Talk:Erik Prince/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism

Born in 1209? Appeared on MTV Cribs? Purple cancer?? Funny, but might to time to protect from vandalism. 70.160.240.45 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the Nation article cited b/c it deals primarily with Blackwater. Erik Prince is mentioned in the article in only one sentence.--Davidwiz 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article actually has five pages, and Erik Prince is mentioned several times- especially on the last page, but I suppose the article doesn't specifically mention the allegations. I'll add more citations. johnpseudo 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of the lawsuits were filed against Eric Prince specifically, so they shouldn't be mentioned on this page. Furthermore, the link to the Huffington Post blog by Robert Greenwald is just Greenwald trying to peddle his film. --Davidwiz 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted an admin and asked him to put this page on his watch list. As someone who has been a public critic of Blackwater (under my real name, Kathryn Cramer) I feel a bit odd acting as Erik Prince's Wikipedia bodyguard against some fairly meanspirited vanadalism. (How low do you have to be to make fun the cause of someone's wife's death? Ick.) --Pleasantville 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer

His place of residence is listed as a "hotel in Abu Dhabi". So if he lived in Virginia would his place of residence be given as a "house in Virginia" or an "apartment in Virginia"?

Better image

That one I found on defenselink.mil is alright, and free, and clearly him, but not great. We need to find an even better free image. • Lawrence Cohen 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007 Congressional Testimony

We should probably be collecting relevant quotes from reports of his congressional testimony.

(1) Prince declined to provide info about Blackwater's financials when asked for it in testimony. (Rise of the white-collar mercenary, Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, October 3, 2007.)

CSPAN video of the quote on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbDmwsuyrKA&mode=user&search= --Pleasantville 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(2) Quote explaining the lack of remedies the company has for misdeeds by its employees:

The Blackwater employee fled to a guard post, where he said he had been in a gunfight with Iraqis who were chasing him and shooting at him. But the guards had not heard any shots.

Mr Prince said the employee had been sacked and fined. Asked why he had been whisked out of Iraq within two days without being charged, Mr Prince said the company had no power to detain anyone. "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him," he said.

(Iraq security firm denies trigger-happy charge by Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, October 3, 2007.) --Pleasantville 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Prince & the Grand Rapids Press

Erik Prince apparently wrote an article for the Grand Rapids Press quoted here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/23/1429259 Can we find the source for this?

Also Talking Points Memo has a press quote from 22 year-old Erik Prince to the Grand Rapids Press here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054744.php

The then-22 year old Prince told the Grand Rapids Press, "I interned with the Bush administration for six months. I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with -- homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kind of bills. I think the administration has been indifferent to a lot of conservative concerns."

Can we find the citation for this? --Pleasantville 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Rose and 60 Minutes interviews

Anyone seen these? • Lawrence Cohen 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young Pelton has been posting transcript excerpt to the PMC list. --Pleasantville 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PMC? • Lawrence Cohen 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Private Military Company discussion list administered by IPOA organizer Doug Brooks. Email me at kathryn.cramer@gmail.com and I can send you copies. --Pleasantville 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He mentions there that he is of Dutch heritage, i added that to the article 76.217.46.100 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fear of terrorist reprisals

"Some have claimed that this media-shyness is due to fear of terrorist reprisals for his role in creating Blackwater USA."

The article cited said nothing of the sort, so I deleted this sentence.--24.83.107.213 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article does say that, but at the top of the 2nd page.--Pleasantville 09:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does not. It simply states "there are ongoing projects by terrorist groups to collect information on private contractors." Nowhere does it state that he fears terrorist reprisals, that any have been attempted, or that any such plans are in the works. I'm removing it once again.--24.83.107.213 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

Does anyone have access to a good "free" photo of Prince, that would not need be copyrighted? The free one I found from a US Military source is passably acceptable, but it is hardly the best image. • Lawrence Cohen 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Philanthropy & Donations section

It seems to me like this could be worded a little better. Everything it references isn't by defenition philanthropic per se, they're all fairly polarizing causes - Focus on Family, Republican campaigns et cetera. I don't want to jump in and do it immediately, I'm sure this article tends to be fairly contentious, and due to the nature of the edit I somebody new to the article making it would probably be construed as vandalism by some. A bit of preemptive discussion would probably be useful. - Mbruno42 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Freedom International is probably viewable as legitimate philanthropy; they claim to help those in need. Focus on the family, etc., certainly are not as they are political advocacy groups. I renamed the section, if that helps. • Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The new title works for me. --Pleasantville 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as well. --Mbruno42 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The new title is good. NB, though: most of Focus on the Family's work is not political advocacy, even that gets most of the public profile. --143.58.160.62 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is somewhat misleading. Erik Prince isn't known as a philanthropist, yet this section is listed before his more notable sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.54.182 (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Middle name

I think the middle initial stands for "Dale" which was also his father's middle name. Does anyone know if that is correct, and can we source it? --Pleasantville 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

cryptome.org says it stands for Dean, if you still want to add. http://eyeball-series.org/erik-prince/erik-prince.htm Zmbe (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory Edwards Quote

The quote by John Edwards is defamatory and seems to violates Wikipedia's rules for bios of living persons. Even if it is not defamatory, the quote serves no purpose other than to promote Edwards' viewpoint and would thus seem to violate NPOV.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The sentence you removed stated:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has characterized Prince as one of George W. Bush's "political cronies."

WP:BLP says:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics...

John Edwards is a very notable figure, and Prince's and Blackwater's connections to the Bush administration are central to the reasons why both have become the centers of public discussion; the AP article in which Edwards is quoted is a classic reliable source; the tone of the sentence is a neutral and factual report of Edwards' statement; the sentence is very short relative to the article and certainly does not represent disproportionate space for a minority view. I am restoring the quote.

Kalkin (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to add an opposing viewpoint, it is another thing entirely to repost a defamatory statement. Calling someone a "political crony" is defamatory. Whether the quote is accurate or if the person who said it is "notable" isn't relevant.--Davidwiz (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Crap. For one thing, if a statement is true, it's not defamatory, by definition. But more relevantly, it's not Wikipedia's place to decide whether or not it's true, or defamatory. The Wikipedia criterion of inclusion is notability and reliable sourcing, not truth, and certainly not whether a comment is mean. Kalkin (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, "defamatory" statements include true statements. So you are wrong, "by definition". I'm wearing panties and I know more than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From United States defamation law: "Truth is currently almost always a defense.". Fribbler (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a hatchet job and is going to be one more indictment in the inevitable class action lawsuit brought by the thousands of people slandered by Wikipedia. Most of whom of course are Republicans, Conservatives or others deemed to have inappropriate thoughts not approved by Liberals.131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of family

Basic family information (married? kids?) is notable for any biography. Exclusion of this information, with the verifiable sources it has, would be quite conspicuous. Just look at any other biography. johnpseudo 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's getting added in. • Lawrence Cohen 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Children: "6; 4 from his first marriage and 3 from his second" needs to be corrected in some fashion. Mycophile2 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Spy?

I just read an article that indicates that he is a spy, and came here for more info, and was surprised there was no mention. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/blackwater-201001 http://rawstory.com/2009/12/blackwaters-prince-cia-role/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepace (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Family

Okay so I was reading the whole unfaithful to his wife thing and it just seems to be quoted by a book and of course anything else I can find on the internet just basically quotes the article, therefore I think it should be obviously removed due to the fact its just a claim in a source that no one but people who own the book can access, but I'll wait before I edit it because I already know as soon as I do it somebody is going to undo it. FreedomIsNotEvil (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the book and failed to see the referenced statement in the page number mentioned? Only that would be a reason to challenge it Zencv ^Whisper 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I still think this is questionable. One anonymous person makes an lurid accusation, an author says he was told this (shielding him from being responsible for the libel) and prints it. Now we repeat it. Something like this should be corroborated by other sources, not based on the say so of one person who can't even prove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What matters is verifiability, not truth(well, it could well be truth as well as we don't know). If he had ever denied it and we have sources for that, we may include that as well..Removing a sourced statement is not the way to go.. Zencv ^Whisper 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, keeping something contentious out, even though it was said in a "reliable" source isn't without precedent. Recently the issue came up in an AfD, where the subject was labelled as a member of organized crime. One news paper had stated it as fact, all the the rest said it was an allegation. Without his ties to organized crime, the man failed notability. The debate moved to the WP:RSN. You can see it here: [1]. As you can see, the end consensus was that while that paper is a "reliable source", but they were the only one stating it as fact and did so with no verifiable documentation, so calling him a member of organized crime was disallowed. This case parallels that one. You have a single source, stating something as fact, without any verifiable proof. Considering the number of people in the mainstream media that strongly dislike Prince and his company, don't you think more would jump on this bandwagon? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have posted this to the BLPN. [2]. Removing the material until this is resolved per WP:GRAPEVINE. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Something like infidelity is always contentious, then if it had been referenced in a Biography or something similar, then that is worthy to be included however unflattering it is. As for the notability of his infidelity, Erik Prince is well known for his religiosity, so something that is hypocritical is interesting for the readers. Your example - I dont find any strong parallels to this. Other stuff exists will only make the case to include it stronger, as there are many BLPs in WP where subjects' infidelity is mentioned based on an interview in their biography Zencv ^Whisper 14:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• How can you NOT see the parallel? In both cases, you have a single source, stating something as fact, with no other sources doing so. Other sources termed it an allegation. The other case had an even stronger argument in that they actually showed the source (ie court records), which doesn't happen in the Prince case. And, in the Prince case, nobody else is even calling it an allegation. This case has a weaker argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Catholic conversion?

Anyone know anything about his rumoured conversion to Catholicism? WjtWeston (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased photo

Hi all. I don't know about that photo. It strikes me as a bit, ummm... shall we say, biased? He looks like a doofus! Heinleinscat (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Head of new Mercenary Force in UAE and his role

This is front page news on NYTimes. Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all. Probably need to update this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.216.105 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is horrible...he testified in Congress and nobody has a better one? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No free one yet, that I've seen. I've Googled around .gov and .mil sites but with no luck as of yet. • Lawrence Cohen 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

blurry pic should be removed--Djgranados 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy is a shadow. Nobody has a better photo? hexbase 0:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC -3)

It's amazing how all these companies were founded by such wealthy people. you know the media story about Michael dell is bullshit too. michael dell's family was quite well off too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.203.254 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

here is a pic of him testifying before congress, hosted by cryptome. i think it's possibly AP but i'm not sure of it's origin. since cryptome is using it, it's probably fair game, but hopefully someone else knows for sure? http://eyeball-series.org/blackwater/erik-prince-07-1002.jpg Zmbe (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture should be removed - it is no longer the cropped version of the phooto from the hearing as the description says. I assume it is from cryptome, but that link doenst work anylonger either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.121.92 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Myths and Rumors section

Should we have a section that contains only one piece of information from a group linked with Al Qaeda? Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

excuse me, the Taliban Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• The source calls it far-fetched. It is a passing mention by the source. There is nothing indicating that it has any bearing on Prince personally. This is his bio, not a respository for rumors about the company. I removed it per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does the source call it far-fetched? I can't find it. JamesChambers666 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Right where it talks about the rumor. "So infamous is the Blackwater brand that even the Taliban have floated far-fetched conspiracy theories, accusing the company of engaging in suicide bombings in Pakistan" I have removed it again. It does not belong in a BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the sex rings, very important.67.190.86.13 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

College Degree

The article lists his degree as "Austrian Economics" however, Hillsdale does not offer this degree (http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/majors.asp). They do offer one year long course in Austrian economics within the broader econ major. (http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/majors/eba/economics/courses.asp) Although it is possible that this has changed since the time Mr. Prince attended, I am not aware of any schools in the United States that offer degrees encompassing only one school of economic thought. This is neither feasible nor practical given the availability of texts and faculty, particularly with a heterodox school such as Austrian.

Austrian economics has become a podium for many who have begun to identify themselves as "libertarian" (see Ron Paul) and it is likely that this is used here to boost the credibility of Mr. Prince's identification as libertarian later in the article.

I hesitate to put a "citation needed" in the article, because a proper citation would need to be either his transcript or diploma which are obviously not available. However, unless Hillsdale was able to assemble an entire faculty of Austrian economics devotees for only four years, granted only one degree, and was able to conceal the existence of this program from the general public completely, it is safe to say that it is impossible for Mr. Prince to have a degree in "Austrian Economics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.187.187 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Affair

While it may be proper to include sourced information about Prince's affair, including three extensive and pulled-out blockquotes about it places massively undue weight on that part of his life. I have removed it all, pending a neutral, balanced and properly-weighted rewrite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to his own "autobiography, Civilian Warriors apparently written by Robert Young Pelton and Davin Coburn, Prince married and divorced his nanny but then had another affair with the wife of Blackwater's legal counsel while he was married to the nanny. According to the book Prince is now engaged to the wife of the legal counsel and divorced the nanny.

But the constant removal of well publicized personal details multiple times on this page shows that better scrutiny needs to be shown to who is actually grooming it. For example reviewing past iterations of the page shows much more accurate and comprehensive information than the current locked form.

I think anything that is published in Pelton's and Coburn's book which was fact checked by Penguin and approved by Prince would be considered valid for a wikipedia cite or content. Especially on a page that appears to have a history of being excessively groomed by Prince's PR people and business associates like Adam Ciralsky (Illegitimate Barrister) who is a business partner of Prince. There are also excessive posts be Niteshift36. and Hamiltonian25, Just compare earlier versions of this page with the latest and the removal of of congressional investigations, lawsuits, government fines, lawsuits, criminal accusations and other controversies. All covered in his book but missing from what is supposed to be an accurate document. Much of linkage to Scahill's research and concerns to his excellent, but critical book on Blackwater have been carefully removed by these paid Wiki groomers. And much of Prince's CIA work, carefully detailed in his own interviews documented by Pelton, Ciralksy and Scahill is also gone - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC21:E039:193C:CF22:15E:8E8B (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

(Indented above to set off from previous comment)

You're free to investigate me, I'm the one who asked for a neutral party from the WP:BLP noticeboard to look at the changes. Unlike you, I use my real name and do not hide behind an anonymous IP address. I assure you I have no connection with either the authors of the biographies or the subject of this article. The tone of the additions was venomous, it was clear that the person introducing it was putting it there to defame the subject of the article. After the addition, half the article was about that affair - that would be comparable to finding half the biography of Clinton being about the clinical details of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That there was an affair isn't debated, the question is how much emphasis it receives. Please read the policies at WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. In particular, the fact that something is documentable does not mean it must go into an article. The reason for an article about Erik Prince is his founding of Blackwater, the article should primarily focus on that. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The information seems to be sufficiently sourced. There was a concern raised by another editor, one that hadn't occurred to me, that the information as sourced here might not pass the threshold for inclusion based on the insinuations made against other parties involved, i.e. the second wife, as the source is Prince himself. My concern about it's prior inclusion was the undue weight given to what is essentially a tabloid topic on the fringe of the subject's notability. I know there are a lot of people who are in a rush to cast Prince in as poor of a light as possible for reasons that have nothing to do with creating an encyclopedic article so we should be diligent in keeping this article from turning into a coat rack for people looking to score political points against the subject. GraniteSand (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The need for a "controversy" section

The fact that a great deal of "controversy" has seemed to swirl around Mr. Prince does not necessarily reflect well or poorly on Mr. Prince himself. It is simply a fact. Mr. Prince has been one of the "more controversial figures" associated with the Iraq war, and I think that this observation is fairly broadly accepted as fact. The way that this article is currently written, it seems to be in a "state of denial" that any major controversy was ever associated with Mr. Prince. In fact, it begins to appear as if this article may have been written by Mr. Prince himself, or by one of his employees. It seems to have almost been censored. I would like to try to write a "controversy" section about Mr. Prince's involvement with Blackwater. It is my hope that this section will not be deleted, and the article reverted to its current "apparently whitewashed" format. Comments? Scott P. (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• First off, I'll try to assume good faith, but if you read what you just wrote objectively, it sounds like you have an agenda to make Prince look bad. To your point: 1) Just having a controversy section, for the sake of having one, is generally not the way we do biographies. Anything entered must be notable enough to merit mentioning so we don't run into a NPOV issue. 2) Some of the things you are referring may possibly be notable enough and are documented enough. However, the unsubstantiated rumor you insist on trying to force into here isn't one of them. You keep trying to insert an unsubstantiated rumor about an affair. The allegation is sketchy and of little value to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please note Night-shift, I believe you must be mistaking me for somebody else. I do not feel that affairs normally belong in bios in Wikipedia. I believe/ hope that you may find that I will be putting things into the controversy section that are as you say, "notable enough and are documented enough". By the way, thank you for keeping the "affairs" out. Scott P. (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• you're correct, I was lumping you in with the one putting an affair in. My apologies. As for the matter at hand, again, saying "The fact that Prince's company and the many political issues that surrounded it, was a significant factor in the formulation of current US policy for Iraq..." reveals a lot. First, in many cases, what Prince personally did and what his company did are not the same thing. Second, this sounds like a COATRACK and perhaps a little SYNTH. Let's look at what you put in the article. 2 disgruntled employees said Prince MAY have been involved in crimes. They didn't even say he WAS, just that me may have been. 3 years later, no charges have been filed and the matter appears to be gone. No, Prince isn't a saint, but why exactly would we put a "maybe" allegation that looks like it never went past the allegation stage into the article? That sounds like a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I apologize if what I discuss with you here in the talk pages, may not yet be fully refined and ready for publication on the article pages. Also I agree with the recent removal of the reference to the two "anonymous whistleblower" accounts. Still, it seems to me that some of the accounts of some of the controversies that Blackwater became involved in while Prince was at it's helm "should" be referenced here. When one is at the helm of a company and that company becomes embroiled in major controversy, there is seldom a good reason why such a controversy cannot be listed on that person's bio, so long as the references used are properly made and accurate. The saying, "the buck stops here", usually applies equally in politics and business.

Still, I see what you have been doing for this article has been generally good. There seems to be a great deal of "over-the-top" negativity pointed towards Prince, which he clearly does not deserve, and I commend you for your diligence in trying to keep this article from becoming a "dumping ground" for such negativity. Scott P. (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The key point to keep in mind, this is the biography of a living, breathing (and suing) person. Standards are much tighter for such articles, see WP:BLP. Note the use of strictly when it talks about applicable laws and ability to source statements. Basically, if it's something that might be considered defamatory, don't even think of adding it unless you can back it up with sources that are so reliable no lawyer can argue them in court. You won't be sued, but Wikipedia might be - and that could cost the very existence of Wikipedia. So we self-police. A section on "controversies" does not belong in a BLP article almost by definition - if it's contentious, its lawsuit bait. Don't add such material until it's so solid it's beyond controversial. See WP:BLP#Public figures, and the requirement for multiple third-party sources. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erik Prince. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110124104252/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAHZ9HxuT6KA1abfLIClhXK_ajuQ?docId=bdc6713a3eee4b46803879f8d75639dc to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAHZ9HxuT6KA1abfLIClhXK_ajuQ?docId=bdc6713a3eee4b46803879f8d75639dc

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropy

This piece confuses personal philanthropy with the largess of the relatively small Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation. Having reviewed the tax return there is no indication that Erik Prince has personally funded the foundation. In 2014 the largest grant made by the foundation was $815,000 to the SPLC-certified hate group, Family Research Council. David Cary Hart (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Erik Prince. 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/20110614092334/http://www.mensjournal.com/an-american-commando-in-exile to http://www.mensjournal.com/an-american-commando-in-exile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829031125/http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108028&ran=144012 to http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108028&ran=144012
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108028&ran=144012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011190228/http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com:80/news/politics/blog/2007/10/grilled_blackwater_chairman_a.html to http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/grilled_blackwater_chairman_a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004233332/http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Erik_Prince.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Erik_Prince.php

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) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No mention of murder allegations?

Who is editing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.217.204 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of us edit it. If you have a reliable reference ( see WP:RS ), provide it and either edit the article or ask someone else to do so. Generally, unsubstantiated allegations don't go into biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP ). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa is surely a reliable source for the presence of such accusations. The fact that an article on Erik Prince does not mention the presence shocking *claim* that he intentionally murdered Muslims in Iraq is rather surprising to me. This was all over the news when it happened. It seems a bit like omitting OJ Simpons' alleged engaging in murder, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.137.147 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Crusader?

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe":

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis." http://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder

I think this is an important side of his personality that must be referred to in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.192.110.224 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "declarations" made by anonymous people in a lawsuit that has since been dismissed? Not unless the re-wrote WP:BLP when nobody was looking. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime, it suggests in no way that accusations of a crime are not notable. Am I confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.137.147 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — 46.127.137.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You have allegations made by 2 former employees (likely a bit disgruntled) who couldn't substantiate them. The suit was dismissed for a reason.... it was unsubstantiated. BLP requires caution. Including this is the opposite. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you know the employees are "a bit disgruntled?" Regardless, I would imagine something that is printed in, say, The Economist, or The Nation, or similar, might be noteworthy enough to print in Wikipedia, with, of course, appropriate sourcing and caveats (i.e. that it is anonymous, made under oath in federal court, etc). BLP appears to suggest that accusations of a crime are notable, like I said. Can you point to the part of BLP which says accusations of a crime should not be noted unless there is a conviction? I note that the article on OJ Simpson notes that he was accused of murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.137.147 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — 46.127.137.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I don't know it, that's why I said "likely" disgruntled. Reliable sources print the news. We don't print the news. As WP:NOTNEWS points out, many newsworthy events aren't notable. While an accusation of a crime may be notable, you're missing a couple of things. First, he wasn't charged with a crime. A criminal charge would actually require an evidentiary status be met. This was a lawsuit, which can be filed by anyone with the filing fee. When it was reviewed by a judge, it was dismissed. The second thing, since you want to talk about what BLP says, it does caution us: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Prudence would say adding the material into a BLP would need similar consideration. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

An allegation requires no evidence. A dismissed allegation is a non-event. Someone could allege that (e.g.) Clinton stole their M&Ms, and file suit. A judge dismissing the suit is ruling that the suit has no chance in his court. Dismissed allegations are not significant. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with both Niteshift36 and Tari. Under their standard, we wouldn't be able to include unproven accusations that still receive major press coverage. 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. If the OP cannot find multiple independent reliable sources covering these allegations, then the material should be excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. A dismissed lawsuit is a non-event. If it were notable for some other reason, it might be worth mentioning. But there mere fact of filing a lawsuit which a judge dismissed is irrelevant. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:UNDUE about excluding subject matter. Let's see what the OP comes up with in terms of reliable sources before we engage in what might be a needless dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. (This is the anonymous IP, by the way. I created an account. Yay.)

A few points:

1. I believe the focus on the lawsuit being dismissed is a little bit misleading, or at least over-general. Lawsuits can be dismissed for a number of procedural reasons (standing, jurisdiction) which don't have a bearing on the quality of the evidence. A more specific rule that Niteshift36 might suggest is that "if a lawsuit is dismissed due to lack of evidence, it is not noteworthy." Yet even that is a bit fraught: for example, the Justice Department case against the five Blackwater guards was thrown out because there was no _admissible_ evidence; the lawsuit (and that it was thrown out) is patently noteworthy.

2. The lawsuit itself may (of course) be noteworthy even if the claims of the plaintiff appear to be false or unsubstantiated. As DrFleischman says, substantial news coverage may make something noteworthy. In this case, I edited this page and the Academi page after being quite startled that a high-profile accusation was not noted anywhere here; I was clearly not alone in wondering about this, since the question was previously floated on this Talk page.

Now, specific to this case:

1. As I said, the accusations were made under oath ("in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia"). I think that makes them a bit more noteworthy.

2. The allegations of weapons smuggling were separately both investigated by a federal grand jury and asserted to credible news organizations by Blackwater employees . This is noted in a single sentence on the Academi page but, again, seems to make these statements more noteworthy, since they are additional evidence relating to an already-noteworthy allegation.

3. The allegations were themselves fairly widely reported, sufficiently to assert that credible news organizations felt they were noteworthy (The Economist, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Al Jazeera.) The fact that this was widely reported also seems to make it noteworthy; Academi and Prince are themselves known in part for the fact that they were (falsely or accurately) accused of these acts.

References

Given that, I think the allegations are noteworthy on their own right, regardless of their veracity. But since the allegations also dovetail with other federal investigations and other documented (publicly and here) allegations against Academi and Prince, they seem noteworthy in that context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foijsdf (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• 1: I actually didn't say that, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't put it in quotes and present it as if I did. Second, you're mixing cases. In the Justice Department case (which is in another article, not a BLP), the judge threw out criminal charges, which are different than a civil suit. In addition, those employees had been indicted, meaning that a grand jury had agreed there was sufficient evidence to bring the matter to trial. Merely filing a civil suit doesn't have that happening.
• 2: This wasn't that high profile. It got coverage in the short term and then disappeared from the news cycle. In addition, as previously noted, this was based on 2 anonymous former employees.
• 1a: They were made "under oath" and that makes them more notable? Not really. Perjury, which is lying under oath, is a misdemeanor crime, on roughly the same level as stealing a pair of shoes. Let's not act like a) people don't lie under oath and b) that the legal system makes it a huge deal. The fact is, they made the allegations (anonymously) and were never challenged or cross-examined.
• 2a: What evidence shows Prince was personally involved in these alleged acts?
• 3a Being "widely reported" doesn't mean they go into a BLP. WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that most newsworthy events aren't notable, probably not bad guidance here. Literally hundreds of news sources reported that Scott Disick was photographed with models this past weekend in Miami. That probably doesn't go in his BLP either. I found about 40 sources that talk about Bill Nye being at Fashion Week..... Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

1. I did not present it as if you said that. I said you "might" say that. As in, a hypothetical argument you might make that I think is somewhat reasonable goes as follows. I'm sorry that was not more clear. 2. *shrug* "High profile" is an unresolvable argument. Like I said, I'm not the only one to have wondered why this was not mentioned on the page, but that may not mean much. It's a wide world.

For what it's worth, your examples of non-BLP-worthy news are poor: these are not the kinds of news which are featured in, say, The Economist. That's not to say everything in The Economist is newsworthy, but you are drawing a false analogy here.

That said, you've spent literally years of your life maintaining this dude's bio page, so more power to you. As I said, I hope you are doing it on more than a volunteer basis--I wouldn't personally spend so much effort on something so unremunerative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foijsdf (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• 1: Except that was not my position at all.
• 2: The lack of continuing coverage is a good indicator.
• No, my example isn't poor. The Bill Nye thing was covered by Time Magazine and ABC news, among others. Whether you hold People Magazine in the same esteem as the Economist is irrelevant, both are reliable sources. Further, you keep implying that "newsworthy" means that it's automatically included. That's simply false.

As for your ridiculous statement that I've "spent literally years"..... Well, no. I haven't. I haven't even spent days editing this page. Accumulated time spent on it is probably a few hours, spread over the course of years. So, learn what "literally" actually means and try some better math. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we please tone down the overt and backhanded personal attacks, both of you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't make a personal attack. Calling a ridiculous statement "ridiculous" isn't a personal attack. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How about just calling it wrong? No matter, let's move on, shall we? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural comment: We really ought to consolidate this discussion with Talk:Academi#No mention of lawsuits, since they cover the same subject matter, arguments, and participants and it's getting difficult to shuttle back and forth between the two. Foijsdf, since you're the "provocateur" so to speak, would you care to choose where we try to resolve this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. What is relevant to the history of the company and what is relevant to the BLP are not the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Do I sense stonewalling? Let's work together. I'm frustrated by the fact that we're having redundant discussions that are difficult to manage. How can we mitigate this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, your bad faith sense of stonewalling is off base. What may be relevant to the history of the company is not the same things relevant for the BLP. The BLP is about an individual and they need a more direct connection to something. For example, George W. Bush was president during the Iraq War, but everything that happened during the war isn't relevant to his biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the argument is more compelling that the lawsuit should be mentioned in the Academi page, not here, so I'm happy to continue the discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foijsdf (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Foijsdf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Use of the term "mercenary"

There have been repeated efforts over the years to change the lede to describe Prince as a mercenary. The term is pejorative, used as a fancy way of saying "scumbag", regardless of the actual applicability. The usage lies somewhere between Code word (figure of speech) and Dog whistle (politics).

The dictionary definitions of mercenary as a noun include:

• one who serves merely for wages
• a soldier hired into foreign service

The term was used during the Vietnam war to describe all U.S. servicemen (after all, they were getting paid, weren't they? So what if they were drafted), which has left some remnant sensitivity as a term of disparagement applied to individuals because of disagreements with their superiors.

In the case of Prince, he served in the U.S. military, and later created the Blackwater company which did indeed employ people who would meet the dictionary definition of mercenary (foreign origin and/or serving in combat merely for wages). I'm fairly sure he personally never carried a rifle merely for wages (he's always been wealthy, so that's unlikely), or hired into a foreign service. So the dictionary definition doesn't apply, what's left is the pejorative context and dog whistle. Do please keep in mind this is a WP:BLP, and lawsuit avoidance should be kept in mind - Wikipedia has better things to do with its resources than defending itself in court. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. FWIW, the source being cited doesn't actually call him a mercenary either. It says he's the CEO of a mercenary firm. Being the CEO of a hospital doesn't make you a doctor. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. The term "mercenary" is derogatory and should not be used to describe an individual, especially on a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Government services and security company" is a euphemism for mercenary company. It certainly doesn't mean "scumbag", because it *isn't* derogatory. Calling someone a scumbag is derogatory. Calling someone an asshole is derogatory. Using a clear, descriptive term most certainly isn't. If you hate clowns, that doesn't mean we should rename Bozo the Clown to Bozo the comic entertainer. 84.241.207.139 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't agree with how the term "homophobia" is used when someone merely opposes a proposed law, but I don't get to govern the language myself. And since the company does more than "mercenary" work, the current version makes sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, "Government services and security company" is not a euphemism since it provides factual information. I'm not aware of many mainstream reliable sources calling Prince a mercenary. If we're going to call the guy a mercenary then we might as well call him a notorious mercenary. Ain't gonna happen. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP accusations.

@68.33.73.37: Accusations of "having Islamophobic, Christian supremacist, anti-Arab, and other racist views" had better be supported by damn good sources. All of them. The Econimist cites an affadavit leveling one of those, Christian supremacist, but the article does not directly subscribe to that view. Hence a poor source and WP:BLP is in full effect. Kleuske (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Philanthropist

Does it make sense to call Prince a philanthropist in the first sentence of his biography? It doesn't appear so. I'm not aware of any reliable sources describing him as such. Allegedly (without verification) he's VP of a family foundation; there's no indication that he himself plays any active role in the foundation. Moreover, even if he's engaged in a bit of philanthropy, it doesn't seem like a particularly significant part of his biography. Many famous people have been much more involved in philanthropy and aren't labeled as "philanthropists" in their articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

At a glance, it does seem like an undue emphasis. El_C 04:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd guess it originates from what would be his own self-description: here (These kinds of bios are usually written mostly from the subjects own words). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarl N. (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• We have a section called "Charitable work". If his work with charity is significant enough for a section, then it is most likely ok to call him a philanthropist. If it it's so insignificant, then the section is probably UNDUE as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "Charitable work" section is indeed undue. But I strongly disagree that the existence of a "Charitable work" section would justify describing the guy as a philanthropist in the first sentence of his biography. The standards are completely different. A bit of non-trivial, encyclopedic detail about his charitable work would justify content in the article body. But the lead section is for only the most important aspects of his biography, and the first sentence is only for what he's best known for. There's no evidence Prince is known for a handful of donations he's made over the years.

• Your initial claim was that sources don't call it philanthropy. We've shown sources that do. True, some people do give money and don't get called a philanthropists, but probably fewer actually sit on the board of a big philanthropic org. The book source I added devotes a couple of paragraphs toward talking about his giving and how it hooks him into relationships with people. The more I look at it, the less I think the section is UNDUE (notice how I can reference the UNDUE without yet another wikilink?). Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• One of the sources already cited in this article talks about his philanthropy (and how it has been used by him) [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. All that source says is that he donated to the Council for National Policy. Not philanthropy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, are you reading the same source I am? Page 80: "He gave generously to several Michigan churches, including $50,000 to Holy Family Oratory, a Kalamazoo Catholic Church, and $100,000 to St. Isidore Catholic Church and school in Grand Rapids, as well as Catholic churches in Virginia." That alone is sufficient. But that's not all it says: "But Erik Prince's philanthropy has certainly not been limited to Catholic causes." Page 81: "Erik Prince's philanthropy and politics...." How can you sit there and claim that the source doesn't say philanthropy? It says it twice in 2 pages and gives examples apart from the CNP. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You are again mistaken. The "Prince" in the page 80 quote is Edgar Prince, Erik's father, not Erik. The references to Erik Prince's "philanthropy" don't verify that Prince is a "philanthropist"; nor does the source verify that Erik made any donations to groups other than the Council for National Policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Read 79: "Erik adopted his father's behind-the-scenes demeanor...." Later on 79: "Taking a cue from his father's funding....". It's not about Edgar, it's about Erik. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to page 79. Could you please provide the full quotes you're relying on? Or is it just that language? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wait....are you questioning my reading comprehension or my honesty? I have added it to the article. I am recounting it accurately. Why now do you expect me to type half a page of text for you? This is starting to look like something more than just trying to make sure this is sourced correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for you to provide the source text that you say verifies the content. Obviously adopting a demeanor doesn't support a sentence about someone's charitable donations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've provided you with the source. The "adopting demeanor" quote was to refute your incorrect claim that it was talking about his father, not Erik. The context of my response should make that clear. Again, the source has already been provided. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is pretty explicit that the "he" in the quote you provided is referring to Edgar Prince, not Erik Prince. Do you disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've told you more than once that it's talking about Erik. I'm curious how you claim you can't see page 79, yet can tell me what it does or does not set up for 80. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Christian and Islamic causes

Niteshift36 asserts that this Vanity Fair source supports this sentence in the "Charitable work" subsection:

Prince has donated to both Christian and Islamic causes, including support of a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan.

This does not appear to be correct. The source content says:

He has been branded a 'Christian supremacist' who sanctions the murder of Iraqi civilians, yet he has built mosques at his overseas bases and supports a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan. He and his family have long backed conservative causes, funded right-wing political candidates, and befriended evangelicals, but he calls himself a libertarian and is a practicing Roman Catholic.

The source does not say that he has donated any money for any Christian or Muslim cause, nor does it say that he built any mosques for philanthropic purposes. (For all we know he probably built the mosque for his Muslim employees.) This sentence must be removed per our BLP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Per BLP? What part of BLP? First, I removed the part about the mosques because it says it was on his bases, so it may very well have been for his employees. That doesn't make it no philanthropic, but I decided not to argue it. Yet here we are, you arguing about it anyway, even though it isn't in the article. The book source above confirms the Christian causes. You can insert it into this sentence if you like. Further, when it is talking about "backed conservative causes", "funded" candidates and "befriended evangelicals", what do you suppose "befriended" means? That he brought a tray of cookies? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The part of BLP that says that all BLPs must comply with our verifiability policy and that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." I don't understand the rest of your comment. Where does the source say Prince donated to Christian causes? Where does it say he donated to Islamic causes? Where does it say he donated in support of Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan? Or are you referring to the source material as "close enough"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do you know why you don't understand? Because you haven't bothered to look at the second source that was added, listing Christian charities, listing some specific churches. Even some that the source called "fringe". It says he "supports a Muslim orphanage. What exactly do you think that means, another tray of cookies? That's not SYNTH, that's simple reading without a bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because you're not explaining yourself fully. I don't have access to as much of that book source as you do. What specific charities and churches does it list, and on what pages? Where does it refer to the Muslim orphanage? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I quoted you several churches already. I've told you the pages already. The Vanity fair source talks about the orphanage. That's why BOTH sources are at the end of the sentence. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following. You say the second source lists specific churches. I have limited access to the source and couldn't find any reference to donations by Erik Prince to any churches. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"He gave generously to several Michigan churches, including $50,000 to Holy Family Oratory, a Kalamazoo Catholic Church, and $100,000 to St. Isidore Catholic Church and school in Grand Rapids, as well as Catholic churches in Virginia." That alone is sufficient. But that's not all it says: "But Erik Prince's philanthropy has certainly not been limited to Catholic causes." It lists 2 by name, says "churches" plural in addition to those two and then says "causes" plural. I've quoted this to you already. I've provided the quote, provided the source..... your lack of access doesn't negate or diminish the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You really are not listening. I already pointed out that that quote was about Edgar Prince, not Erik Prince. So all we have is some vague reference to Catholic causes that appears to be referring to his father's donations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• You pointed it out, but you are incorrect. Page 79, the one you claim you don't see, makes it very obvious. The quote is not about Edgar. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Prince Foundation

I verified that Erik Prince is a VP of the Prince Foundation. However our current description of the foundation's donations is inappropriately cherry-picked. Most of the sources discussing the organization talk about its donations to political groups like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. I've tagged this as POV and will add more representative content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• How, specifically, is it cherry-picked? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In the way that I described. Our article talks about a school, but the secondary sources (and our article on the foundation) talk about other types of donations. Based on the secondary sources the foundation seems to have a strong politically conservative preference, but you wouldn't know it from this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Since the article here is about the man, not the foundation, how relevant is the political preference of the org? And why wouldn't a $10 million donation be more noteworthy than a $500k one? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well we have at least $10 million donated to conservative political causes between the two organizations I mentioned. And when you search for the foundation, those are what comes up. I'm not proposing removing the school, just adding the other stuff. Or perhaps we should remove the school. I'm fine either way, I just want content that complies with our neutrality policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Are you claiming that you have donations totaling $10 million to Focus on the Family and FRC? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Me personally? We're talking about the Prince Foundation's donations. Yes, the Prince Foundation donated $10 million to Focus on the Family and FRC, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• What source says there was a $10 million donation for those two? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are some sources: [4], [5], [6]. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• You may want to re-read those. Nobody disputes they donated money to them. Your claim was that they donated $10 million to FRC and $10 million to FoF. What source says that? I see one saying $5 million to FoF, which is a significant shortage from 10 million. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. $10 million+ between the 2 is what I meant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Then you misunderstood the question. I said that a $10 million donation is more significant than the other donations based on the size. Even though I am not convinced that FRC got $5 million, each one, by your own admission, got significantly less than the college did. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You're being disruptive by twisting my words and the discussion, and my patience for your game-playing and wikilawyering is wearing thin. My point is that we should not be listing only one $10 million donation to one cause when we have $10 million (actually more) to a very different set of causes. The fact that those other causes are divided between two donations to two organizations is immaterial. When you pick one cherry because it's slightly bigger than the others, that's still cherry-picking. You are smart and you know this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not twisting your words. You're taking two different charities, adding them together and claiming that they are as significant as the single $10 million donation. There's a big difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This article cites Vanity Fair for some facts, but it omits other facts and issues described in the source. To avoid cherry picking, we should fully summarize what the source says instead of just selecting certain items. Felsic2 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt you've even read the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Role in Trump transition

We have two reliable sources from The Washington Post and The Intercept describing Prince's role in the Trump transition. Should we be saying that his role is only "alleged?" This appears to be contrary to our neutrality policy (don't treat reliable facts as opinions) as well as our guideline to avoid unncessary expressions of doubt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way this story is being picked up by a wide variety of other reliable sources, including CBS News, NBC News, The Hill, Esquire, NY Daily News, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, sources are reporting the allegation. That isn't disputed. That's why no information was removed. But it hasn't been proven at this point and most of those sources are reporting what came from one or two sources. CBS is reporting what the WAPO said. NBC partially reports what the WAPO said. The Hill is based on the WAPO story and is careful to use language like "reportedly" and "apparent". The Esquire source is based on WAPO (and written in a very POV manner). The NYDN source is based on the WAPO story. In short....we repeated what WAPO said a number of times. Only NBC appears to have made an effort to do something on their own. It's not POV to clearly say they are allegations (at this point). It is problematic to make multiple affirmative statements that these events happened, then a single short "they deny it" line. The POV tags are unwarranted. Just try being neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. What's wrong with the WaPo, NBC News, and Intercept sources? These sources don't frame these as unproven allegations. They frame them as fact, and the WaPo article cites a wide number of "U.S., European and Arab officials." Remember that verifiability is about publication in reliable sources, not about "proof" in some sort of court-of-law sense of the word. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with that sentiment, Joel--at least, broadly speaking--but this situation is pretty nuanced. As you say, the sources (at least the original ones) do not pull their punches; they claim rather explicitly that these were definitely efforts at back channels. So we should report that faithfully. However, we can't directly support that inference in Wikipedia's own voice, at least not unless/until it becomes a matter of incontrovertible fact broadly supported by most all of a large body of sources, given the extraordinary nature of the claim. And its worth noting that, despite the heavy investigatory atmosphere surrounding the U.S. administration's contacts with Russia, there has been relatively little further development on this story, with the few pieces covering it since January mostly repeating the same facts. Which is why I also agree with Niteshift36's perspective that currently leaving the notation that these assertions are "alleged" strikes a better balance. However, I think an even more ideal solution, which bridges both of your perspectives, is to simply directly attribute/quote the claims wherever possible. Such an approach allows us to fully report on what sources have said on the subject without endorsing it with Wikipedia's voice, the crucial distinction. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was going to suggest as well, eg "In April 2017, The Washington Post, NBC News, and the New York Times (or whoever) reported that..." - more specific and reads much better than "alleged" (which is just asking for a template). Fyddlestix (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

But, see WP:YESPOV - reliable sourced facts shouldn't be attributed in-text as it suggests we're treating them like opinions. These are not opinions; they are facts that are supported by reliable sources. Why would we need more? And what would we need? A huge number of sources have relied on the Washington Post's reputation to based their own stories on it, and NBC independently corroborated it with their own sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, they independently corroborated elements of the Washington Post's reporting, but my reading of the sources is that they are (quite reasonably) hedging their endorsement of the notion that Prince was acting at the behest of the Trump transition team, which is the core of the allegation here. There's also the consideration that extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. We absolutely can (and should) discuss, in a minimalist fashion, the non-disputed facts surrounding this meeting, and the connections between relevant parties. We should also absolutely discuss the fact that certain institutions and individuals have connected the dots between those facts to arrive at some very firm conclusions about what the "obvious" purpose of these meetings were (and of course some have presented still further evidence to prove those more specific assertions regarding the purpose of the meeting and the agency of Mr. Prince within them). But that second element needs to be treated in a fashion distinct from the first.

There may come a day when that assertion can be treated as an empirical fact broadly accepted by almost all of a huge number of reliable sources, but right now that belief just doesn't have the level of currency in the sourcing that we would need to make that assertion in Wikipedia's voice; we need to attribute it until a very high threshold is met, and at this point it would be WP:CRYSTAL to even guess at when that might be. As to treating these assertions like they are opinions, well, I think that's actually where we are right now, with regard to some facets of this story. Others are more straightforward, but I think it would be POV at this point to suggest that Prince's motivations are a settled matter. The story has a long way to go before we've met such a burden, if indeed it ever is. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's WAAYYYYY too early to be throwing "allegatons" into his BLP with especially negative connotations. Sorry but the cards to fall before they are tossed into WP BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC

These aren't "allegations" though - this is stuff that the Washington Post and other major news orgs have reported as fact. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• And some are using more careful language. And even when the WAPO says it, they are reporting what someone else said (ie the sources). I find it interesting that both Trump spokesman and Prince reps made very strong denials, but it became merely a "denied it" line. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What I've seen is that Prince described himself as an envoy for Trump. I haven't seen anyone say that the administration described him as that. This could be simply self-puffery. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Read carefully, it only describes what UAE believed. WaPo attributes nothing to Prince. They ascribe all facts as the belief of UAE. --DHeyward (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Though Prince [...], he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis. They don't have a quote from Prince, but they do have witnesses who say that Prince claimed it. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That might be true of that specific wording of the Prince-as-Trump-rep part, but you blanked a lot of other stuff that is either reported as fact or attributed to "US, European, and Arab officials." Obviously we have to be careful but some aspects of this story clearly bear inclusion (and can likely be treated as factual). Fyddlestix (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Other than a meeting in Seychelles that Prince attended, everything else attributable opinion. I don't think there is anything we can say in WP voice beyond that. It is the UAE that that thought Prince was a channel to Trump. It is the UAE hoping to Prince can pressure Iran. They are all all big stage players with direct and indirect influence but nothing specific is offered. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. The danger to skirt softly is that a lot of people are claiming that Prince was acting on Trump's behalf. E.g. earlier today here. Since that isn't actually what is being reported, we have to step carefully lest more enthusiastic editors attempt to claim that. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to Snow Rise, Tarl, and DHeyward: If I misread the finer details of the WaPo source then I'm happy with adjusting our language accordingly. This should not be a basis for removing the content entirely. What I'm not as comfortable with is the assertion that these are "opinions" or "allegations" or that we don't have sufficient reliable sources, so therefore we remove it all. We have multiple high-quality reliable sources, and it's receive front-page coverage in a wide variety of media outlets. Outright removal, or framing this all as some sort of speculation or bare allegation, would be whitewashing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What is BLP worthy about this meeting? We are not news. Nothing has come of this. It's like writing Susan Rice unmasked Trump associates or similar things which have just enough innuendo to pique interest but are not yet ripe for being noteworthy because it's part of their normal business. This is the same thing. This is the beginning, not the end and there is no deadline. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There I am in agreement with you. The assertions should be carefully attributed, not presented in our voice, but these are facts found in serious, and broadly recognized investigative reporting in numerous of the world's most reputable news corporations, television media, and newspapers. Meaning no offense to DHeyward, but absolutely nothing in BLP asks us not to ignore a story of this nature; this is not WP:NOTNEWS, not at this scale of coverage and direct relation to other topics of massive encyclopedic importance. This has cleared the threshold of encyclopedic relevance by kilometers. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's ONLY news. There is nothing here worthy of a BLP. The coverage is limited to those absorbed by U.S. political news. If it is noteworthy it will be there in 10 years. If not, we aren't the venue to keep it. There is nothing to write since the only inference is that it's nefarious. That's exactly why we have our BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, please work with me to include some content about this widely and prominently reported story in our article. If you don't then I will have to start yet another RfC. I happen to think your current position is patently unreasonable and antithetical to Wikipedia's first principles. I am all for invoking WP:RECENTISM when the case warrants it, but this is ridonculous. No offense intended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything to add regarding Trump. It is not yet ripe. We are not news and yet you insist we include it precisely because it is news. It is much easier to add information when it is proved relevant. We are not there yet. CNN, APo, Fox, NBC, CBS, AP as well as books and more in-depth reporting will provide detail without violating our BLP policy on poorly sourced negative information. What is your hurry ? --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry, but are you suggesting that the sources listed above (including the WaPo source that has been widely cited by a variety of other reputable outlets) aren't reliable? Are you suggesting that this needs to be described in books before we include in our article? Bear in mind, this story has already been covered by CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, and the AP, among many others now. (I don't know what APo is.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And here is a Boston Globe article specifically addressing the significance of this story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I'm pretty intimately familiar with BLP and I'm not aware of any provision within it that requires a story to be covered in texts (in addition to the five largest news outlets in the western world) before it can be referenced in the relevant BLP. Nor am I familiar with any wording in that policy that directs us to use our WP:CRYSTALBALLs to determine the level of relevance of a story ten years from now. I think you've completely turned policy on its head there. Yes, encyclopedic content has to be beyond trivial, transitory mention, but when pretty much every one of the top five global news outlets (plus numerous other high quality reliable sources) is discussing the matter, that threshold is pretty self-evidently met, and the relevance becomes more or less permanent thereafter. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect DHeyward is referring to WP:NOTNEWS (policy) and WP:10YT (an essay). I am sympathetic to these principles and cite them from time to time. However NOTNEWS and 10YT have no application when a story is as widely and prominently covered as this one. The whole Trump-Russia FBI investigation is of course of enduring historical and encyclopedic significance however it turns out, and Prince is now a part of that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is citing the same report. Namely, UAE set up a meeting. The UAE believed the meeting was a back channel attempt at influencing Russian policy to curb Iran. Prince was who the UAE thought was the backchannel connection. The inference (not fact, not corrborated) is that this feeds into the larger Trump/Putin relationship. We simply cannot include what is essentially a UAE (who in the UAE?) view that this was Putin/Trump meeting by proxy and implying it is a gross BLP violation. The Boston Globe article is a perfect example. It mentions the meeting and then explains how Prince is universally unliked by the left. We already cover all those issues but the Seychelles meeting is a ghost with very thin sourcing relying on what the UAE hoped. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me understand. Are you saying these sources are unreliable in their conclusions? Or are you saying that we are interpreting them to say something that they're not actually saying? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

We are inferring conclusions and facts they don't make or claim and the inference is that it was wrong or criminal. Sorry, no. We don't do that. This meeting is allegedly 3 months old with nothing behind it. To quote: "Apparently, he [Prince] knows somebody, who knew somebody, who knew a guy in the UAE, who also knew a guy in Russia,” That's the gist of the meeting with the rest of every story being background on Prince. We don't publish that kind of tabloidish stuff. No one else at the meeting has been identified. --DHeyward (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you reading a different story than the rest of us? That's not an accurate summary/characterization of how this is being reported at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just realized that the source for your quote there is Sean's Spicer... sorry but the Washington Post trumps the spin of an administration that's widely known for its tendency to present falsehood as facts. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Except the WaPo doesn't say anything different. Read what WaPo said and it's a report on the wishes of the UAE without any identification of anyone but Prince. If you have more, then provide it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And? What's your point? Mentioning-someone-other-than-prince is not the criteria for inclusion here, and you're incorrect in suggesting that it's all presented as "what the emiratis think." The very first paragraph of the wapo story says that officials from American, European, and Arab officials all confirmed that the meeting happened, and that it was "part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump." That's all we need, and (more or less) exactly what our article should say. (I'm still in favour of attributing it to the post, NBC, etc). Fyddlestix (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparent to who? --DHeyward (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. We have an article in one of the most reputable newspapers in the U.S., if not the world, that states this conclusion, and that article has been cited over and over again by literally all of the other reputable news outlets in the U.S. This is as reliable as reliable can get. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Then say that.... that the WaPo "reported". Don't state it as a proven fact. Simply being a well respected source doesn't make something a fact. Ever heard of Janet Cooke? The WaPo certainly has. Or Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair. CNN and Time thought that Peter Arnett was solid on Operation Tailwind.....until he wasn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Much ado about...employee lawsuits?

We've nearly exhausted the charitable contributions issue, with the outcome of neither adding conservative sources or the mosque, which albeit can only be traced back to two equally biased sources (VF and TDC)...any thoughts from editors on why the Scott Helvenston case was never added? Blackwater filed countersuit against the families, while Prince was still there(!) There was also another case over employees suing for their benefits. If anything is missing from this page, it is these two issues, which are extremely reliably sourced. Seraphim System (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, their relevance would depend on the particulars and the references. Do we have reliable sources closely relating Prince to the suits in a significant way (as, for example, a named party to the action), rather than just Blackwater generally? Without question this is relevant to the Blackwater article, but I feel like we'd need some substantial connection (without recourse to synthesis), between Prince and these lawsuits, as discussed in reliable sources (and to an extent at least a little beyond passing mention). Snow ^{let's rap} 08:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

For employee misclassification, yes, there's a congressional letter which includes some quotes and discussion of his own congressional testimony, where he is quoted as saying "it's a model that works." For Fallujah, there is the material in Civilian Warriors which gives details of the incident in Prince's own words, that he visited the Zovko family, etc. and Jeremy Scahill who wrote in his book that Helvenston's mother spoke to Prince on the phone and asked for a copy of her son's contract. He said he would send it to but she never received it, Prince was going to dedicate a memorial to the fallen men. There was a meeting with the families at the ceremony, but Erik wasn't there so they spoke with a rep, Anne. Anne said the contracts were confidential, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll add my periodic caution; someone filing a lawsuit which gets dismissed is meaningless (both the filing and the dismissal can be for trivial reasons). If the lawsuit is won, that's notable. If the lawsuit can be shown to have caused significant changes (such as dismissal of other lawsuits), then the filing by itself was notable. But just someone filing a lawsuit that went nowhere is not itself notable. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't just the lawsuit, and it wasn't trivial. The IRS, SBA, Congress and John Kerry were all involved in some way, outside the scope of the lawsuit which I would have to reread to comment on further (but the decision was all about procedural technicalities of the arbitration clause). Most of these procedural arguments are highly technical and this notion floating around Wikipedia that lawsuits are non-notable because they are either dismissed or moved into arbitration on procedural grounds is patently false. A dismissal is not more or less notable, legally speaking, then any other possible legal outcome Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The lawsuit may be notable, but the mere fact of it being filed is not. You have to have some basis other than "the lawsuit was filed" for deciding it was notable. There is an alternative notion on the internet that a lawsuit being filed by itself proves something, which it doesn't. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was relying more on the letter from Congress and Erik's Congressional testimony then the lawsuit, and yes, misclassification of employees is a notable issue that is discussed by numerous sources, including law review articles. He is connected to it directly by his testimony and the letters (citable to LR, not my own synth) - arguably more directly then he has ever been connected to Nisour, which is mentioned (briefly) in the article.

ADD: The source is the Military Law Society, author is an Iraq combat veteran and a JAG Corps Officer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you could link (or at least cite) the references ... it's really hard to assess whether this is something that should be in the article without actually looking at the ref(s). Fyddlestix (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Letter from Congress law review I think the Letter from Congress is ok for the quote, because it gives the full context of the questioning - it may be more difficult to find the testimony transcripts Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, are you talking about Helvenston v. Blackwater Security? The case has been covered by a variety of news sources (e.g. here). However I'm not sure it belongs in an article about Erik Prince since it was a lawsuit against Blackwater and not Prince personally, as far as I know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues 1) Helvenston 2)Employee classification. As for Helvenston specifically, I discuss above what I think can be reliably sourced and stay within the scope of the article about Prince. There was a ceremony, he spoke with Helvenston's mother, visited the Zovko family, and maybe there is a quote from him about it somewhere (like Civilian Warriors). Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not all references to the subject merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Of course Prince was involved in the suit, but unless he played some particularly special role in it, this was a dispute between Helvenston and Blackwater--and randon comments and visits don't merit content here. Same thing for the misclassification; if this was a lawsuit against Blackwater for something Blackwater did, then the existence of published testimony doesn't merit inclusion here. You need to explain why this content is biographically significant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Blackwater was actually privately owned, so I don't know why you are treating them as separate entries. Visiting the family of a fallen employee and U.S. servicemember is not a "random visit." What do you think is enough to establish notability for inclusion in this article? We included Nisour, an event Erik was not personally involved in by any of the facts we have available. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blackwater and Prince have separate Wikipedia pages because they are conceptually separate things. One is a person and the other is a company. They are not supposed to be mirrors of each other. I'm guessing Nisour is included in this article because it was an extremely noteworthy event and no summary style description of Blackwater would be complete without it. We do not include the lawsuits over Nisour, which properly belong at Academi. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Conceptually separate things" - what does that even mean? The criminal case about Nisour is in here actually, which you well know. It's ok, we can have RfC after RfC because you, personally, feel some ownership of this page and would rather prevent well-sourced and relevant edits then add content. Obviously, anything that gets added to this page, you are going to revert, so we will need to have an RfC for every edit. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE - your comments don't seem productive to me, because you keep repeating issues that I am aware of and have already addressed (more then once) Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

These regular accusations about my conduct aren't helpful. I'm willing to discuss them on my user talk, but on article talk you should try to focus on content. By "conceptually separate things" I meant that Blackwater and Prince are separate subjects (one is a person, the other is a company) and merit separate articles. I would support removing the Blackwater employees' criminal convictions as out of scope. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Abtan - this should meet your personal requirements for inclusion on this page. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar with Abtan. It wasn't an employee suit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Charitable donations

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.

---

Is the following sentence is verifiable, and should it be included in the "Charitable work" subsection of this BLP? Prince has donated to both Christian and Islamic causes, including support of a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan. The proposed sources are:

• Ciralsky, Adam. "January 2010: Adam Ciralsky on Blackwater". Vanity Fair. Retrieved August 25, 2013.
• Scahill, Jeremy (2007). Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Nation Books. pp. 79–81. ISBN 978 1 84668 652 8.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Include. The Vanity Fair source supports the orphanage claim and the book supports the Christian causes claim by listing a minimum of 6, if not more, Christian causes. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude (as nom). I could be mistaken, but to me this appears to be improper synthesis and a misreading of the sources. None of the sources expressly say that Erik Prince donated any money to any Christian or Islamic causes. The second source talks about donations by family members, but only says that he personally donated to the Council for National Policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are improperly reading the second source and have said you don't have access to it. How are you able to simply declare that pages you haven't read say something that contradicts what I have read and quoted? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Though I don't support the content as currently written, I now support some mention of the Christian causes Prince has donated to alongside his donations to CNP. I also maintain my position that the "Muslim causes" bit isn't verifiable. Essentially I agree with FyddleStix's position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the concession (and it should be noted that I don't oppose removing "Muslim causes" and simply saying Muslim orphanage), Your vote is still to exclude and many of the exclude votes below cite your claim as the reason for their vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. Per Dr. Fleischman. We need clear citations that prove he made any donations to a charitable organization/s. El_C 21:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• We HAVE the sources in the article. The book specifies places he has donated to. Why is that source now sufficient? The VF article denotes an orphanage. Do you dispute that either source is a RS? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. Per Dr. Fleischman. Yvarta (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude for reasons given by others, there is no RS saying that he gave money to any orphanage. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• VF clearly says he supported the orphanage. BTW, since we're going to play the semantics game (it doesn't say "money"), when did philanthropy get limited to cash? If I donate a car to a local non-profit so they can deliver food, that is philanthropy as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude as written - the Vanity Fair Source says that he supports a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan, not "muslim causes." The second source says that he donated to "extremist, fringe Catholic organizations" (p. 79) and the CNP (p. 80, which also quotes a NYT description of the CNP as a "little-known club for a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country"). That's what we should be saying - not that he supports "Christian causes." Way too nebulous and very misleading given what the source actually says. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I already said it could be reworded to not say Muslim causes and simply show the Muslim orphanage. Also listed at least 6 other charities, enumerating specific amounts for 2 of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the "extremist, fringe" bit is pretty clearly where the emphasis lies in that paragraph (and in that source's discussion of Prince in general). If you want to enumerate the churches he donates to in the body of the article, fine - but the source does not support what you want to add to the first sentence in my opinion - not without an awful lot of reading-what-you-want-to-see in. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Enumerating smaller donations then looks like trying to pad it. It's more encyclopedic to simply say "causes". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude per above FIddlestyx and Dr. L3X1 (distant write) 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Because reliable sources are meaningless. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude as written because "Muslim causes" is not supported by the source. First, a contribution to one discrete group is "a cause" (singular), not "causes" (plural). More importantly, it doesn't directly match up to the sole source cited (the Vanity Fair article). If one donates to a Catholic school, that makes him a supporter of education, not necessarily a supporter of "Catholic causes" unless it's in the broader context of support for the Church; likewise, if one donates to a Muslim orphanage makes one a supporter of orphans (or a humanitarian, I suppose), not necessarily a support of "Muslim causess"). A more specific sentence would be far superior, for example: "Prince has donated to various Christian organizations, including Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship and the Christian Freedom International. He has contributed at least $200,000 to the Acton Institute. He has also financially supported a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan" (add appropriate cites). Neutrality^talk 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, the part about "Muslim causes" has been addressed. We simply remove those two words. Why exclude the rest, which is supported by RS's, because of 2 words that we've already agreed can go? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude per above (mainly Fiddlestyx and Dr). –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Include He's a philanthropist along with his mother. Supported in multiple sources. --DHeyward (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude The wording is too broad, and I would be wary because it is a bio of a living person to make sure the information is accurate and precise. Seraphim System (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. The above observation 'the Vanity Fair source says that he supports a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan, not "muslim causes"' is correct. Even aside from this, there's a WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy problem with trying to "peg" every article subject who has ever supported something with some Muslim connection, as an obvious "dirt-naming" gambit in an increasingly anti-Islamic West. See also WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:FANATIC, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Islamic causes (plural)? El_C 20:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Causes, Christian and Muslim. More than one cause, not necessarily plural of each religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned it implies he donated to Islamic causes (plural), when all he did was make that one aforementioned donation. El_C 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's semantics. Suggest a different wording instead of removing something that is properly sourced. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's verifiable that he donated any money to any Muslim cause. All the sources say is that he "supported" a Muslim orphanage. That could mean anything. Maybe he promoted it or engaged in some fundraising activities but didn't donate any money himself. Who knows. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, what a leap. The context is obvious. You're engaging in a lot of "maybe". Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggest then that we qualify that accordingly, or outright remove mention to it. El_C 21:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• As I said above, since we're going to play the semantics game (it doesn't say "money"), when did philanthropy get limited to cash? If I donate a car to a local non-profit so they can deliver food, that is philanthropy as well.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest removing it, since we don't know what it means. At a minimum it doesn't seem to belong in a subsection titled "Charitable activities." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

RfC: Philanthropist

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.

---

Should we call Erik Prince (best known as the founder of Blackwater USA) a philanthropist in the first sentence of his biography? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Include. Reliable sources confirm that he has personally supported numerous causes, use the term "philanthropy" and he also happens to be an administrator for at least one notable philanthropic org. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. Charitable work notwithstanding, does not seem to primarily be notable as one. El_C 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude (as nom). One or two donations does not a philanthropist make, and this does not appear to be anywhere close to important enough to make it into the first sentence of Prince's biography. Extremely undue emphasis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include. The individual donations aren't interesting, but he is VP of Prince Foundation, and having an official position in a philanthropic organization (which his family founded) makes one as much a philanthropist as I can think of. However, if none of his private money is funneled into the organization, I would say his occasional donations to orphanages don't earn him the Philanthropist title. Just saying "he has donated to charities" would suffice if that was all we had to cover, instead of treating philanthropy as one of his full-time positions. Yvarta (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Yvarta, I don't understand. I don't believe it's verifiable that any of his private money is funneled into the organization (it probably comes from his parents, since it was his parents' foundation), and if philanthropy isn't one of his full-time positions, then why are you !voting that we treat it as such? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

But did we verify even one orphanage? It's one thing to be the president or chairman of charitable foundation, but merely being a VP—I think it's a stretch to go from that to philanthropist. El_C 11:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Vanity Fair confirms his support of the orphanage. Are you disputing them as a RS? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include - Per the following sources confirming his philanthropic efforts: Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and Dark crusade: Christian Zionism and US foreign policy. Meatsgains (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Meatsgains, I think you need to check those sources more closely. The first source (which is one of the ones cited in the preceding RfC does not call Erik Prince a philanthropist and refers only to his donations to the Council for National Policy. I believe the second source, which describes "Prince" as a philanthropist, is referring to Edgar Prince, Erik's father. Edgar was undoubtedly a philanthropist and gave to a variety of Christian charities. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why do you keep saying that? It's not just wrong, but you've admitted you don't have access to page 79 where the context is given. I know you WANT it to be true, but it isn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually I do think that Dark Crusade is talking about Erik there - the sentence before says "Prince's sister married Dick Devos" (that's Betsy, Erik Prince's sister and the current sec of education). The bit about his converting to Catholicism also makes it clear that they're talking about Erik. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, thank you so much. I saw the conversion bit and didn't see anything about conversion in our article, so I thought that was evidence that it was talking about Edgar. Now I see that Erik did in fact convert. Ok, I'm sold. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. Many people give donations, many people start foundations or hold positions at their parents' foundations. But those are not sufficient reasons to label them "philanthropists". Philanthropy is not Prince's principal occupation, nor is it the cause of his notability. It appears to be something he does on the the side. If the preponderance of sources called him a "philanthropist" then we should foloow their lead. However that does not appear to be the case. Felsic2 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. Some donations to charitable causes does not qualify 'philanthropist' in the opening sentence. The description should anyway be based on 'common description', not WP editors awarding it on the basis of him having given some money. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yet a reliable source uses the word philanthropy several times. So apparently WP editors can ignore it based on..... well, not justifiable reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Most of us can write, that doesn't make us writers. It would be misleading to say we were in the first few words of a description. Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• But if a reliable source called you a writer, expanded on your writing and you administered a large writing org, then it might fit. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - Yes, one source suggests that he engages in "philanthropy" and another (which clearly references/is based on the first) calls him a "philanthropist" - but that is not enough weight for the first sentence of the lede, since he's clearly known/notable for an entirely different set of activities and interests. A sentence later on about the specific causes that he donates to would be more NPOV and more appropriate, since both of the sources that refer to philanthropy make it very clear that the kind of organizations he donates to (ie, right-wing Christian groups and the CNP) is what's significant, rather than his status as a "philanthropist" per se. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude, as nobody has presented evidence above for a claim that his philanthropy is noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude, per the WP:WEIGHT and WP:Verifiability concerns already well-addressed above. The fact that a given subject has made donations (whether incidental or not) does not immediately qualify them to be labelled a "philanthropist" for the purposes of the lead of their Wikipedia article. Were that the case, the term would appear in a significant majority of our articles on public figures. Such a term needs to have significant and central currency in the balance of reliable sources covering the topic before such a description can be considered appropriate to an encyclopedic summary of said individual--at all, let alone in the first sentence of the lead. This entire effort smacks of (presumably unintentional, but still pretty blatant) WP:SYNTHESIS; I can fairly well guarantee that Jeremy Scahill, the journalistic world's most vocal critic of military privatization, and of Blackwater in particular, has never described Erik Prince as a "philanthropist", and a review of the Vanity Fair article demonstrates that it also goes nowhere near invoking such a term. It explicitly raises the issue of the donations to the orphanage as peculiar in light of his reputation in some quarters as a “Christian supremacist”. Taking that statement and warping it into saying "Erik Prince is a philanthropist", in Wikipedia's own voice no less, is a violation of multiple policies concerned with avoiding WP:original research and maintaining WP:neutral point of view. This information may very well be worthy of discussion somewhere in the article, but with more context, attribution, and preservation of the original sentiment. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability? Are you one of those editors that incorrectly believes that if he can't read it on the internet in a single click, it must not be there? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting inquiry. Are you one of those editors who must needlessly personalize content discussions with snide remarks suggesting shoddy editorial process on the part of other contributors? Please keep your comments concentrated on the content/policy issues, without direct reference to the perceived failings of your fellow editors; that is a non-negotiable precondition on your (or any editor's) involvement on this project. And you'll make a lot more headway in converting opinions, where possible, if you stick to that strategy rather than making incivil remarks like the above. That's particularly important where virtually everyone who has so far responded to a request for outside perspective disagrees with your assessment.

That said, returning to the policy issues here, please read WP:BURDEN, WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis; the party wishing to instate challenged content has the responsibility of providing sufficient sourcing to meet our standards for verifiability. Parties objecting that the claim is unverified are not expected to prove a negative, which would be a problematic way of building an encyclopedia that is based on WP:reliable sources. In any event, the root of my perspective in regard to this RfC is based in preserving WP:Neutral point of view and avoiding original research; no source presented describes this man as a philanthropist or anything like it, and we would need multiple high-quality sources to meet the WP:WEIGHT requirement to include such a description anywhere in the article, let alone in the first sentence of the lead, unattributed and in Wikipedia's own voice.

Further, I agree with others who commented here before I even responded to the bot notice for this discussion: it is clear synthesis to take the fact that he has made donations to charities and extend that into the claim that he is a "philanthropist". If that were the standard, the term could be applied to pretty much any public figure discussed in any WP:BLP anywhere on Wikipedia. You need high quality, WP:independent sources specifically describing him in such terms in order to include such description, especially as/where it is placed in the prose. If you can supply sufficient sourcing of this type, I will be happy to reconsider my opinion (as I assure you most editors on this project will). But you can't just say "You're being lazy--obviously those sources are out there!" The process doesn't work that way here. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you base your vote in part on verifiability, when there is a verifiable source, I do question your "editorial process". Further, another editor, one who opposed the inclusion, did read it and also agrees the source is talking about Erik and the editor that started the RFC has conceded that the source is about Erik ....but I'm "snide" for suggesting that you simply ignored a reliable source because you couldn't see it? You typed a lot of words, linking to policies and guidelines, yet most don't even apply. There isn't a V problem. There really isn't a SYNTH or OR issue. Your needless linking to things like BURDEN and RS to an experienced editor is, in itself, sarcastic. We have RS's that enumerate donations and talk about his philanthropy. It uses those words. You may be able to argue weight, but claiming V, SYNTH or OR makes me question how much you even understand those concepts. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by "verifiable source", but for the record, I'm not denying the existence of any source that has been referenced. I simply disagree that they support the statement which you claim they are sufficient to verify; some incidental mentions of donations and the man's name in the same article are just not sufficient to establish that sources which cover the subject broadly view him to be a philanthropist. We would need multiple, high-quality reliable sources (which directly label him as such, without the need for personal inference on the part of our editors) to support such a claim, especially placed as it was in the article. You're free to make any assumption you wish about my familiarity with the relevant policies, but as I see it, this is a borderline-WP:SNOW call, with policy issues that cut across all of the guidelines I mentioned, which is why the !votes here have been so one-sided. If you find yourself facing landslide opposition to your preferred approach across multiple RfCs connected by a common concept, it may be time to consider that there may be actual issues of bias in how the content is currently worded which all of those editors are responding to--rather than somewhat hostily responding to post after post under the assumption that they "just don't get it" or aren't doing due diligence in reviewing the issue.

All of that said, it would be really easy to convert me on this issue. I'd just need to see more substantial/direct sourcing for the claim. That's why I cited WP:BURDEN--not for sarcasm, but because your "single click" comment seemed to suggest that the onus was upon me or others !voting here to dig up sources which further support your interpretation, or to otherwise prove the negative assertion that no such sources exist. And that's not the process on this project. Many dedicated editors will in fact dig into the sources further (and indeed, despite your assumptions, I looked deeper into this issue before !voting myself, as I bet others have). But they are not required to do so, and may predicate their perspectives on the currently available sourcing. So given the current responses to this discussion (and specifically what they say about the correlation between what those sources state and what you want to state, in Wikipedia's voice) I'd suggest you have two options: try to yourself dig up additional sources which support the claim, if they exist, or propose alternative wording which addresses those concerns. Frankly, this does seem to me like a situation that could be ripe for a reasonable middle-ground solution of some sort. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and didn't presume you needed "verifiable source" explained. A "verifiable source" is a reliable source that can be verified. One of your primary objections was a lack of verifiability. There IS a reliable source and it HAS been verified. So V doesn't really apply. You are correct, this is approaching SNOW, unfortunately much of that is based on the early assertion that a RS for this doesn't exist. Most of those votes haven't come back after Dr. F conceeded that the source was actually talking about Erik and not Edgar. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you have your basic Wikipedia nomenclature and grammar a little twisted here. We don't have "verifiable sources" as a conventional term here. We have "verifiable statements" and "verifying sources". WP:V is about whether the source itself can be verified only incidentally, and only rarely is that a question (and its not here); the policy is overwhelmingly concerned with whether or not a reliable source is actually suitable and sufficient to verify the claim. I've already said above I don't question the existence of any of these sources; like pretty much everyone else here, I just disagree with you that they can support the claim you want to make in Wikipedia's voice. Call it WP:WEIGHT or WP:V (it's both in reality, but I don't think there's any point in debating that point further), but the consensus is clearly that this statement cannot be supported by those sources. So again, I recommend finding new ones, finding a middle-ground solution, or letting go of the issue.

On an incidental matter (and I hope you won't take this personally, but...), could you please read WP:talk page guidelines and WP:THREAD, with regard to how you indent your comments in discussions before responding further on this page? Every single one of your posts in all of these discussions A) has been indented three to five levels deeper than the person you are responding to, B) uses bullets when no one else is doing that, and C) are often moved up higher in the chronology than people who responded before you, at a given level of response--all of which are against guidelines and standard practice and destroy the flow of the conversation. I know you really want your objections to the evolving consensus here to be noticed, but that's not the way to do it. Using haphazard layers of indentation seriously complicates the ability of other editors to follow the flow of the conversation (especially if they arrive late) and makes it difficult for others to respond/participate in the discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, my nomenclature and grammar aren't twisted. You simply aren't listening to what I'm actually saying. Instead, you fill responses with a lot of words and actually misapply policies and guidelines. As for your other gripe....no, "every single one" of my responses is not "five levels deeper". Yes, I use bullet points because you can actually tell where a new response begins that way. And since you're not paying attention to my actual responses, I can't see why you're concerned with the flow. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. He's not primarily known for philanthropy, and the vast majority of sources do not describe him as a "philanthropist" so this descriptor is not called for, particularly in the opening sentence. His charitable contributions, to the extent they are described in reliable sources, may be included in the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 04:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral I find it odd that editors seeking to exclude a single word based on WP:DUE when the source cites multiple events over long periods of time along with his ties to the Prince Foundation - and then turn around with a multi-sentence allegation reported in a single news-cycle story about a single meeting where only Prince has been identified. The two RfC rationales seem like a logic pretzel being eaten by dancers on the head of a pin. I don't have a strong opinion about a single word like "philanthropist" as it isn't a negative term. Using the term doesn't denigrate anyone else, either, so inclusion/exclusion isn't a problem either way. Strong feelings against using a word that is associated with virtue seems to indicate some animus toward the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as clearly promotional whitewashing. It's entirely correct that "One or two donations does not a philanthropist make", or I'm a philanthropist and so is probably everyone else here. It's not an encyclopedic claim (fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy). More to the policy point, this has an obvious WP:NPOV problem, in attempting to paint the founder of an extremely controversial and shadowy mercenary organization as do-gooder. Making some donations to try to improve your public image doesn't make you a philanthropist. Philanthropy is a philosophy and a dedication, not a PR stunt. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Are there any sources that call him that? Felsic2 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you following me to this article? Clearly there are sources, listed in the discussions above. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What is going on here? El_C 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I came here as a result of a noticeboard request. Felsic2 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I believe that is a big fat lie not entirely true. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2, I believe the closest we have is this source, which refers to Prince's "philanthropy" but doesn't describe him as a "philanthropist." You might want to read a bit of the source. It's a little odd. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone who engages in philanthropy is a philanthropist. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

George W. Bush paints portraits. Yet we don't describe him as a painter. The terms in the lead should be occupations that a) are the person's main activities b) what they are notable for. Erik Prince may spend his vacations fishing, but we wouldn't describe him as a fisherman. The lead should reflect what most sources describe him as, and it does not need to include every hobby or side business. Felsic2 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Most philanthropists are not professionals, nor is it some professional title. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This strikes me as a straw man argument. Felsic2 didn't say Prince would have to be a professional philanthropist to be described as a philanthropist in the first sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the straw man is the "if he owned a dog....." nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller eventually left active management of their businesses and became full time donors. Bill Gates has devoted significant time and effort in managing his foundation. Those men are unquestionably philanthropists. A millionaire who establishes a foundation whose donations mostly go to, say, tickets for galas, is not really a philanthropist, for example.

If Prince owns a dog, would we call him dog-owner in the intro? No, because that and his donations are along the lines of minimally notable hobbies, not his main activity or source of notability. Felsic2 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If he gave millions of dollars to dog related charities and administered a charitable foundation that supported dog owners, we might. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

RfC: Donations by Prince Foundation

There is a clear consensus against including the proposed paragraph. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2017 (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.

---

Is the following paragraph balanced?

Prince serves as vice president of the Prince Foundation, which his family founded. In 2001 the foundation donated $10 million to Calvin College, a Christian institution in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

References

If not balanced, what content should be added or removed? Below the fold are all of the reliable secondary sources I could find on the foundation's donations. Feel free to add more if you find them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

sources

Douglas-Gabriel, Danielle (January 18, 2017). "Betsy DeVos's 13-year 'clerical error'". The Washington Post. Rizga, Kristina (January 2017). "Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America's Schools to Build "God's Kingdom"". Mother Jones. Marcetic, Branko (January 19, 2017). "Betsy DeVos's Golden Age". Jacobin. Ujifusa, Andrew (January 19, 2017). "Betsy DeVos Denies Connection to Family Foundation, Despite Paper Trail". Education Week. Smith, Samuel (January 18, 2017). "Trump's Education Pick Betsy DeVos Criticized for Donating Millions to Christian Organizations". The Christian Post. Merica, Dan; Kessler, Aaron; Ganim, Sara (January 18, 2017). "Betsy DeVos' 'clerical error' dates back to nearly two decades". CNN. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Gross, Allie (June 8, 2016). "Detroit School Legislation Backed By Charter Advocates Was Years In The Making". Detroit Metro Times. "Top 50 U.S. Foundations Awarding Grants for Religion, circa 2003" (PDF). Foundation Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 11, 2013. "Top 50 U.S. Foundations Awarding Grants for Religion, circa 2002" (PDF). Foundation Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 11, 2013. Woodruff, Betsy (October 22, 2016). "Blackwater Founder Erik Prince, Who Got Rich Off Of Iraq, Now Backs 'Anti-War' Donald Trump". The Daily Beast.

Survey

• No - unless I'm missing something (and I looked through them pretty carefully), none of the refs provided even verify that Erik Prince is VP of the foundation, or connect him to that donation at all. This does not seem worthy of inclusion in an article about Erik, unless there are other, better sources for it that are not presented here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (for present time) per Fyddlestyx. I can't find any reference to Prince's purported role as VP in the supplied sources. It's worth noting here that, assuming the foundation is either a trust or a non-profit corporation under the normal legal frameworks for such organizations, there are plenty of ways to very easily deduce whether he holds this position, from public records. But utilizing those records would be a borderline use for WP:Primary sourcing for WP:Verification. It would perhaps be permissible if there was compelling reason to consider this a major part of the encyclopedic summary for the subject, but even if his position of VP were certain, it seems incidental to the discussions taking place in those sources, which barely reference the foundation and do not mention Erik Prince himself at all. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix and Snow Rise, here's a source for Erik's VP role in the Prince foundation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, alright, good enough for me. Some may still have concerns about whether there is enough weight/context of mentioning the position, but I think it probably is warranted. In either event, as to the narrower issue of having a reliable source for the fact, that source satisfies that concern for me. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I really intended the RfC to be about whether the second sentence is balanced - perhaps you'd like to comment on that? In my view, based on the reliable secondary sources this sentence is an example of non-neutral cherry-picking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Insofar as it describes the donation and its recipient? Snow ^{let's rap} 21:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, in the context of other donations and recipients mentioned in the reliable sources listed above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the first thing that occurs to me is to question whether this is relevant to an encyclopedic summary of the man. We don't usually mention the donations of foundations in the BLPs of every person who happened to be on its board of directors at the time, and it would be especially questionable to do so in this context where we have no source giving compelling evidence that the subject was instrumental in the result of a grant, or even an indication that he supported it. In fact, it seems we have no source discussing both this man and the donation, correct? We have one set of sources discussing his relationship to the foundation, and then another set discussing the foundation's relationship to the donation? Unless I missed something, that's textbook WP:SYNTHESIS, to use those sources to try to suggest some kind of relationship between him and the donation that is not explicitly discussed or even hinted at in a source. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Put me in this camp too, I think we need a source connecting Erik (not just the foundation) to those donations to mention them here. Otherwise just say that he's VP (with the new source that the Dr. provided) and wikilink the foundation. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. If he personally donated $10 million, sure, but otherwise it should be added to Prince Foundation, not his own article.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Not balanced (oppose as written). Remove Calvin College sentence. (As nom.) I don't have concerns about verifiability or improper synthesis, but I do think this is pretty blatant non-neutral cherry-picking of specific donations that make the foundation's donations seem less ideological than they actually are. Per the listed secondary sources, the Prince Foundation has most notably donated to politically conservative causes such as Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and school vouchers advocacy. We should either reflect that in our summary of the foundations' donations, or we should remove all of the donations. I'm in slightly favor of the latter because I think an in-depth review of all donations is a bit undue and duplicative of Prince Foundation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as written for the same reason as Dr. Fleischman; if we mention the Calvin College donation, we should also mention other notable beneficiaries to avoid misleading the reader into thinking that the foundation is purely non-ideological. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per DrFleishman and ZigZig20. L3X1 (distant write) 13:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per same above rationales; Prince and the Prince Foundation are not equivalent, and this article is about the former not the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended 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.