Talk:Blackwater (company)/Archive 5

Erik Prince, acting on behalf of Trump, secretly met in January, just before the inauguration, with a representative of Vladimir Putin

Should this be referenced here?

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/04/04/bombshell-report-exposes-secret-meeting-trump-putin-representatives.html#

The Washington Post reports that Blackwater founder Erik Prince, acting on behalf of Trump, secretly met in January, just before the inauguration, with a representative of Vladimir Putin in the Seychelles.

According to the Post report, Trump supporter and “Blackwater founder Erik Prince met with a Russian person close to President Vladimir Putin.”

The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. The Post reports that the two men met on January 11, which was just 9 days before Donald Trump’s poorly-attended inauguration. This revelation joins another report that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with a Russian spy.

Prince, 47, while having no “formal role with the Trump campaign” is an “avid supporter of Trump,” having donated $250,000 to his campaign, and,

[H]e presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

Raymm (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The key point (missed in the title of this section) is that Prince claimed he was acting on behalf of Trump. There's a world of difference between claiming it and it being real - the former is just being a blowhard. Either way, this would belong in Prince's biography page, not Academi, because he no longer has anything to do with that organization. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, it definitely shouldn't be mentioned here. Not relevant. It's about Prince after he stopped being associated with Academi. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005032102/http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf to http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yemen

Oranjelo100, I'm posting here at your request. I removed several unreliable sources, just trying to comply with WP:V and WP:RS. Do you want me to go through them all? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And is it really necessary that we have this discussion? The Guardian source is reliable, so everything else seems like citation overkill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

>And is it really necessary that we have this discussion?

Well I have some objections. Mentioning the killed Australian is okay but some newer links you deleted give additional much higher casualty and fatality numbers for Academi. In my opinion those informations should be added also. Guardian's article is outdated. This article in particular should be added because it cites many different articles: http://www.mintpressnews.com/blackwateracademi-mercenaries-procured-united-arab-emirates-now-fighting-yemen/216869/ .Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mintpress source expressly says it's not subject to the outlet's usual editorial policies, meaning it probably hasn't been fact-checked. The source cites Press TV, TeleSur TV, Al-Manar, Al –Bawaba, and Colombia Reports. I haven't looked into the reliability of those sources. Non-English sources can be quite tricky. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll comment on the Telesur article. I originally picked that source because I read Spanish and I'm familiar with Telesur, but the article referenced is in english. In any case, the article comes across with so many heavy-handed inflammatory references, it reads like a rabble-rousing yell. If nothing else, using the term "blackwater mercenaries" is indicative of more focus on producing anger than accuracy - the company hasn't had that name for a long time. The only reason to use that phrase is explicitly to produce an emotional reaction. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow- who wants to add "Blackwater mercenaries" to the article? And do you have a position on the reliability of the Telesur source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Telesur source isn't reliable because it uses inflammatory language? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. TeleSUR has a reputation of being less-than-reliable when propaganda serves their purpose. This article has all the hallmarks of that. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I'm referring to this article, which is cited as a source by the original reference above. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How does this serve TeleSUR's purpose? I don't understand what their interest would be in this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

TeleSUR has the reputation of being a propaganda arm of certain South American politicians - where one of the frequent dog-whistles is implying the evil USA is totally evil. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok. Are you talking about politicians like Hugo Chavez? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes requested by Academi

Hello,

We are requesting an update to our company page, ACADEMI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi), because there are fundamental errors. In the current posting, the editor confused our company with another, when there is no connection. Academi (ACADEMI), which is a Constellis company, was formed by a group of investors in 2010, who purchased certain assets from Blackwater – at which time Erik Prince ceased all connection with the organization. The tie between Academi and Blackwater is incorrect. Everything on the Academi Wikipedia page –the description, history, services, personnel and role in the Iraq war – describes Blackwater, not Academi. Erik Prince is not the founder. He has no involvement of any kind with Academi. To reiterate, Academi was not founded by Mr. Prince and there is no association between Blackwater and Academi. To have them comingled is wrong. We appreciate the acceptance of our changes for accuracy on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please contact Constellis Director of Marketing and Communications, Suzanne Piner (Suzanne.piner@constellis.com). It would be great if we could have these changes approved at your earliest convenience. Many people use Wikipedia as their first source of research, and the information they are currently reading is incorrect and causes confusion. We have reached out to the original admin on the Talk page about our changes and haven’t heard back. What are the next steps we can take? I can be contacted at Stephanie.Randazzo@constellis.com

Thank you, Stephanie Randazzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdazzo24 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify a point? Media reports at the time indicated that Constellis purchased not just some property, but also the organization of Xe Services (personnel, management structure, contracts). If the organization was included, there is continuity and the antecedents are relevant. Are you saying this is incorrect, and only physical property was purchased? Tarl N. (discuss) 15:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sdazzo24, following up on Tarl's question, thank you for writing. We take these sorts of concerns seriously, but we need more information. The reorganization history of these companies is admittedly confusing. We need more information about the history and relationships among Blackwater, Xe, Academi, Constellis, and Triple Canopy if we're going to address your concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I will also add that your concerns seem to be butting up against a large number of reliable sources that clearly indicate a link between Prince and Academi. For instance:

• CNN says Prince's former employer was Blackwater, "now known as Academi."
• The Hill says Prince founded Blackwater, "today known as Academi."
• Vanity Fair says Prince's private security company, Blackwater is "now known as Academi."
• The Observer says Prince's private security contract firm Blackwater "rebranded as Academi in 2011."

Those are just the first few sources I found when researching the issue; there are many more. It really doesn't matter whether or how these entities restructured, corporate-wise. We don't concern ourselves much with legal technicalities. Rather, we focus on what the reliable sources say, which is that Prince's company Blackwater is now known as Academi. To remove everything about Prince and Blackwater from the Academi article, which is what you appear to be proposing, would seem to be totally inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This cited Washington Post story, which explains the restructuring from Xe to Academi, says right up front, On Monday, Xe announced that it was changing its name to Academi, part of a years-long effort by the company to shed a troubled legacy that critics said made the firm a symbol for mercenaries and impunity in Iraq and elsewhere. I can certainly understand Academi's interest in trying to move on from the Prince/Blackwater legacy, but it's fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to hide the past. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There would have to be WP:RS to support this. My understanding is that the vast majority of reliable sources that discuss Academi describe it similarly to the examples posted above by Dr. Fleischman. For example, here is what Fortune magazine has written about it:

Named Blackwater when it was founded in 1997 by former U.S. Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince, the company changed its name to Xe Services in 2009 after the deadly 2007 shootout in Iraq tarnished its brand. In 2010, Prince sold the company to Forte Capital Advisors and Manhattan Strategic Ventures, who renamed the business ACADEMI and pledged to run it “to the highest standards of governance, transparency, and performance.” Forte managing partner Jason DeYonker had been a co-manager of Prince’s family office. In 2014, Forte Capital Advisors and Manhattan Strategic Ventures took another step to distance themselves from the Blackwater brand by merging the company with another private security firm called Triple Canopy to form Constellis Holdings.

I am a bit confused - is the company now Constellis Holdings or is it still ACADEMI? I think the Constellis article does a fair job of describing Constellis. The notability of both Triple Canopy and Blackwater/Xe/ACADEMI is well-established in reliable sources, and removal of that historical content from Wikipedia (including the founder's name) would not be justified - the Constellis article already says that Academi was acquired by Constellis - we can discuss specific proposed changes based on reliable sources on improving content related to this merger in Academi's article, but it can't be anything so broad as Everything on the Academi Wikipedia page –the description, history, services, personnel and role in the Iraq war – describes Blackwater, not Academi.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's still a business called Academi that is a subsidiary of Constellis. We have pages for both. Constellis could use a lot of work, as could Triple Canopy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: An addition to my above comment was posted after Dr. Fleischman's response, without my receiving an edit conflict warning - I am leaving this note instead of refactoring the comments further.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sdazzo24, you mentioned "certain assets". The news stories seem to indicate the entire firm was purchased. If this is not the case, please explain and indicate third party reliable sourcea that will confirm your explanation. Wording this another way, to the best of your knowledge, does Blackwater still exist as a corporate entity under that name? and what are the sources for that? DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• She might not be checking this page for replies or even logging in and seeing any pings (she has only this single post in her contribs). She left her email, maybe someone should send her a message and ask her come back for some Q'n'A. jmho - ^theWOLFchild 10:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Blackwater brand resurrected

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-military/2018/12/21/mattis-is-out-and-blackwater-is-back-we-are-coming/ reports an ad in Recoil (magazine) promoting the old Blackwater brand. Apparently Eric Prince either retained or repurchased the rights to the trademark.

The sale of various organizational units and real estate can be mentioned, but the main subject of this article should return to Blackwater, the original company. And it should be renamed back to what it was.

What's the difference between move-back-then-fork and edit-the-redirect? Edit history. IMHO the early edit history of this page is much more relevant to the reformed Blackwater company than it is to Constellis Holdings. Thundermaker (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

See proposal just now posted below to do a wholesale reversal of the redirect, so that the article title will be "Blackwater (company)", with "Academi" redirecting to that. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blackwater in Yemen 2015-2016

As you heard in the news today, blackwater has Abandoned war in Yemen due to heavy losses I suggest a new section under the headline "Role in the Saudi led collation in Yemen" and a new reference should be used from those who fought with blackwater in Yemen, houthies we can use Almasirah.net news about blackwater clashes in Taiz

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 967Bytes (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Blackwater" is the proper name for this article

This is a huge disservice to history for Blackwater to redirect to "Academi", and not the other way around. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated to presenting information of notability. It is not an index for listing the current names of corporations. The entity named Blackwater carries far greater than 90% of the notability of encyclopedic events (my estimate). The name of the company was changed in their effort to jettison that legacy, and Wikipedia editors have supported that disconnect by having the Blackwater redirect.

As an analogy... Say that OJ Simpson legally changes his name to something like "Mister Orange Juice". Would it be proper for Wikipedia have OJ Simpson then redirect to the main page of "Mister Orange Juice"? Not at all. It is a person who did the vast majority of his notability under the name Simpson. So the proper page title is OJ Simpson, with his current name redirecting to the most notable name.

If anyone can present an argument that "Academi" carries sufficient notability to warrant Blackwater redirecting here, then I'd be very interested to see evidence for that.

Here is tangible evidence for the need to fix this "redirect inversion":

Google search for ["erik+prince" blackwater] has ~266,000 results, whereas

Google search for ["erik+prince" academi] has ~36,000 results.

This first-level observation shows a greater than 7-to-1 ratio. So unless a solid argument can be presented to show that it would somehow be better to keep Blackwater as a redirect to Academi, this problem needs to be fixed. There may come a time when "Academi" has done sufficiently notable things under this new name that it will outweigh the notability of its original company name, but that certainly is not the case today. Here is some of the history regarding how this current messed up situation came to be:

Talk:Academi/Archive_4#Name_change

Here is the Wikipedia Policy that instructs us to WP:"Use commonly recognizable names". So perhaps the best gauge here is the fact that if you present someone with the name "Academi", almost no one will know what you're talking about. But if you say the name "Blackwater" then almost EVERYONE will know what you're talking about.

Click thru to the essay shown in that very first link, Wikipedia:Official names (essay), and you find even more specific guidance pertaining to our specific situation here:

People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.

It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one.

So the proposal here is to switch the redirect, with Blackwater (company) being the primary article title, and Academi redirecting to there. I will now sit back and wait to see if anyone can present any substantial reason why this fix should not be done. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. The current name for the organization is Academi. There is a redirect if you search for Blackwater, and the previous name is mentioned prominently in the first sentence of the lead. The normal case for an article named by a previous name for an organization is if an article is split - one article for the history under the previous name, another for the current organization. We could do that, have an article for what happened while it was called Blackwater, and have a separate article for Academi which includes only stuff under that name. I think that would actually be a disservice here, we'd like to keep the current organization and its history together. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll mention, as someone who has been watching this article for many years, that he current owners of Academi would be absolutely delighted if the article were split as I mentioned above. There have been several attempts (both official and unofficial) to separate the current organization from its history, which have been rebuffed.

As for the search statistics; Prince was long gone by the time the name "Academi" came into being. Using those search results is like saying the Los Angeles Rams article should still be called St. Louis Rams because there are more search results for "Sam Bradford" + "St. Louis Rams" than "Sam Bradford" + "Los Angeles Rams". Not particularly relevant. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Name

no, you are not Allowed to use names such as "Total Intelligence Solutions" and "Academi" for purposes of total War. That is not sane in my humble opinion.

Do you agree or Disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.108 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in your question? Meatsgains^(talk) 21:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

Why is this article full of   entities in monetary quantities? e.g. "$92 million" and "240 km". I see no justification for using a non-breaking space in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style JonathanWakely (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)