Talk:Blackwater Worldwide arms smuggling allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blackwater Worldwide arms smuggling allegations article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard. North Carolina Portal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Blackwater Worldwide arms smuggling allegations: No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents 1 In the News nomination for main page 2 Wikicrockery 3 Background section 4 Title 5 Background is a summary

[edit] In the News nomination for main page

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)

Featured on Wikipedia ITN on front page, 10/3/07, expect some vandalism... • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicrockery

Funny how the pipsqueak PKK is flat out labeled as an "armed terrorist group" while Hezbollah, which has a long history of terrorist activities is referred to as a "political and paramilitary organization;" but then again, Blackwater USA hasn't been accused of distributing weapons to Hezbollah. This kind of widespread bias in Wikipedia is becoming so blatant that it's almost humorous. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC) _{This is not a specific POV concern of mine, but it shows a lack of consistency among articles. The fact that PKK is allegedly tied to Blackwater USA, an article with POV problems of its own, makes me question the labeling of PKK. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)}

I also enjoy the extraneous "7 degrees of separation" to George W Bush and Republicans. For that, the article gets a tag. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw, the anecdotal actions of ex-employees of any given company are not relevant to said company and how it conducts its business. POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please adopt a more civil tone and specify your objections. --Pleasantville 09:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Objections have been explained explicitly. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your objections seem to me to be primarily emotional. Can you explain them better and please attempt to reach consensus (during hours when people are awake) with those who have created the page? --Pleasantville 10:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced my concerns have been made clear. There is probably some way I could show that you "have ties to" some Republican in office. Would it have any bearing on how you currently conduct yourself? No. Furthermore, I could probably connect you to a former colleague that has done something criminal. Bearing? Relevant? Also no. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater's ties to the Republican party were a subject of congressional inquiry & testimony, 10/2/07. It is a theme and subject in much of the news coverage of the company and their relationship to government. --Pleasantville 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

...and unless those ties have some verifiable bearing on the company's practices, they're extraneous. Erik Prince, owner and founder of Blackwater, is the brother of Betsy DeVos, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Michigan and wife of former Alticor (Amway) president and governatorial candidate Dick DeVos., is extraneous because it does not go on to explain how or why it matters. Not in the slightest. It's only leading the reader to make conclusions that aren't supported by the very article that broaches the subject. If that isn't POV, I don't know what is. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They are highly relevant due to the scope of the media coverage reporting on them, and due to the fact that there is confirmed Congressional evidence that direct Bush appointees have interfered with Congressional oversight and investigation into Blackwater practices (see sources). It's all a matter of laying out the context of the article. Prince: wealthy, Republican family, grew up to be a White House intern under Bush Sr., his dad began one of the leading Conservative christian groups in the US, he began Blackwater, he donates heavily to Republican causes, Republican administration makes Blackwater wealthy, Bush Jr.'s employees protect Blackwater from Congressional legal oversight in possible violation of laws. It's all relevant. • Lawrence Cohen 13:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Those dots are too far apart to connect. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And there is nothing wrong with providing sourced background information gleaned from the parent Blackwater article, for readers to make their own decisions. It will need to stand per NPOV. • Lawrence Cohen 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince: wealthy, Republican family, grew up to be a White House intern under Bush Sr., his dad began one of the leading Conservative christian groups in the US, he began Blackwater, he donates heavily to Republican causes, Republican administration makes Blackwater wealthy, Bush Jr.'s employees protect Blackwater from Congressional legal oversight in possible violation of laws. There is only one decision the reader can draw from presentations like that. Therein lies the POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That was never in this article nor in Erik Prince; that was my ad-hoc statement on the talk page to demonstrate some logical deduction in my example only. Please differentiate that. • Lawrence Cohen 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's analogous to what is being presented in the relevant articles - a picture is being painted. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

a picture is being painted -- Please read http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html . And you need to realize that you're turning off people who might side with you otherwise with your lack of civility and respect. Niczar 08:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, keep pretending like you know a lot about logical fallacies. It's cute. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background section

Haizum, if you think that passage as it exists now is POV:

"Blackwater is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors.[13] At least 90% of its revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.[14] Operatives of Blackwater Security Consulting have raised significant controversy both through casualties suffered[15] and inflicted by their employees.[16] Blackwater has ties to noted American conservatives and Republicans such as President George W. Bush and Senator Tom Coburn.[17] Erik Prince, owner and founder of Blackwater, is the brother of Betsy DeVos, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Michigan and wife of former Alticor (Amway) president and governatorial candidate Dick DeVos.[18]

Critics have voiced concerns about Blackwater's actions, and possible inappropriate relationships with the United States government. One recent report from the Washington Post went so far as to accuse the State Department of attempting to cover up details of the 195-plus "escalation of force" incidents "since early 2005."[19]"

You can also of course take a crack at it! I prefer an outside review of either of us. I think we're starting to already talk in circles without meaning to around each other. • Lawrence Cohen 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. The methodology is obviously flawed. It reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse scandal article that evolved from "they're guilty" to "they're innocent" simply based on the ebb and flow of what the popular media decided to report any given week - yet it was GOSPEL. There's no independent thinking going on, it's just a Google hit popularity contest. And let's face it, there is a higher ratio of individuals within the Wikipedia community that have an axe to grind with Blackwater and anything related to the war. Give these people the media Google hit ammo and there's no chance of creating a fair article. It simply isn't possible no matter how well intentioned everyone tries to be. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make veiled attacks at POV or COI; you know nothing about my political leanings. Hint: the couple of articles I created or have fixed up have quite nothing to do with it. They just happened to be interesting things to write about. I think it will be quite easy to make a fair and balanced article, based on reliable sources. And articles, with ebbs and flows, are normal for somewhat current topics, don't you think? Unfortunately, we can only use RS. It is what it is, works in progress. • Lawrence Cohen 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet you view your edit history. I was making a general statement. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Blackwater USA arms smuggling < Alleged Blackwater USA arms smuggling. Do I need to add another POV tag? Do I need to explain why? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. • Lawrence Cohen 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. In agreement. Hi-5. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is only surprising if you assume bad faith or hidden motives. Maybe you should stop doing that. Niczar 09:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background is a summary

Regarding this editon 10/8, the background section is a summary of material covered in the main Blackwater page. --Pleasantville 10:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, how is that read as a synthesis of anything? It's a shorthand explanation of true sourced facts, all 100% gleaned from the parent Blackwater USA article. I thought each and every article was supposed to be able to stand on it's own with readers not needing to click elsewhere? That is why I included a background section. • Lawrence Cohen 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. The only "link" that Prince has to Bush is campaign donations. It might even be a violation of WP:BLP to mention his name here. Two Blackwater employees smuggled arms, without the authorization or knowledge of Blackwater, which happens to be owned by Erik Prince, who happened to exercise his right to donate money to political candidates? It's too far removed to deserve mention. I think this is just an attempt to smear political office holders. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that there was no authorization or knowledge of Blackwater? Can you document this from a trial or from their guilty pleas? And why doesn't a military organization know that its employess are smuggling arms? Wouldn't that be proof of gross incompetence?Pustelnik 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations.23Blackwater USA Background to get more eyes on this. • Lawrence Cohen 23:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if Prince's favorite porn star is Jenna Jameson, does she deserve mention here? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on if RS have reported on that and if RS have made any sorts of connections between (hypothetical, to not besmirch Jameson under BLP) Jenna Jameson running guns or not. • Lawrence Cohen 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. No source gives any connection between Bush and arms smuggling. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with a synopsis background section, though, on the topic as there is here? I.e., would a paragraph of background on Barry Bonds be fine on an article like Barry Bonds steroid allegations, if it existed? The background section is just a general section on the private, sole-ownership company of Blackwater USA, to give readers landing on this page an idea of what the background/context is. • Lawrence Cohen 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put this into context. Barry bonds is an individual involved in a steroid scandal, just like the two smugglers are individuals who smuggled weapons. There is no evidence that suggests that Blackwater or the San Francisco Giants are involved in either case. There is no evidence that Erik Prince or Peter Magowan had anything to do with the illegal activities. To be honest, I don't think Magowan would even be mentioned in the article. So would it be reasonable to mention the people Magowan or Prince give money to, what kind of car they drive, or what their favorite color is? It's so far out in left field. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe that the Giants had any knowledge of their players using steroids? Did the tooth fairy come to your house with Santa this year? Pustelnik 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ipankokin, please check out the thread I linked above. The background section has been reviewed, and checks out fine. There is no BLP concern there. • Lawrence Cohen 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)