel" is a funny heading for a section that talks about the top executives. How about Executives, Management or Leadership?
Incidentally, Robert Richer is no longer with Blackwater, at least not directly.   --RenniePet 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel? 

message: How many blackwater in Iraq?  How many private military contractors total?  Are these numbers anywhere?
IIRC, it's on the Iraq War page. Kensai Max 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total number of employees is basic information one would expect to find here. Is this information available somewhere? --RenniePet 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found numbers for DOD contractors in Iraq. I'll add it to the lead I thinkTicklemygrits 10:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they're a private company, that is the best you'll get, unless it somehow ends up in Congressional records or leaked. In the US, once a company gets over a given size (400? 500?) employees they are required to go public, with full financial disclosures. I don't think it's a coincidence that all their mercenaries/security types are contractors. I would imagine the number of actual employees is rather law, but we will be utterly hard pressed to find records indicating that. • Lawrence Cohen 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers? 

message: Since the blackwater is under the control of the government, Illuminati, I bet they are going to kill off any anti-illuminatist. Beware, those of you who woke up. Amphitere
:Yes, yes... everyone, put on your tin-foil hats before they zap your brains.  I'm wearing one on my head right now and one on my crotch for good measure.  Cover all the bases, so to speak. Cowicide 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disinfo agents are still spewing that "tin-foil hat" crap? Cowicide must be stuck in 2003. Nevermind, keep right on with your drivel, Cowicide. It makes you obvious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.117.196 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't realise from his name, he's a cow mutilator and doesn't like the Illuminati taking credit for itTicklemygrits 07:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problemo 

message: The litigation section needs subheads or something distinguishing between cases, and perhaps a little more detail on incidents related to the litigation. It is hard to follow as it stands now because of lack of signposting. --Pleasantville 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation section 

message: Blackwater USA is a company, how is this artical about a current event? i see no need for the tag, Boatman666 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current event tag 

message: I've edited the section to try an address POV concerns. It's true that ref 79 doesn't negate or directly address the fact that no one BW has been guarding has ever been seriously injured or killed so it was wrong for it to suggest it did. However it does provide context for the record and the equipement they carry and also provides a view on their behaviour in Iraq. Nil Einne 09:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 09:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackwater Security Consulting

message: It seems to me that Haizum has a point. The fact that many of their people are technically not merceneries is relevant. The fact that they are widely considered merceneries is also relevent and I don't think this should be removed from the intro. I'm thinking of a way to address the issue here, mentioning the fact that most of their people may not be considered merceneries under international law without going into too much detail. In the mean time, please leave the tag. Also, see above for my view on the reversions Nil Einne 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are my concerns exactly. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a matter to be resolved by consensus. There are a variety of definitions and usages. --Pleasantville 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts will be more accurate than the consensus of Wikipedia editors. Fact: Not mercenaries under international law. Fact: Described as mercenaries by media. Giving undue weight to the latter in the intro, considering its counterpoint (international law) is very clearly flawed. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be respectful of your fellow editors and the consensus discusssion. --Pleasantville 10:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to cry wolf. I'm simply saying that consensus applies where facts are not provided. In this case the facts are provided, and should be included - fairly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haizum (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Fact: 600 chileans employed by BW. Fact: BW employs at least 600 mercenaries. Niczar 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a rebuttal. In fact, that information is already included in the article to a degree. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand your point; the majority of a hospital's staff are not doctors. They're no less a medical facility than, say, a private practice. On top of that, it's been pointed out that "mercenary" has several definitions, all of which but one apply to most of BW's staff, and even the reminding one applies to many (at least 600 chileans that we know of, probably thousands in total) of it.Niczar 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a subjective definition is chosen over a legal definition (an international legal definition at that), then we have a problem. There is no way to provide a verifiable reference that indicates that Blackwater USA falls under any subjective definition. It does however fall under an international legal definition. I feel that is a very reasonable standard that is applied routinely throughout Wikipedia. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're pulling hairs. Besides the "international law" definition of mercenary doesn't apply to corporations, it applies to people in certain circumstances. Blackwater employs mercenaries, for the purpose of them being mercenaries. It's not just an accident that these people fall under this definition, it's the point. Another thing, even when US citizens work for Blackwater in Iraq, they don't appear to respect much of the Geneva convention. That would make them "enemy combattants" of the type held at Guantanamo, but of course this has no bearing in international law since this a made up status.Niczar 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure comedy. Probably the first time an international definition is not being used in a Wikipedia article, simply because the subjective definition makes the company look more eeeevil. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The geneva conventions are primary sources so can't be used to say that Blackwater are not mercs, find secondary RS's. (Hypnosadist) 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I can't believe there's not a single mention of the Sept. 16th Nisoor Square massacre in this whole article. What's going on here? dariopy 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a whole article about it. Tmaull 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. But where's the link. I mean, why is it not mentioned in THIS article? dariopy 19:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Blackwater Baghdad shootings, which is in this section. • Lawrence Cohen 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the report of the Nisoor Square killings? 

message: *In this edit I removed the following sentence that pertains to Erik Prince's political activities:
:Prince has also been tied to efforts to fund Green Party candidates Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli in Pennsylvania, a supposed effort to harm Democrat candidates.
This really needs a citation, especially with the extrapolation taken about the intent of the donation. --arkalochori |talk| 07:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the press seems to think it's relevant. But regardless, it is indeed covered in detail in Prince's own entry. --Pleasantville 14:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  political contributions 

message: Mindboggling though this oxymoron be, perhaps The Blackwater Global Peace and Stability Operations Institute should be mentioned. --Pleasantville 15:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surreal, but yeah, it definitely merits inclusion at least as a one-line note. • Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackwater for Peace 

message: What do you guys think of my eliminating the subsections? I think it works better this way. I want to do something similar on other sections, but those look like they will be tougher. • Lawrence Cohen 23:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good Lawrence!Ticklemygrits 07:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes nice work, a great improvement. --arkalochori |talk| 00:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, guys. Any suggestions on tackling the Iraq and Controversy sections in a similar manner? Those will be a bear. I'm thinking of trying to see if Litigation may also work under the canopy of the Controversy section, as well. • Lawrence Cohen 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could eliminate the "Controversy" section entirely. Most of the section relates to incidents in Iraq, so you could put that under 'Iraq involvement'. The only one that is outside of that is the plane crash in Afghanistan and that's covered in 'Litigation'. The arms smuggling section relates to Iraq in that they were smuggled from Iraq, but that's debatable. 'Contractors or Mercenaries' may not relate directly to Iraq though, but that could be incorporated.Ticklemygrits 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate history section 

message: Guys, I think we have a great base of material (a lot of it, actually) to work off of, but the structure is the biggest problem I can readily see. Please check out:
User:Lawrence Cohen/sandbox/Blackwater USA
I started that just as a layout tool, on how we can possibly restructure this. I want to go for Featured Article, but we need GA first, then Peer. Lets take it all the way. We can be front page in a few months I bet. Please edit that sub page of mine--order, layout, projected length of a section. The length guesstimate is in case we'll need to adjust the layout further because of more forked child articles. Please take a whack at it. Once we hammer out a good layout and structure, we can jam that structure onto Blackwater USA, and then dive into a section-by-section cleanup. I was thinking we can re-do the layout there, instead of live, so that it's less messy. One person can then go in and do the major copy/paste work for the restructuring without us tripping on each other. • Lawrence Cohen 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout sandbox 

message: Like Tickle mentioned above, I'm stuck on this one and where best to put all the current info (which is all good) and how to break it down. See here, and feel free to edit/change my sandbox at will. I think we need a controversy section--they are highly contentious and controversial, but beside that its the standard format of a lot of Wikipedia articles for that sort of thing to go in. What do you all think? Please take a whack at my test layout. • Lawrence Cohen 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Litigation 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd be willing to help you on the operations page, I think its a good idea. Tmaull 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next forking - suggestions 

message: Should this page be moved to Blackwater Worldwide given the name change? Tmaull 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that. Have they officially gone ahead with it, at this point? • Lawrence Cohen 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, dang. They have. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're free to edit the article per policy as well. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 06:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Search and Avoid missions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overall Innnaccuracies/Biases 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out, it isn't the same person. --arkalochori |talk| 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: OK, but the "liberal sources" bit was already resolved. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: By the way, what do you think of the overall neutrality of this article?  • Lawrence Cohen 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: RfC on logo section and overall article neutrality

message: Haizum, take a look at this. • Lawrence Cohen 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using multiple sources is a step forward. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like it meets all NPOV requirements. --Marvin Diode 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Anybody home? --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Logo section update

message: 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:
# Overall citation formatting corrections--formating, cite templates
# Integrate the huge pool of material and sources Cla68 found us
# Collect/insert new material on Krongard, Waxman congressional investations, Nisoor lawsuits
# 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)
thread_title:  Next steps and to-do list 

message: Prince did indeed confirm that on live television. Lawrence Cohen 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Much like the people talking about Halliburton and "no-bid" contracts, totally unaware of the LOGCAP program and that Halliburton had gone through bid processes twice, once under Bush41 and once under Clinton, winning both times. Political agendas. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  For example an event not mentioned in the article, but was all over the mainstream media, was in Oct. 2007 when Poland's ambassador to Iraq was rescued by a Blackwater helicopter after his convoy was attacked. Blackwater was not working for him, they just happened to be available.   Also, the article seems to gloss over their role as a training facility. Prior to the war in Iraq, Blackwater was primarily known as one of the premier training facilities for law enforcement and military firearms and tactical training, as well as training available to the civilian sector. This fact seems like almost an afterthought in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're complaining; it's a wiki. Feel free to expand the article with sourced material! It will save me some work, since no one else has seemed interested in expanding it recently. :) Lawrence Cohen 08:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Mainly because I still have difficulty making new source footnotes and don't want to screw up your article. Also, I stand corrected, your article did mention the rescue of the Polish ambassador. My bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no problem, and it's certainly not my article. Even the ones I started aren't mine, I'm just a caretaker when I help out. Same as you. If you want just wrap the sources in basic ref tags, I can clean it up later. Or list them here, either works. Lawrence Cohen 08:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-bid 

message: Are they named after sewage or what? --RucasHost (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly tells how they arrived at the name. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Black bog water in the region where they opened their facility. Lawrence § t/e 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of 'Blackwater'? 

message: Is there a reason this edit was reverted? It appears to be sourced. - Tmaull (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a mistake, I read it wrong the first time.  I restored it Jons63 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. - Tmaull (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently reverted edit 

message: The villain in the recent Knight Rider TV movie was "Blackriver security", a firm with contracts in Iraq... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural reference 

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I've started reviewing this, but I'm afraid I'll have to finish tomorrow night.  Sorry!  I have some thoughts already though, figured I'd give them so you can get working on them.  Most are very minor and won't stop it passing; however, the citation issues do need to be dealt with before it can pass.  I've included even very minor issues that you may want to have dealt with before going to FAC.  
*"...it claims is the world's largest" - minor point: maybe a different word than 'claims', which kind of suggests that it's a dubious claim.  I would have changed this myself, but couldn't think of a word. 'Says'? 'Holds'?
*Too many uses of the word 'opposition' in the sentence starting with "Opposition focused on a potential for wildfire increases..." and the one before it: repetitive.
*"...application to set up a facility in San Diego County.[citation needed]" must fix all cn tags before this can be passed.
*"Many referred to the change as having eliminated the previous "cross hair" theme..." 'Many' is weasel wording.  Who specifically said it?
*Democracy Now! rocks my world, but I would hesitate to call it a reliable source.  Can you find another source for the info?
*For the sentence beginning "It is estimated by the Pentagon and company representatives that there are 20,000 to 30,000...", you should deal with the commented-out concern; it's important to faithfully represent sources. 
*"Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security staff was involved in 195 shooting incidents; in 163 of those cases, Blackwater personnel fired first. 25 members of staff have been fired for violations of Blackwater's drug and alcohol policy and 28 more for weapons-related incidents." These 2 sentences are non-sequiturs; the first part of the paragraph is about international hirees.  
*"...murdering him while drunk"--I think this means the killer was drunk, is that right?  This could possibly be clarified a bit. 
*"The crash site was secured by a personal security detail, callsign "Jester" from 1/26 Infantry, 1st Infantry Division." could this be translated or explained for those of us who don't speak military? 
This is just a start, I'll have more in a bit.  delldot on a public computer talk 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: ===Important stuff===
*Is the youtube video in the references of copyrighted material?  We can't link to copyright violations per WP:EL.
*There are some flow issues.  Sometimes there are non-sequiturs within a given paragraph (I do understand the need to avoid short paragraphs though).  If you have more than one topic in a paragraph, give it a topic sentence that covers each point, so the reader's prepared.  For example, in the paragraph beginning "In late May 2007, Blackwater contractors opened fire on the streets of Baghdad twice in two days...", you could introduce it by saying "there have been several controversies in the news..." (but don't actually say that, because that's extremely crappy, and it's important to be careful with NPOV)  My point is to have a topic sentence that will cover everything you're going to talk about in the paragraph.  If it can't, you might have too many different things in that paragraph.  For example, the last two sentences in that paragraph I mentioned don't seem to fit.  
*"Overall, Blackwater had a "visible, and financially lucrative, presence..." reads like an NPOV problem.  This is a source with an opinion, we shouldn't be stating it as fact.  You could, however, identify who said it and put it at the end of that paragraph to back up the point that the involvement in Katrina was controversial.  I think the whole article should be given an NPOV check by an uninvolved party, it's such a difficult issue.  The whole article is sprinkled with these highly contentious facts.  Not that they should be kept out, but some do seem a little out of context.  
===Stuff that's not that important, but I figured I'd mention it===
*Might want to explain what "renumerative contract" means.
*"Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion..." should be changed to "Between June 2004 and [whenever this statistic is from]..." per WP:DATED.
*You should go through and check all the bot generated titles, filling in all the missing citation info.  
*"...following the controversy related to Blackwater's conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan." Which one? Specify. 
*For the dead links ("URL not found"), did you try going through web.archive.org to find them? 
* Maybe you could split the "Iraq war involvement" section into smaller "general" and "events" subsections or something (the "general" wouldn't need its own subheader).  A lot of that section is kind of a timeline of different scandals they were involved in.  
*It seems odd to split the September 16, 2007 events between the Iraq war and legal sections, but I can't think of how you'd combine them.
*The sentence beginning "A Committee on Oversight and Government Reform staff report, based largely on internal Blackwater e-mail messages..." doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of that paragraph or the one before.  Maybe it should be moved to the criticism section.  
*The sentence "The legal status of Blackwater and other security firms in Iraq is a subject of contention" belongs higher up in the legal status section--it's introductory.
*"The Iraqi government said that it expects to refer criminal charges..." Who said that?  
*It seems like the "legal status" and "litigation" sections should be kept together; they cover some of the same topics, and the non-Iraq services section breaks the flow there. Also, it further strains the reader's memory: "...Scott Helvenston... Remember Scott Helvenston?" :P  I don't know where it should be moved, though.  Maybe before the Iraq section?
*Find something to link to for "high-altitude euphoria", or explain what it is.  
*This sentence needs more clarification: "The article discussed the removal of the word "armored" from already-signed contracts, and other allegations of wrongdoing."  Why was that wrongdoing?
Hitting save now, more to follow. delldot on a public computer talk 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's been on hold for over a week, the review's received no response, and the GA nominator has not edited in a week.  So I'm going to fail the article.  By all means, though, feel free to bring it back to GAN when the important points from this review have been fixed!  Leave me a message on my talk page if you have anything to discuss.  delldot on a public computer talk 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review (part II) 

message: *Might want to explain what "renumerative contract" means.
*"Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion..." should be changed to "Between June 2004 and [whenever this statistic is from]..." per WP:DATED.
*You should go through and check all the bot generated titles, filling in all the missing citation info.  
*"...following the controversy related to Blackwater's conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan." Which one? Specify. 
*For the dead links ("URL not found"), did you try going through web.archive.org to find them? 
* Maybe you could split the "Iraq war involvement" section into smaller "general" and "events" subsections or something (the "general" wouldn't need its own subheader).  A lot of that section is kind of a timeline of different scandals they were involved in.  
*It seems odd to split the September 16, 2007 events between the Iraq war and legal sections, but I can't think of how you'd combine them.
*The sentence beginning "A Committee on Oversight and Government Reform staff report, based largely on internal Blackwater e-mail messages..." doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of that paragraph or the one before.  Maybe it should be moved to the criticism section.  
*The sentence "The legal status of Blackwater and other security firms in Iraq is a subject of contention" belongs higher up in the legal status section--it's introductory.
*"The Iraqi government said that it expects to refer criminal charges..." Who said that?  
*It seems like the "legal status" and "litigation" sections should be kept together; they cover some of the same topics, and the non-Iraq services section breaks the flow there. Also, it further strains the reader's memory: "...Scott Helvenston... Remember Scott Helvenston?" :P  I don't know where it should be moved, though.  Maybe before the Iraq section?
*Find something to link to for "high-altitude euphoria", or explain what it is.  
*This sentence needs more clarification: "The article discussed the removal of the word "armored" from already-signed contracts, and other allegations of wrongdoing."  Why was that wrongdoing?
Hitting save now, more to follow. delldot on a public computer talk 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's been on hold for over a week, the review's received no response, and the GA nominator has not edited in a week.  So I'm going to fail the article.  By all means, though, feel free to bring it back to GAN when the important points from this review have been fixed!  Leave me a message on my talk page if you have anything to discuss.  delldot on a public computer talk 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff that's not that important, but I figured I'd mention it

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 :) 
* "OversightContract1" :
** 
** Blackwater Worldwide Oversight records.
DumZiBoT (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: This article is arguably the worst in Wiki history. The first paragraph alone is not only poorly written but also almost entirely (and heavily) POV. The inclusion of so many anti-Blackwater talking points just in the first 500 words is appalling for an alleged "encyclopedia," even by Wikipedia's usually shoddy standards. When people laugh at Wikipedia ... this article illustrates precisely why.
If any of you actually care about journalistic integrity and want Wikipedia to look something like a real encyclopedia, go grab one - a real encyclopedia - and check how they treat the subject. Then erase this whole article and start over. Begin the entire first section with NPOV, objective description. Since you won't be able to help yourself from including your bias, add those in later sections on controversy and criticism.
As it reads now, this is a one-sided embarrassment. I don't care how deep you are in your own brand of Kool-Aid, you should be able to recognize just how bad this article truly is. Imagine an article on President Clinton that begins with the alleged murder of Vince Foster and several alleged rapes, before going on to point out that he was the 42nd President. That's precisely how biased this article is.
74.185.105.135 (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like good advice, but you're stretching it a bit with your Clinton analogy. The only reason I've ever heard of Blackwater is because of the controversy, i.e. that's what makes them a notable organization to a general reader, at least an international reader like me. 137.122.200.168 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have a strong interest, then find the information, provide citations, and add it.  Don't expect other people to do the work for you.  And also don't expect the controversy stuff to go away, because as I pointed out, it's why Blackwater is notable.  Having some state-of-the-art training facility pales in comparison to murdering innocent people.  Sorry. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Wikipedia Article?