Wikipedia

Talk:Blackwater (company)/Archive 4

< Talk:Blackwater (company)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Name change

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I moved this article to Constellis Holdings because Academi has changed its name again. The article was just moved back. Also the information regarding Blackwater's death threat to a US State Department official was recently removed. What is going on? Scott P. (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the article page was brought back, but not the talk page, so I moved it also. It would appear that ACADEMI as a company still exists - the ownership structure has changed, but does not appear to have dissolved the actual organization, so the article move appears to be premature. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is my reading of the refs as well. It remains its own company with new owners. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be some rather confusing info on the merger (fog of war, etc. etc.). Here is a link where former Academi CEO Ted Wright says, "The message here is not that we’re changing the name. The message is that we’re changing the company, and the name just reflects those changes." If I understand his meaning, yes, they are changing the name again. The only way that a name can reflect changes is if the name itself changes, so far as I know.
They seem to have worded the news release to intentionally be quite confusing. The news release says that:
  1. "...Academi (will be under) a new management structure....", yet it also says much further down in the article that there will be no change in the CEO. Are they trying to call a duck a chicken? Same CEO, same management.
  2. It also says that: "Constellis Holdings was formed by ...Triple Canopy and ... ACADEMI". Here, the name Triple Canopy is carefully placed first, giving the first impression that Academi is secondary in the merger, but if the Academi CEO leads after the merger, clearly it is Triple Canopy who is really secondary.
It seems they are doing everything but really changing the management again in order to try to distance themselves from Blackwater. I would too if I had to run a company like Academi. Who wouldn't? Ultimately, after the merger, it will only be a significant number of true third party positive reviews, and another couple of years of really keeping their noses clean, that will show whether or not their changes are merely cosmetic, or truly fundamental. I do hope that they have really changed, and I wish them the best, but only time will tell.
This same corporate news release also makes it clear that the Academi CEO, Nixon, is now the Constellis Holdings CEO. It says, "The combined ownership group will..... be led by CEO Craig Nixon." If you ask me, same CEO, same company. They are shuffling around the Board of Directors, but anyone can do that for effect. It is the name of the CEO that will ultimately tell the true story of a merger.
If they keep the same CEO after a merger, is it truly a "different" company? Or is it merely the same company only a little bigger? Does not the CEO ultimately call the shots and set the tone for the rest of the entire company? Comments?
Scott P. (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait for the smoke to clear. At the moment, there is still an organization called "Academi", organizational heir to Blackwater, which holds various government contracts. Until and unless that organization ceases to operate under that name, we should probably keep the article under the current name. The tangled state of ownership certainly deserves mention if we can find publicly referenced sources, but we should probably not change the article name until major contracts for Academi facilities and/or personnel start being issued under the name of Constellis Holdings. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
When there is a "corporate merger", the "surviving corporation" automatically assumes the contract rights and responsibilities of the "subsumed corporation". Also, the "surviving corporation" (Constellis Holdings) retains "dba rights" to operate under the name of the "subsumed corporation", just as Chrysler still operates under the "Jeep" and "Dodge" names. Legally speaking, once the merger contract was signed and filed, legally nobody any longer holds any contracts with Academi, their contracts are all now legally only with Constellis Holdings, the only "true" active corporation as of today. All other names of corporations now owned by Constellis Holdings are merely dba's. Scott P. (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that it is possible that Constellis Holdings may continue to operate the old Academi operation under its old Academi name, but I'm pretty sure that they will have to clarify in any of their new contracts, who the true owner is. Scott P. (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is an idea for someone to find the true "poop" on the merger: The Corporate Documents of Constellis Holdings, as filed with whatever state Constellis Holdings' Corporate Documents are filed, should be publicly available through that state's Division of Corporations, and should lay out exactly what the legal status of Academi is. It is either a surviving corporation, or a mere dba. The publicly available (usually online) Corporate Documents of Constellis should lay all of that out in black and white. Normally, when one company "holds" another, that means that the company "held" is merely a dba. Scott P. (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be OR (Original Research) using primary sources. That is not really allowed. We should wait for reliable secondary sources to clarify the status. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned, the ownership is trivia, worth noting, but this article documents the organization. If the ownership changes the organization, merging the management structure with other organizations and/or changes the legal name on contracts, then the name changes. As long as the organization remains a legal entity with that name and contracts, we should keep the article under the current name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess perhaps you are right. Until Constellis Holdings might announce that it's going to discontinue or reduce the use of its dba Academi, which is still legally only a dba, but which name may be considered a "corporate asset" now that Academi seems to have put enough distance between itself and the old Blackwater, it should be OK to keep this article where it is. I just perused the KFC article. KFC is owned by a company named Yum, but obviously the KFC name is worth keeping for them, since it has such positive brand recognition. So please accept my apologies. I was a bit too "quick on the draw" when I read that Academi had merged with Constellis. I guess I assumed that the old Blackwater mentality and attempts at name changing to get away from a bad image was still very much at play. BTW, using publicly published public documents, such as "articles of Incorporation" is not "Original" Research, it's simply "good" research. For it to be OR, the document used would have to come from an "unreliable or unverifiable" source. Still, you were both correct in your over-all sense that the article should probably stay where it is. Scott P. (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, WP:OR is still a problem even if it's reliable. See WP:PRIMARY. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. In general, we should avoid primary sources for anything other than very simple statements of fact (like a specific number of employees or something). For what the facts represent, we should always seek secondary sources. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
True, if it had been written the wrong way it would've been original research. It's all a moot point now though. Reporting on the articles of incorporation never got written. Cheers, Scott P. (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments13 people in discussion
As per the previous close by Armbrust, there is a clear consensus to merge. Sunrise (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Survey

  • Merge As best I can tell, Blackwater Security Consulting was a wholly-owned unit of Blackwater, and appears to have been sold along with Academi. The addresses I can find for BSC are all addresses which now are marked as "Academi", and I can find no activity for BSC as such in recent years. Note, by the way, there is a "Blackwater Agency Security Consulting", which appears to be an entirely independent endeavor in Florida, but they appear to have simply appropriated the name. Thus, my opinion is that the two articles articles in question should presumably be merged. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge They are the same company, even if the lead of Blackwater Security Consulting says created 2001 (Infobox: 1997). I don't really care under what name they are merged because there will be a redirect, but most of the text and coverage is as "Blackwater". I don't know what possessed editor Tmaull to create this page over the clear redirect to Blackwater Worldwide in February 2008, but since Tmaull has not edited since June 2011, I doubt we can ask. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. I didn't realize that they hadn't been merged during the name change. This is the same company under a new name. Nothing really justifying separate articles. Keeping them separate is akin to having 2 BLP's, one before marriage and one after (with a name change). Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. Technically Blackwater Security Consulting was a division of Blackwater. They should have been merged long ago. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I assumed merging into Academi was a given - Wikipedia policy is articles about companies should have their current name. Had the merge gone into BSC, a rapid rename to Academi should have followed. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's great. It just seemed to read backwards in the RfC description. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment actually two articals (this one and Blackwater Worldwide businesses were merged in 2009, but in 2008 Tmaull decided to create a new Blackwater Consulting page. The ancient history is with this article which went to "Blackwater Worldwide" to "Xe Services" and then here at "Academi". --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 12 December 2011‎ Sandstein (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (102,072 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe Services to Academi:
  • 3 August 2011‎ ErikHaugen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (100,856 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe Services
  • 24 June 2009‎ R. Baley (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,711 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe (Blackwater) to Blackwater Worldwide
  • 24 June 2009‎ CnrFallon (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,711 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe (Blackwater)
  • 8 April 2009‎ Pmanderson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,057 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe (company) to Blackwater Worldwide
  • 8 April 2009‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (101,057 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe (company)
  • 11 March 2009‎ 33rogers (talk | contribs)‎ . . (98,210 bytes) (+21,902)‎ . . (→‎Corporate history: merge not opposed december 2008 - [merge in from Blackwater Worldwide businesses]
  • 19 February 2009‎ Parsecboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (76,603 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Xe (company) to Blackwater Worldwide
  • 14 February 2009‎ Jnelson09 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (75,514 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater Worldwide to Xe (Company)
  • 10 February 2008‎ Tmaull (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,033 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (added wikilink) [to the newly created Blackwater Security Consulting, continues to edit main Blackwater article until 1 May 2008]
  • 10 February 2008‎ Tmaull (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,636 bytes) (+15,602)‎ . . (page created) [over redirect at Blackwater Security Consulting, Tmaull did not discuss the creation on this talk page, nor even mention it.]
  • 31 October 2007‎ Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (57,773 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Blackwater USA to Blackwater Worldwide
  • 16 October 2007‎ Tmaull (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,170 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (→‎Other employments) (Tmaull begins making edits at Blackwater USA)
  • 1 April 2004‎ Fuzheado (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (#REDIRECT Blackwater_USA) [from Blackwater Security Consulting]
  • 1 April 2004‎ Fuzheado (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,122 bytes) (+1,122)‎ . . (started) [page created at Blackwater USA]

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

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

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

Comment - I was also asked to participate, observe that consensus has already been reached, and advise proceeding. ENeville (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep (12th hour) - As we all know, all of the recent management and name changes of the former Blackwater company are merely an obvious effort by the company's management to try to "hide it's past". By deleting the old Blackwater article, it seems to me that we might be complying with the company management's wishes, and assisting it in "hiding it's past". I see no reason why the old Blackwater article cannot be retained, so long as it makes it clear in the article's lead, that the company no longer exists under that name, that the company is now called Constellis Holdings, and that the Blackwater article serves as a history of the company while it was operated under the name "Blackwater". It is possible that with all of the management changes, Constellis may also truly be a "different" company too. In either case, to have a single article available to focus on the "Blackwater period" seems to me to be a good idea, so long as the Blackwater article makes it clear who its current day successor is. There the notorious and very notable history of Blackwater, as it operated under that name, can be specifically focused upon in the dedicated article this history deserves. Please see my recent edits to the Blackwater_Security_Consulting article to that effect. Scott P. (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Note about Armbrust's good faith attempt to close the above discussion.... Due to the recent moves of this talk page, and due to the fact that after all of the moves, my 12th hour comment was no longer showing after the moves, Armbrust was unable to see that there was a dissenting comment before he closed the discussion. As such, I feel that it is only fair to allow other editors to first at least respond to my dissenting comment before closing this discussion as "consensed". At least a few responses to the above by a few different editors would now be helpful before finally closing this discussion. If after four or five more comments it becomes clear that my "Keep" recommendation still stands alone, then by all means please close this discussion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academi/Monsanto/Bill and Melinda Gates

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What sort of relationship should Monsanto and Bill and Melinda Gates be included in this article?

http://countercurrentnews.com/2013/05/it-turns-out-monsanto-actually-did-buy-the-blackwater-mercenary-group/

69.62.243.64 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on that article? None. See WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I don't think "countercurrentnews" qualifies as a reliable source, and certainly that particular article shows sufficient bias to make one doubt the reliability of any of the claims placed. Unless you can find other sources for these claims, the proper response is to ignore that article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Academi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Archived versions look good. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Bias

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Many portions of this article on "Academi" read like they were lifted off the company's own website or promotional materials. Private security contracting - otherwise known as mercenary services - is a highly controversial topic and deserves a more analytically independent treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.189.250 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Private security contracting is not the same as mercenary services. The term includes everything from mall security to diplomatic bodyguards. the fact that you may wish to label Academi as "mercenary services" suggests a bias on your part more than the article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The difference between an employee of a private military company and a mercenary is philosophical, and the answer tends to depend on which side one favors in the conflict. Public relations agents edit Wikipedia on a regular basis seeking to remove controversy. I see that the first sentence currently describes Academi as a "security services training company". Have they have changed their business model such that they are now a school and their graduates go to work for others? It seems unlikely, given the amount of money they have made in the past by contracting military services directly to the US government. Thundermaker (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Additional info: The change from PMC to "training company" was done by an account with one edit. Somebody created an account for the sole purpose of whitewashing this article. Special:Contributions/ZDawgz -- take a look. Thundermaker (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Certainly private military company is a description of what Blackwater was during the Iraq war (and more accurate than mercenary services, which implies selling services to the highest bidder), but I'm not sure that description still applies to Academi. I don't see any news articles about involvement in combat by contractors since 2010 (about the time Prince sold the company). Is Private military company still an accurate description? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I have read that the US State Department also has huge private security contracts in Pakistan, but I don't have a source that says Academi is part of it. There is this which says they had large training contracts in Afghanistan through 2014. What I don't see is a source that says they have discontinued their actual security work and now do only training. And even if that were true, they are still more notable for their past fighting, so that should be mentioned first in the lead (using past tense), followed by what they have become. Thundermaker (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Academi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Academi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Latest comment: 7 years ago57 comments5 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Academi&type=revision&diff=762989553&oldid=762984868 <-- It seems odd to me to not mention lawsuits that Academi won. I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia policy, but the reversions of these edits seem highly suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.137.147 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — 46.127.137.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Since you're not well-versed in policy, you may want to hold off on calling things "highly suspect". Academi didn't "win" them, the suit was dismissed. In both of the ones removed, a couple of former employees made allegations that were not only unproven, the case was so weak it was dismissed. Pretty much anyone can make an allegation and bring a suit. That doesn't mean we need to give it the same weight as suits that were actually substantial enough to merit a trial or a verdict against them. A number of suits have been left in. The ones that were removed never saw a trail or settlement. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an oddly pedantic correction. I think having a lawsuit thrown out qualifies as "winning", but OK. What I find suspect is that you reverted edits from last November. Regardless, can you point to the policy which says that lawsuits that do not reach a settlement or a trial are not noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.137.147 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — 46.127.137.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You find it suspect that I reverted edits in November? This article is on my watch list (along with 1,900 others pages). I've made edits much further back than November. Do you know how Wikipedia even works? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I did not say you reverted edits in November. But yes, I noticed you have been making edits on this article for like six years. That's quite amazing to me. I hope you get paid or something. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foijsdf (talk • contribs) 15:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
For the same reason expressed in Talk:Erik Prince. A dismissal effectively says the suit doesn't exist. It was either filed in error, or found wanting for evidence, or some other problem means it cannot move forward. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with both Niteshift36 and Tari. Under their standard, we wouldn't be able to include the accusations about OJ Simpson. It doesn't matter whether a lawsuit is settled. What matters is that the accused was a public figure and that the accusations received substantial news coverage. The requirement is a reflection of the fact that few respected news outlets will report on weak allegations, especially those made against private individuals. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
In the case of OJ, the (murder) criminal charges resulted in a verdict, and the wrongful death lawsuit resulted in a finding of liability. Those can be reported. If someone files a lawsuit against him for injuring a hangnail and a judge tosses the suit, it's a non-event. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This has no basis in policy. Please review WP:BLP. The standard is coverage by independent reliable sources. If the OP cannot find multiple independent reliable sources covering these allegations, then the material should be excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE. A dismissed lawsuit is a non-event. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard you, but WP:UNDUE doesn't say anything about excluding subject matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There was sufficient evidence to bring the Simpson case to trial. These never made it to trial. Just because someone filed a suit doesn't make it relevant or notable in the history of the company. Do you know how many times a year someone files a suit against a company like Wal-Mart? Should every one of those be listed? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Right. Most of those suits don't receive significant coverage by the news media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And these ones got passing attention when filed, then they got in front of a judge and he threw it out. This article still has plenty of lawsuits mentioned. In fact the first one has a lot of space, despite the fact that Blackwater prevailed in that suit. Why are we pushing so hard to have 2 suits that didn't have enough merit to get past the sniff test? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you document that these were thrown out because the judge considered them to be baseless? I could not find any sources that suggest that. As I noted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erik_Prince#Crusader.3F, there are a number of reasons lawsuits can fail prior to the trial stage; not all of those reasons make a lawsuit non-noteworthy. I confess I don't know what the judge ruled in this case, but you sound like you do--can you share your source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foijsdf (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If you want to fight over the semantics of "baseless"..... The judge didn't find a legal basis for the suit to proceed. Happy now? The fact remains, these suits never even made it to trial because they were lacking. Again, anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Doesn't make it legitimate or notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the semantics of "baseless" matter, for the precise reasons I gave before: a lawsuit may be "baseless" in the sense that it lacks legal standing, or in the sense that the court lacks jurisdiction. Without knowing why the suit was "baseless"--which I admittedly do not know, and you appear not to know either--the fact that the suit was dismissed is not a strong argument that it is not notable or that the facts that it asserts are clearly untrue. In fact, a suit's dismissal may have nothing to do with the asserted facts themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foijsdf (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • The suit lacked a proper legal basis.....so baseless isn't terribly out of place. The judge didn't find a legal basis for the suit to proceed. That is important. These suits never even made it to trial because they were lacking. That is important. Your complaining about using the word "baseless". Not important, especially when I rephrased for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Source please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Source for what? The source says they were dismissed. If there was a proper legal basis, the suit wouldn't be dismissed. You may be confusing "factual basis" with "legal basis".Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Source for the statement that the suit lacked a proper legal basis. If you're simply assuming that a dismissal equals a lack of proper legal basis, then you clearly don't understand U.S. civil law. There are any number of reasons why suits are dismissed, including settlement, failure to prosecute, failure to join indispensable parties, lack of standing, insufficient service of process, etc. etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait a second. Which source says the suit was dismissed? The Nation article[1] says the suit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights. That suit ultimately became, as best as I can tell, "Abtan, et al. v. Prince, et al. and Albazzaz, et al. v. Prince, et al."[2], which was settled by Blackwater[3].
"On 1 January 2010, the Iraqi nationals agreed to sign a settlement agreement with Blackwater and Erik Prince, and to withdraw their complaint. The details of the agreement were not made available to the public."[4]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder/
  2. ^ https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/abtan-et-al-v-prince-et-al-and-albazzaz-et-al-v-prince-et-al
  3. ^ https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/1.6.10%20Order%20dismissing%20case%20due%20to%20settlement_2.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/932/Abtan-et-al-v-Prince-et-al/
So I believe you are clearly wrong about this, Niteshift.
All that said, one way to move forward on this would be to discuss how to better flesh out the details on the Abtan case in this article; it seems obliquely referenced under "Lawsuits", but I would say it is lacking a fair amount of detail. Foijsdf (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, Niteshift, my point was not that the term "baseless" is wrong; it was that a lack of legal basis does not equate to a lack of factual basis (though, as I have repeatedly said, I don't know on what grounds the suit did not continue). So your repeated claim that the suit was "baseless" is in some sense true but insufficient. If the suit were dismissed because of (say) a lack of standing, would you make the same argument? I would assume not.

DrFleishman, I pasted a list of sources on the "Erik Prince" article, but to repeat, the reference to the two "John Doe" witnesses is repeated widely in https://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder/, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa, http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/blackwater-erik-prince-assassinations-weapons-smuggling-wife-swapping, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201369121946527287.html, http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6254508&page=1. The original source for the claim is the same two affidavits, so this is not independent confirmation that the claims are *true*, but of course only that the affidavits were in fact filed.

Of note, though, the claims made by the "Doe" witnesses are also cited as the topic of a grand jury investigation e.g. here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6254508&page=1. So I don't think it's fully accurate to dismiss this as only the accusations of two anonymous former employees; at least some of the accusations also merited a federal grand jury investigation, which would seem itself to be potentially notable, as might the conviction of the two employees mentioned in the same article.Foijsdf (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. + Of note, though, the claims made by the "Doe" witnesses are also cited as the topic of a grand jury investigation e.g. here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6254508&page=1. So I don't think it's fully accurate to dismiss this as only the accusations of two anonymous former employees; at least some of the accusations also merited a federal grand jury investigation, which would seem itself to be potentially notable, as might the conviction of the two employees mentioned in the same article.Foijsdf (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)— Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Since I pointed out to DrF that he may be confusing legal basis and factual basis, I'm well aware of the distinction. The suits were dismissed as legally lacking. What they were lacking isn't mertial to this discussion. The fact that they never proceeded to court and no determination was ever made that Blackwater did anything is relevant to this. The "Doe" witnesses did not testify in front of the grand jury. We're back to anonymous people made statements. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. What sources do we have covering the dismissal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
To reiterate what I pasted above, the suit was not dismissed; it was settled confidentially by Blackwater.Foijsdf (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've reviewed the court proceedings (behind a paywall) and I can confirm from the filings that the suit was dismissed due to settlement and not due to the suit lacking a proper legal basis. In fact the judge entered an order at one point confirming that the plaintiff was allowed to pursue some of his claims.
Given the substantial press coverage, and the fact that the case was settled, I see no basis in our BLP policy or elsewhere for excluding this content. This appears to fall squarely into WP:PUBLICFIGURE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that I be cited in the article. I'm saying that your unsupported statements about "dismissal, therefore no legal basis" are just plain wrong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No paywall needed: http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/932/Abtan-et-al-v-Prince-et-al/, https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/abtan-et-al-v-prince-et-al-and-albazzaz-et-al-v-prince-et-al, http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/US/1.6.10Orderdismissingcaseduetosettlement_2.pdf Foijsdf (talk)
Right. So (again, I'm new here), shall I try to craft an edit on the Academi page that covers the suit a little more broadly, and refers to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abtan_v._Blackwater? (I note also that that page does not mention that the suit was settled, so it probably requires some edits as well.) Question: Given the larger context, how much (if any) coverage is due the more lurid claims in these two affidavits? I would personally say they deserve coverage given the press coverage, but I'm open to suggestions. Foijsdf (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)— Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It's largely a matter of editorial discretion, as well as WP:BALASPS. You don't want the allegations to receive a disproportionate amount of emphasis in proportion to other aspects of Academi and Erik Prince that received comparable coverage by reliable sources. It's also important to keep the content encyclopedic, which generally means keep things at a summary level and don't include minutiae that you wouldn't normally find in an encyclopedia. Just be bold and take a stab at it. We can trim down if necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I've taken a stab. I also was a tad lazy and rewrote some of the other cruft (the duplicate reference to the Nisour prosecution) in the same edit, so Niteshift, happy to continue, but please try to remove only bits you find objectionable and not the whole damn lot, if you would do. Foijsdf (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Two suggestions. First, try to hew as closely as possible to the secondary sources and avoid relying on primary sources such as the complaint itself. Second, going through the pleadings I noticed that there were at least closely three related lawsuits all filed in June 2009. Abtan was one of them. The suits were consolidated into the Albazzaz case "In re: Xe Services Alien Tort Litigation" at some point in late 2009 (I forget when). So I'd avoid giving Abtan undue weight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. For the first, you are referring I assume to this? 'The suit, Abtan v. Blackwater, alleged that Blackwater had engaged in war crimes, "created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees", and routinely deployed employees known as "shooters," some of whom used steroids and other psychoactive drugs.[1]'? I'm happy to remove the long quotes for now; I think the meat is simply the claim of war crimes, lawlessness, and (maybe) drug use (which doesn't seem super important to me either way). Regarding Abtan versus Albazzaz, do you have any link for this? Most of the secondary references I can find are to Abtan, unfortunately, and Albazzaz does not even have a Wikipedia article. Foijsdf (talk)
If the quote appears in independent secondary sources, then you're on solid ground including it. If it doesn't, then it's a tougher call but I think I'd be in favor of excluding it. (Legal complaints often include a lot of inflammatory language.) As for consolidation, here is a primary source. I haven't found a secondary source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a new source from the LA Times. It appears to be the most comprehensive one, as it covers the allegations, the result of the suit, and the plaintiffs' reactions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, it (bizarrely) doesn't seem to mention the name of the suit, to my quick scan. But it's otherwise a good source on the settlement; I've replaced the CCR link with that one. Can take a further stab at this some time when I have more time.
Meantime, I will also note that a (to me less significant) lawsuit alleging fraudulent billing was also removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Academi&type=revision&diff=762989553&oldid=762989050); see e.g. https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-blackwater-founder-lawsuit-195441822.html for a source on it. Foijsdf (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't name the suit then, it's not that critical. Presumably the reason the news articles don't mention the name is because there were a bunch of suits that were consolidated into one, very technical and confusing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend starting a new discussion if you want to add material about that other suit. Just so that we don't get any wires crossed. I were two additional North Carolina suits that also arose out of the Nisoor Square massacre and were settled in January 2012. Source here; I haven't evaluated its reliability. (Then I noticed some more recent litigation involving a book Prince wrote, but that should probably be addressed separately at Talk:Erik Prince.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll comment since there seems to be some confusion. A dismissed lawsuit is a non-event. The events underlying the lawsuit may not be - but the events should be what's discussed, not the lawsuit. A dismissed lawsuit is worth at most a passing mention that a lawsuit was filed and dismissed, and only if the events themselves are worth reporting (which means WP:RS among others). Reporting lawsuits filed and dismissed as newsworthy in themselves is what I've been objecting to. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Tarl, I've been covering legal topics on Wikipedia for many years, and that has no basis in policy or anything I've ever seen anyone say on Wikipedia, ever. So if you really want to press this theory, feel free to do so through the dispute resolution avenue of your choice, but good luck finding consensus. In the meantime Foijsdf and I are going to continue working on this content and making sure it complies with real Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
So, if I file a lawsuit alleging you stepped on my cat's tail, and a judge throws it out of court, you still think that's worth noting in Wikipedia? My objection is precisely that - claiming that the filing and dismissing of a lawsuit is significant in and of itself, rather than the events themselves. The standard of evidence for filing a lawsuit is nil. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It's like you've ignored everything I've written. No, it wouldn't be worth noting in Wikipedia because I'm not a public figure and there wouldn't be reliable, independent secondary sources covering your lawsuit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. What's interesting is that we had a long debate here about whether this lawsuit was noteworthy before we all realized it was already noted. Foijsdf (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you look, I finally asked for clarity about which suit we were actually discussing at one point, because this started talking about more than one, then it became muddled. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36, your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Academi&type=revision&diff=763341127&oldid=763340079 seems to me to be a) useless (the fact that the suit was settled out of court is mentioned in the following paragraph, with far more context on the settlement and a secondary source) and b) rather ham-handedly biased; you're attempting to qualify accusations (which are accurately and most clearly referred to as "allegations" in the original) with the statement that they were "never proven". Well, of course they were never proven; Blackwater opted for a confidential cash settlement, as was already stated. But your edit here adds nothing to the article (and, indeed, screws up the wording of these two paragraphs) and seems to lead to confusion. Can you be a little more careful here? I know you're a fan of this company, but the text as it was was accurate and, to my reading, unbiased; your change here was not.Foijsdf (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Listen, you can stop your personal nonsense right here. You've made enough person attacks, including this last one about "being a fan". This is one of thousands of articles I've edited on Wikipedia over the past 9+ years. You, on the other hand, have no activity on Wikipedia except for this subject. If you want to start talking about conflicts of interest, I know which side will have a stronger case. So when talking about being careful, you might want to be more careful with your reckless allegations. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Relax. There's nothing wrong with being a fan. No doubt that's why you were willing to spend nine years working on this article. But the point remains that your edit doesn't add anything. The following paragraph already noted that the suit was settled out of court. Similarly, your latest edit, that the allegations "were never substantiated," seems like another attempt to put needless qualifiers in places where they add no value. What do you mean they were "never substantiated"? By whom? When?

I'm also happy to discuss the BLP applicability here, but I see nothing in BLP that says that accusations of criminality against a public figure which received substantial news coverage are not noteworthy. Happy to see why that's wrong, though. Can you please cite what part of BLP applies, though? Foijsdf (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • 1) End your "you're a fan" nonsense. It's bordering on a false allegation at this point. 2) I haven't spent 9 years on this article. Apparently you struggle with the concept of making some edits over a course of time. Or maybe it's expressing yourself in English that is the struggle. I made a single edit in 2015-2016. 2 edits in 2014. Yeah, 3 edits in 3 years is "spending 9 years" here. You've made more edits to this article in 2 days than I made in the previous 3 years. On top of that, the only articles you've edited on Wikipedia have been related to this. Your case for me being a fan is weak, but there's a strong case for you being a POV warrior. 3) They were never substantiated by....anyone. Can you show a single court document that says they were substantiated? Or a reliable source that says they were substantiated? No, because they were never presented in court. 4) When you put Erik Prince's name in it, BLP attaches. Repeating a claim by 2 anonymous people that was never presented in a court room about a living person is an issue. The fact that it was covered, at the time, doesn't remove that problem. Being newsworthy doesn't make something notable. I do appreciate you removing the material while it's being discussed. I'd appreciate it more if you'd remove your allegations of being a "fan" and the implications that come with it.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please, both of you knock off the "you're a fan" / "You're a POV warrior" crap. It's not productive. As for content, I think Niteshift and Tarl's concerns are seriously fringe and have no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or practice. The idea that a lawsuit that is widely covered in the news can't be included simply because it was settled before trial? Frankly that's an laughable position to take, especially for experienced editors. If you want to press the matter, go ahead and set up an RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, he's made the "fan" claim more than once. I merely said that the case for being a POV warrior would be a strong one. I'd readily retract that suggestion if it were reciprocal. Why is it that our positions are "laughable" and "fringe", but your reading of the policy must be correct? As you correctly observed, neither of us are new or inexperienced, but one of the editors wanting to include it is new and inexperienced (and focused on a single topic). Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is your position laughable and fringe? Because you've identified nothing in the policies or guidelines supporting it, and because I have edited scores of articles about legal proceedings, and never, not once, has any editor suggested that a lawsuit shouldn't be mentioned simply because it was settled. Nor has any editor ever suggested that settlement of a case meant that the judge had found no legal basis for the claims. If you were to make these arguments at Talk:Trump University, for instance, they would be immediately and roundly rejected. As they would be if you set up an RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Since this isn't the Trump U article and I don't give two shits about the Trump U article, I don't care what would be rejected at the Trump U article. I edited scores of location articles and it took a long time before 1 editor complained about not splitting the city and state into different links. What does that have to do with this? I don't know, but since you felt like telling editing stories...... Lack of complaint doesn't mean you're right. So why don't you take your own advice, assume some good faith and stop your condescending attitude. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You asked me why I think your position is laughable and fringe, so I told you. Geesh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Academi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Academi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackwater_(company)/Archive_4&oldid=1136568454"