Talk:Blackwater (company)/Archive 2

NPOV
Sorry, but this article ought to be structured around the idea that there are competing claims about this company. Objective facts should be in one area and the alleged (and that fact should be emphasized) wrongdoings in another.

Also, that Knights of Malta stuff sounds like complete conspiracy theory bullshit. It would be as if the 9-11 "truthers" had gotten their crap into the 9-11 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.200.42 (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

American Police Force
Why does wikisearching "American Police Force" lead here? If Blackwater/Xe/whatever they're called has something to dowith them, it should be explained in the article. If it's not, why does that direct here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.238.67 (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Clearly Blackwater is to put it mildly a controversial company. Whatever your beliefs, to not structure this article around that controversy seems to be a violation of neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.115.60 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * does it now?219.95.99.114 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this article have a "Depictions in Media"?
I'm pretty sure the fictional company Ravenwood in the TV series "Jericho" is based off of Blackwater. There are some other fictional entities in other forms of media as well (I'm just not remembering them right now) we could list. But only a few obvious, clear or popular examples, please. Good idea? Bad idea? Please don't flame me. I won't put it in unless specifically told to, or if somebody else wants the job. It's just a thought.--FazzMunkle (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen Jericho or any of those depictions. I think it would proboly be better in the article about Private Military Comapanies. It can be hard to interperet what Ravenwood is and if it is a fictional version of Blackwater.

Also, another thing I just thought of would be the use of mercenaries in Rambo IV. This would go in the PMC section if you created a section over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is very clear (or, even better, the writers/director of the series specifically state this in an interview), I think it best to leave out mention of such references. I agree with the above comment that it might work best if added to a more general article (Private Military Companies, for example but I have not specifically checked that entry). DClearwater (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversial
I have no problem with calling Blackwater controversial but its placement in the first sentence is ridiculous. Blackwater is first and foremost a military contractor and that is all the first sentence should state. Blackwater's controversial nature would certainly be appropriate for discussion in its own section, or even maybe in the second or third sentence but as it stands now it is just going too far. To the other person who stated on this page that the only reason he or she had heard of Blackwater is because of controversy therefore it is appropriate that this be the focal point of the article I say this: If Wikipedia were to include only things you knew I have a feeling it would be a much smaller website. We read encyclopedias to obtain new facts not to see what we already know. By your logic anything you have never heard off does not even deserve a wikipedia entry. Apparently some people feel that being the single largest private military contractor to the most powerful nation on earth is not in itself notable. It is obvious that people are letting their own personal feelings on the Iraq War interfere with the integrity of the article. Bottom line: it's gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultron1980 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say that the article is balanced, although it does seem to reflect the majority of press coverage I've seen of the topic, but to answer your very specific complaint about the first sentence:
 * Nearly 2/3rds of the article is spent describing controversies, legal dillemas, and other major crises surrounding company. Our manual of style calls for the introduction or "LEAD" to be an accurate summary of the article that follows. As such, it seems perfectly reasonable to have one negative word in the first sentence, given the make-up of the article that follows. MrZaius  talk  09:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that 2/3rds is used to describe controversies is not a reason to do so in the lead as well, it only shows that this article unbalanced and non-neutral. This page shouldn't just deal with controversies, controversies need only be discussed in its own section, and when too big on its own page. Grey Fox (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What percentage of coverage in reliable sources relates to controversies and issues involving Blackwater, rather than the company's day-to-day operations? Again, the answer is "high". This reflects neither a bias in news reporting nor a bias in the WP article--rather, it reflects a bias in what is "news" in the first place (status quo ≠ "news").
 * While many encyclopedia topics may achieve the holy grail of the balance that comes from the passage of time, as might be found in, say, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, it is not reasonable to expect articles on topics that change by day to be free from a bias towards current events&mdash;nor would the absence of current information serve readers. Bongo  matic  00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But then again, WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If this page should ever become balanced and neutral, we should take examples of other articles about blackwater from high-quality publishers. That would fix any undue weight. Grey Fox (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people who turn to this encycloædia for info on Blackwater would do so because of the controversies that surround it. In that respect the article is fulfilling its job just fine. But anyway, all the info that's available on Blackwater pertains to those controversies and/or is classified. What do you feel is missing? I could be wrong but I sense that you have an opinion, so what is it? Do you regret that there isn't more feelgood PR material? Niczar ⏎ 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "controversial" adjective in the first sentence was a bit jarring to me, given the context. Of course, it would be ludicrous not to address controversy in the intro, but it should be left out of the opening sentence, which is normally a definition of the subject. This way, it almost comes across as if "controversial" is the company's nature, a part of what Blackwater/Xe inherently is. GregorB (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.26.162 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (Feb 2009)
No consensus for new name. Reversing unilateral move from Blackwater Worldwide. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I recommend leaving the situation as is until the facts are clarified. Another company (a currency exchange) has the website http://www.xe.com and the www.blackwaterusa.com website doesn't redirect anywhere either - which makes me wonder just how 'effective immediately' this really is. IF the new name is official, I'd prefer to see the current Xe article be renamed Xe (disambiguation) and then use Xe for the Blackwater material (without '(company)' being part of the title), and having the usual pointer to the disambiguation page. (Perhaps Blackwater is hoping everyone in the world will check out the currency exchange's website, overloading their bandwidth, so they'll sell the url cheaply. Just a thought....) Flatterworld (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT If Blackwater is really becoming Xe, then I support such a move --RaggieSoft (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose using Xe since clearly this means Xenon in most contexts in English. Xe (company) would be acceptable. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? This is an encyclopedia and you want to move this company to Xe when there is a chemical element e^e^e... more important than a crappy company that just switched will switch their name????? Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The AP article states:
 * Blackwater said Friday it will no longer operate under the name that came to be known worldwide as a caustic moniker for private security, dropping the tarnished brand for a disarming and simple identity: Xe, which is pronounced like the letter "z."
 * It is not ripe to discuss a name change until there is more information. First, the move should not occur until the name change occurs. Second, it is unclear what the scope of the name change is&mdash;does "no longer operating" under the Blackwater name mean that the company is changing its name, or simply that it's rebranding some or all of its activities? Bongo  matic  06:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG OPPOSE If the company survives under the name for some years and somebody can show me that most of the people going for Xe want to end up at Blackwater we can move it.--Stone (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Xe is a disambiguation page and would have to be moved to Xe (disambiguation). I doubt that this article is that much more important than other Xe entries, in particular the element abbreviation for xenon. Cacycle (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose the name is the name it will be historically known by, which is the name it had during the last several years. I am not surprised they want to change it, but I would not change the article unless people stop calling them by the name the whole world is familiar with, and I doubt people ever will. At some point, we may want to have two articles. DGG (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - It seems ludicrous to write off the potential for the company to pull off the name change or to jump the gun and talk about historical judgments far down the road. It seems more appropriate that this page reflect the current naming of the otherwise largely unchanged enterprise. (I do not yet see grounds for splitting the article into two Xe and Blackwater articles, although that would definitely be good writing and boost readability if the organization were to dramatically change after dropping their old name). It seems an inappropriate breach of WP:OR to insist that our own predictions about future histories and press coverage outweigh the organization's official name change, when we're discussing something as basic and fundamental as the name of the article. That said, it is far more important that the old name is given heavy weight in the article and nearly exclusively used when discussing actions taken under that name. This should extend to other articles, as well. For instance, while I cannot in good faith oppose the previously completed move of this article on anything more than procedural grounds, I would full-heartedly and vociferously oppose a move of Blackwater Baghdad shootings, etc.  MrZaius  talk  18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (Struck support for move proposed at head of section: My response was based on an antiquated proposed move template and the comments above that seem to suggest a move back to Blackwater Worldwide. I do not now, nor have I ever, seen a strong rationale for moving this over the disambiguation page. The few extant links seen in the WhatLinksHere list for the disambiguation page seem to be fairly widespread, and none point here. This seems to imply that retaining the current naming should be preferred over moving this page or anything else to Xe, and that editors seem to be able to manage typing in the extra 10 characters to get add the (company) label in place.  MrZaius  talk  15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Support - I support leaving the Xe/Blackwater page as is because there will undoubtedly be people visiting Wikipedia to check on this change as the story circulates.  However, we should be careful until more information is made available, especially from the company itself.  It is not surprising that a controversy-ridden company like Blackwater/Xe would announce such a change just before a weekend starts.  And I very much disagree that the change should only be made after a few years (as Stone argues above).  Also, it does not matter if many (or a majority of) people might still refer to the company as Blackwater.  As a reference work, Wikipedia needs to be accurate informationally.  In fact, I would prefer to see the entry titled "Xe (company, formerly Blackwater Worldwide)" as that would be very clear.  I am not sure the Xe entry needs the disambiguation addition since Xe (or XE) clearly refers to all those listed and users can quickly find what they are looking for.  It also does not matter which entry (i.e. the chemical element) is most important or the most popular.  Again, this is a reference work and all instances need to be made clear and so the entry for 'Xe' needs to be clear as to all instances of use (be it natural, business, or cultural).  DClearwater (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The primary topic for Xe at the time of writing is the chemical element. Maybe the company will be known more widely than the element in the future, maybe not; that is not our business. As soon as someone shows evidence that people looking for Xe more often want to end up at the company's page, I will support the move. At the time of writing, this is not the case. And wp is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should not try to anticipate the future popularity of companiesJasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Is there information on what Xe means? It looks faintly Chinese... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there controvery with the External Links?
Can anyone clarify why there is a controversy over the external links? I checked with the link to "What Wikipedia is not" and it 'merely' says the following:

Wikipedia articles are not:

''1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.''

I do not think that the list of external links detract from the purpose of the article and they surely are not excessive.

Thanks. DClearwater (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange move closure
Why was this page moved back without discussing moving it back? The two previous proposed moves were a mangled up mess, with at least three different things being discussed, and none of them in a sane coherent manner. Moving it back unilaterally without a clear discussion of just that (as it surely seems controversial) was a strange decision. Possibly not the wrong one, but a strange one all the same. MrZaius talk  02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The move to "Xe (Company)" was performed during an open request to move the page, which shouldn't have happened (and it makes things more confusing, as you pointed out). The move back wasn't unilateral, but rather, reverted things back to the status quo after a move that was unilateral. That's my reading of what happened. Dekimasu よ! 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Xe is only one of 3 new names for Blackwater.
Two other innocuous-sounding names were reported in the Wall Street Journal (probly 2/13 or 2/16) for other corporate units. Curiously, these details don't appear on the internet. So that means there are 2 other former Blackwater sub-corporations (?) that you might not recognize if you read about them in the news. 24.10.62.11 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Move Completed
Evidence of Xe as the final name: the bottom of http://www.blackwaterusa.com/ says "An Xe company" which confirms that the final name is now Xe.

With this in mind, the move has been completed. No consensus/further discussion is needed as there is no dispute.

71.163.59.115 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that there is a consensus for the opposite course of action. Reverted. Bongo  matic  06:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that just because there's a consensus about something wrong, it's fine to keep the wrong in place? The company's name has changed to Xe; keeping it at Blackwater makes this page inaccurate. It doesn't matter what consensus says, the Blackwater USA page clearly indicates that the name has indeed been changed to Xe. Reverted again. 71.163.59.115 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back per consensus discussion and semiprotected the Xe(company) page to prevent disruption for 3 days. Gain consensus for any page moves please. R. Baley (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

License data
Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq was revoked by the Iraqi Government on September 17, 2007... The license was reinstated by the American government in April 2007 - I presume one of these dates is wrong? --GenericBob (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, Blackwater's contract was reinstated on February 2, 2009. It also appears that Iraq didn't revoke it until January 2009. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/17/new-deal-for-blackwater-bucks-decision-by-iraq/ LeftyAce (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Baghdad Shootout
This seems significant:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI scientists were unable to match bullets from a deadly 2007 Baghdad shooting to guns carried by Blackwater Worldwide security guards, according to laboratory reports that leave open the possibility that insurgents also fired in the crowded intersection.".

CENSEI (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?
No move&mdash;keep the article at Blackwater Worldwide Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blackwater Worldwide →  — The company changed its name some time ago from Blackwater to Xe. The article used to exist at Xe (company), but someone moved it back to Blackwater Worldwide, and the redirect has been monkeyed with, preventing a reversion of the move. The Blackwater Worldwide article title no longer reflects the article content nor present reality. Even the Blackwater disambiguation page uses Xe (company), not Blackwater Worldwide. There's been some confused debate on the talk page, but the naming conventions really are pretty clear on this sort of thing. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This was discussed on the talk page and the consensus was to keep at Blackwater Worldwide. That may have changed, but this is the 2nd time it has been moved over/without consensus.  Though consensus may have changed, please move it back until that has been achieved.  Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A name change is a problem because worldwide they are not notable as XE. If not for the controversies a move would not be much of a problem but as these exist and are extensive a name change, despite redirects, would effectively "hide" the company due to the implication to readers they are not the same company. Wayne (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. This is still a fairly obscure name, and WP:MOSTRADE suggests it should not be used against common usage. It would also help to add the name change to the body of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I got the impression that in mid February 2009 there was a concensus for name Blackwater Worldwide, but that later there was a movement towards name Xe (company). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion

 * This page is now (temporarily?) back at Blackwater Worldwide. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Keep at "Blackwater Worldwide". New articles refer to the Xe name, but only after referring to Blackwater. When this changes, it may be time to revisit. See this AP article or this UPI one or this New York Times one that doesn't even mention the name "Xe" until the sixth paragraph, after five mentions of the word "Blackwater". Bongo  matic  22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as above. It is likely that if the company doesn't fold, this will change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think they will ever do anything (hopefully) again that will attract as much publicity as they are running away from by changing their name. They will always be known as Blackwater, just as the Exxon Valdez will always be known as that even though they also quickly changed the name to escape from the negative publicity. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Bongo. Wayne (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Xe (company) because that's its name. Naming conventions (companies) doesn't say we should make exceptions for companies which some may harbor a grudge. For those who do, the former name is noted in the first line of the header.  This article isn't only for them.  We have to take this stuff seriously. -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, Naming conventions (companies) is totally silent on what name should be used&mdash;it is solely a guideline relating to punctuation and inclusion or non-inclusion of legal status. It most certainly does not attempt to state that a company's legal name is the appropriate article title regardless of what people refer to it as. For me, this has nothing to do with grudges&mdash;it's simply a question of putting the article where the (in this case, vast) majority of people will look for it (and having the main article titled accordingly). Bongo  matic  06:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

24 (TV series)
Is Blackwater the model for Starkwood on the TV series 24? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.60.38 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Move protected
To avoid accidental (I think) but disruptive page moves, I've move-protected the page at Blackwater Worldwide based on the discussions held thus far. I don't think I've edited the article, but I have voiced an opinion on keeping the title the same so. . . any administrator who thinks the protection is inappropriate should feel free to un-do it. I request that the page not be moved by anyone however, unless a new consensus is reached on a name. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Name
Would Xe (Formerly Blackwater) be a good compromise name? Other pages of entities with a new name but are known by old names are at the new name, such as Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation which used to be the School of the Americas. --Conor Fallon (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is a "compromise" necessary? There's a redirect and the article has the name most commonly associated with the company (last I checked). As people seemed to agree above, if the company starts being referred to as Xe more commonly, the page should simply be renamed (with the redirect the other way). Bongo  matic  00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is necessary because Xe is the name it is registered under and the name it goes by. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other editors disagreed after ample opportunity to discuss (twice) recently. Bongo  matic  15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If editors wanted to say the sky was red and grass was hot pink would that go in an article? Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but it does (as a matter of WP:POLICY run by WP:Consensus. Bongo  matic  01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to what I said, this is a different name than both, if you said Xe (Formerly Blackwater) everybody would know what you were talking about, with Xe (Company) they might not, and Blackwater Worldwide is an incorrect name. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is Blackwater Worldwide an incorrect name, but formerly Blackwater is okay? Before the company changed names to Xe, it was Blackwater Worldwide (and before that, it was Blackwater USA). But, people still know the company as Blackwater, not as Xe. Maybe once the name catches on a name change will be appropriate, but not yet. Chocolateluvr88 (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The corporation is legally Xe, it was formerly Blackwater Worldwide, and before that Blackwater USA, so the title Blackwater Worldwide is inaccurate, and it should be titles with Xe in the name, and Blackwater should be mentioned in the article. Blackwater Worldwide should redirect to it. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Through the same link you posted: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This disagreement has been resolved through consensus-based discussion- previous discussions showed a consensus that Blackwater Worldwide is a good title for now. Your opinion as one dissenter is not more valuable than the many people who agree with the Blackwater Worldwide title. Chocolateluvr88 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackwater Worldwide is not the most common name
Was Blackwater Worldwide ever the most common name? Searching Google finds 151,000 for "Blackwater USA", 69,000 for "Blackwater Worldwide" and 110,000 for blackwater xe. Google news is even more telling: 11 results in the past month for "Blackwater Worldwide", 9 for "Blackwater USA" and 141 for blackwater xe. You can also search the Google News Timeline, which will show you that "Blackwater Worldwide" never caught on. More stories said "Blackwater USA", even after they changed their name.

The company was controversial long before they changed to Blackwater Worldwide in 2007, so why is that the preferred name? Most likely, the most common name is simply "Blackwater", as stated in the article. By the the logic of WP:COMMONNAMES, the title should be Blackwater (company). No matter which way you slice it, "Blackwater Worldwide" is not the most common name.

But even then, how long do we wait typically before renaming the page for a company that changes its name? Are you overdoing it to insist that WP title the article by an old name that was never in common usage, when the article talks about a company named Xe? Michael Belisle (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, article name is confusing when it says Blackwater Worldwide and talks about Xe, a redirect from Blackwater USA, and Blackwater Worldwide to something with Xe in it would be the best solution. --Conor Fallon (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the consensus generated in the discussions above is inconsistent with the article being renamed Blackwater (company). It is, however, obviously inconsistent with the article being renamed something with "Xe" in it. Google hits is not a great way to determine what the company is commonly referred to, however. Rather, a survey of (recent) articles on the topic in news sources of record is the way to go. As mentioned by several, if the name Xe gets traction in the mainstream press as the primary (rather than also-mentioned) appellation of the company, than changing the base name of the article would be appropriate. Bongo  matic  12:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on these comments, I went ahead and moved it to Blackwater_(company). OK, it's still move-protected. I requested the move. OK, see below for the move request.


 * WP:GOOGLETEST is fairly established, although of course not infallible. How else do you do a survey of usage in recent news articles except by searching news search engines, e.g. Google News as I referenced above? Michael Belisle (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A NYTimes specific search of "Xe" shows the first 5 articles as primarily about "Blackwater". Also there is this NYTimes quote from August 29th, "In February, Blackwater announced that it was abandoning the brand name that has been tarnished by its work in Iraq, choosing Xe (pronounced zee) as the new name for its family of two dozen businesses. Most people in and outside of the company still use Blackwater."link Yet, they have an entire news section devoted to "Blackwater Worldwide". -  - Steve3849 talk 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Structure
In conjunction with the name change away from Blackwater, the company appears to have significantly restructured. This section needs some updating, as it's more or less "Corporate Structure (prior to 2009 Restructuring)". Michael Belisle (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Blackwater (company)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackwater Worldwide → Blackwater (company) &mdash; As explained above, the logic of WP:COMMONNAME suggests that this article needs to be Blackwater (company). Blackwater Worldwide was never the most common name by which Blackwater was known (since they were called Blackwater USA at the time of their most controversial incidents) but merely the name they happened to have when they changed to Xe. Even though they're now called Xe, they're still most known as Blackwater, and usually referenced as both in news articles. Michael Belisle (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Xe. For every other company we rename the article when the company is renamed.  Why is this one an exception?  Does anyone expect the new name to be updated overnight in all of the accumulated internet articles?  So searching for the old company name is a misleading metric.  It is also likely that most current references use both Blackwater and Xe as does our article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that moving to Xe would reflect the discussion concerning the move of Willis Tower. While one is a company and the other a building, the reasons behind the requests are similar and the results should be consistent. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allegation of Links To Christian Right
This section is entirely taken from a prominent Islamist blog. As such it is a Copyright Violaition and must be re-written. I believe that the only alternative to rewriting this is formally ask that it be removed in Wikipedia's copy vio process.

I have added references for each change and striven mightly to remove or balance POV.

I have added the words "conspiracy theorist" to the section. That term is from the Malta Today article, not my thoughts on the matter. The article details the Catholic order's concern that this "conspiracy theory" (their term, not mine) endangers the lives of their medical and disaster relief volunteers worldwide.Capitalismojo (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And regarding the title of the section; This section only deals with the connections with Malta. No Christian Right group is mentioned. Hence the title must be changed to address that fact. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits have been reverted. The current section is much as it started. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing but conspiracy theorizing and makes Wikipedia look like the joke it has become. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

SOURCE DOCUMENT FOR COPY VIO
AMERICA AS A JIHAD STATE

Firstly, there is a European Parliament report written by Giovanni Claudio Fava, which detailed the connections between Blackwater and the Knights of Malta, a sovereign fraternity of Catholic military elites answerable directly to the Pope. The occasion for the European Parliament’s inquiry was the revelation that two Blackwater subsidiaries were involved in US special rendition flights. Fava confirmed the connection with the Knights of Malta, and indicated that Malta is one of Blackwater’s primary operational bases. Its vice-president, Cofer Black, had been the CIA officer responsible for special renditions of detainees to pro-Western regimes which employed torture as an interrogation method.

The second source is the bestselling book on Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill. Meticulously referenced, this book convinced many in the West that the leadership of Blackwater was driven by a hard-line Christian agenda deployed by, as Scahill puts it, ‘extreme religious zealots’.[13] Scahill records that its boss, former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, is himself a knight of Malta. He is also shown as a vociferous preacher on behalf of a crusading ideology for our time, his recurrent theme being ‘the rule of law under God.’ America’s role in the world is to bring God’s law to all humanity, in what Scahill terms a vision of ‘Christian supremacy’.

Scahill’s book appeared in March 2007, and became a world bestseller, following intense speculation about the shadowy global crusaders and their role in the Pentagon’s new wars against Islamists. A month later, a review appeared on a website connected to the Muslim Brotherhood leader Shaykh Yusuf al-Qardawi.[14] The review homes in on the religious ideology of the Blackwater leadership, particularly Erik Prince, the founder-chairman, a figure already known to the Arab press. Prince, the review states, is a ‘secretive, neo-crusader mega-millionaire … a major bankroller of President George Bush.’ On Scahill’s account, with his connections to right-wing Catholic groups Prince believes that Blackwater is an important vehicle for ensuring the central role of Christianity in US public policy. As he says: ‘Everybody carries guns, just like the Prophet Jeremiah rebuilding the temple in Israel – a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other.’

The explosion of interest in Blackwater’s right-wing Catholic affiliations had several consequences, most notably an instruction purporting to be from al-Qaida summoning Muslims to attack the Knights of Malta embassy in Cairo. (In the event, nobody bothered.)

On the other end of the spectrum, Jordanian MP Jamal Muhammad Abidat wrote in the Abu Dhabi newspaper Al-Bayan that the revelations about the religious motivations of the Blackwater management shed new and disturbing light on American intentions:


 * The painful saga of modern Arab-Muslim history evokes the battles fought in the Crusades of the 11th century, when the Knights of Malta began their operations as a Christian militia whose mission it was to defend the land conquered by the Crusaders. These memories return violently to mind with the discovery of links between the so-called security firms in Iraq such as Blackwater have historic links with the Knights of Malta. You cannot exaggerate it. The Order of Malta is a hidden government, or the most mysterious government in the world.
 * From  Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be at work either tonight or tomorrow on improving this section. I believe it should keep its present title because it deals with descriptions of the religious ideology of the leadership of Blackwater (which I can expand upon with other relevant sources), and not merely the alleged links to SMOM. Thanks for your input. Adlerschloß (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

hello
I am Kakuru David a Ugandan Ineed of a security job in Afagan I was in Iraq but now I am home but if there is any way I can be employed let me know. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.0.109 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Kakuru. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a job seeking board. This wikipedia article is not affiliated with the official Blackwater site. Not that a recruiter couldn't spot your request here, but you might have as much success at monster.com looking for work in securities. For others reading this post there is a recent related WP article entitled With U.S. Forces in Iraq Beginning to Leave, Need for Private Guards Grows.  - Steve3849 talk 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Clark
It seems as if all traces of Al Clark have been removed from this article, for he is mentioned only once in the introduction. Certainly as one of the founders he played a much greater role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth9200 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Still "Blackwater"
Company's new name still hasn't taken hold. From today's NYT online front page:
 * Fine and Inquiry Possible for Blackwater Successor
 * The company formerly called Blackwater Worldwide is in talks over penalties, and a senator called for an inquiry.

. . . .just in case anyone else is thinking of suggesting name change to Xe. Bongo  matic  05:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And still true in January 2010&mdash;A Wall Street Journal opinion piece uses the word "Blackwater" in the headline and six times in the body, and uses "Xe" only once, towards the end of the article. Bongo  matic  09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Every other company gets its article renamed if it officially changes its name. Even if the old name was famous. Why is Xe/Blackwater an exception? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, just maybe Because blackwater/xe/whatever floats your boat is, in itself a huge cluster**** (i censored it myself.) of exceptions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.200.90 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Changed from XE to U.S. Training Center
Can someone please update the page to reflect the name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.51.24 (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Submarine(s)?
Does Xe operate submarine(s)? I read this in an intelligence/conspiracy source which is inadmissible as a reference for such information, but I wondered if anyone else can shed som light on this assertion. __meco (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Paravant
Ex-Xe contractor files appeal on bond ruling (Tim McGlone, The Virginian-Pilot, January 14, 2010) states: "Drotleff was employed by the security firm Paravant - a subsidiary of Xe, the Moyock, N.C.-based company once called Blackwater - in May when, according to prosecutors, he and other security workers were involved in a traffic accident with the civilians in Kabul." Please include some reference to Paravant in the article - I don't know where it would belong. Flatterworld (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

According to (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/02-2) "Same Blackwater, Different Names" they have many different names to avoid bad publicity and corporate responsibility (20 including: Xe Services, Paravant, XPG, Greystone, Raven, Constellation, US Training Center, GSD Manufacturing, Presidential Airlines, Select PTC). Just keep to the one name. Kwenchin (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Airways
The lawsuit involving Presidential Airways is covered extensively in this article, yet barely mentioned in the article Presidential Airways. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the 3-4 sentence summary at Presidential here and the extensive coverage from here moved to the presidential network, leaving the existing hatnote in place? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paravant
Shouldn't paravant be listed in this article?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/02/paravant-raytheon-blackwater-levin-mccaskill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.251.183 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased Comparison in Ongoing controversies section
In the third paragraph of the Ongoing controversies section, President Barack Obama's power is compared to Blackwater executive's power, which to me, seems irrelevant and biased. This should be changed immediately. Sam H 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a totally irrelevant and biased non-sequitir so I omitted it. The sentence that preceded the irrelevant passage however should probably be sourced directly to a passage from Scahill's articles or book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.216.166 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Black Water North - Mt Carroll, IL +UPDATE+
80-acre (30 ha) facility 150 miles (240 km) west of Chicago in Mount Carroll, Illinois to be called Blackwater North. This facility is also known as "The Site".

This location/facility is no longer owned by Blackwater/Blackwater worldwide/Xe. The facility is now owned by: North American Weapons and Tactical Training Center and operated by Impact Training Group.

This above information was provided by: Eric Davis President Director of Training and Operations Impact Training Group

and his personal post(username:almercha) regarding the above infromation can be at this forum post:

Diver (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

USTC Holdings
Text currently reads:
 * "The company was purchased on December 17, 2010 by USTC Holdings, an investment group. Erik Prince will no longer have an equity stake in or involvement in the management or operation of Xe.[18]"

(The link to [18] is broken, by the way.)

Yet on their own press release USTC Holdings, LLC, indicates that:
 * "USTC Holdings, LLC is an investment holding company led by Forté Capital Advisors and Manhattan Partners formed for the sole purpose of facilitating the acquisition of Xe and its core operating subsidiaries."

And other reports indicate Erik Prince continues to retain a financial interest in the company.

So at a minimum it appears that it should be clarified that USTC Holdings, LLC was "formed for the sole purpose of facilitating the acquisition of Xe and its core operating subsidiaries," and the sentence about Erik Prince no longer having a stake with the company should be removed.--KZyGfthAK1bp (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)