Talk:Nisour Square massacre

Language
The following sentence in section 1 is worded oddly: "US Military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault in the incident." The sentence is vague and does not state its purposed meaning clearly: that Blackwater was found guilty to using excessive force and killing civilians. Language is a powerful tool with which meaning can be understated or overstated. Just read Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics of the English Language". I am changing it to "US military reports confirm the Iraqi government's claim that Blackwater was guilty of using excessive force and opening fire without provocation."

If you have contrary suggestions or improvements, I'll be glad to see it changed to something even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.218.179 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New Info
THere is new info here. I don't have time to change this article now, if someone else wants to do it. Tmaull 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigations
I hope someone will update the article to include information found by the US Army Investigation shortly after the event. US soldiers: Blackwater attacked fleeing Iraqi civilians 'American troops investigating the deadly Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad found no evidence that security contractors were fired upon.' By Arthur Bright Blackwater Guards Fired at Fleeing Cars, Soldiers Say 'First U.S. Troops on Scene Found No Evidence of Shooting by Iraqis; Incident Called Criminal' By Sudarsan Raghavan and Josh White Blackwater: From the Nisour Square Massacre to the Future of the Mercenary Industry

12.156.61.100 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Split
This article was the result of a split from a huge section in Blackwater USA, created to maintain a readable parent article/avoid undue weight issues/avoid this section completely swallowing up the rest. Could use a fair bit of cleanup to provide adequate context, cleaner section titles, etc. Could also use a run through to make sure that no links left out initially due to being redundant need to be restored/placed here. MrZaius talk  12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC) ''PS: Name loosely based on the section name from Blackwater USA. Please Be bold and move if a more appropriate name presents itself/has been adopted by the popular press.''

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)


 * It makes me happy to know something I helped edit made it there. No vandals yet though.. --Nosfartu 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sound bomb?
To my ears, this is a weasel-word for "stun grenade". mdf 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah. it was the same wording as the NYT though Tmaull 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That the NYT used weasel words is irrelevant to our own behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.78.11 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Errors
A lot of info on this page is out of date. There was no infant in the car, it was the woman's son. The evacuated diplomats were not in the convoy at the time of the shooting. The Blackwater shooters were part of a Quick Reaction Force that had been called by the Blackwater PSD in response to the VBIED which exploded near the meeting point with USAID. There are refs for all that, but I don't have the time to devote right now. Tmaull 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Immunity?
This article implies, but does not state, that the non-Iraqis working for Blackwater are immune to prosecution (otherwise why would the new bill described be necessary?).

If this is the case, how did this state of affairs come about? Shouldn't this be described in the article? Democracy Now! has on occasion reported that this is because contractors in Iraq were given immunity during the Bremner administration? If this so? On what legal grounds did Bremner, or the US government, have the right to exempt a contractor for actions that would otherwise be crimes? Does the Iraqi government not have the legal and sovereign right to investigate and prosecute crimes against its citizens, on its territory, irrespective of the identity of the accused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.126.102 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "NYTBW-103" :
 * From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths - New York Times
 * From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths - New York Times

bias
Regardless of how anyone feels about it, the incident is subject to an ongoing investigation. You'd never know that from the article, which, even in the introduction section leads one to believe that the case is closed and Blackwater is a murderous, terrorist organization. This article reeks of POV and should either be rewritten or deleted. -66.41.64.73 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to jump in, if someone bites you for it, just report them. If undeserving of said bite that is :-) Nar Matteru (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You would like an article detailing the story of a corporation contracted and paid with the taxpayer money, whose employees (on multiple occasions) are accused by several eyewitnesses of intentionally killing innocent civilians without reason - to be deleted? Talk about POV. A mercenary agency such as Blackwater should be gracious everyone here at Wikipedia is forbidden from original research, otherwise we would have labeled their company as a paramilitary terrorist force long ago. F33bs (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is way biased. I mean one of the the things it links to is the state-sponsored newspaper of Iran, which would have every incentive to distort the involvement of Blackwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Love those who can't help themselves about licking mercenary war criminal boots. 91.242.152.178 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

State Dept. procedure same as police dept procedure?
Moved from mainspace: " Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate. " Is the State Dept. just a police dept? Or does more authority come w/ more responsibility? Even if the statement could be verified, is it not SYNTH to apply it to this occurrence? 24.5.21.150 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Incident section changes
I just wanted to talk about some changes I made to the Incident section of this article. First, I changed part of the third sentence in the fourth paragraph (in my edit note, I said it was the third paragraph, but I just realized it was actually the fourth). That paragraph initially refers to a State department report mentioned in the Reference section. The third sentence, however, provides quotes not found in that report, even though the sentence originally began "According to the report..." as if those quotes were indeed from the same report. In the Time magazine article that sentence refers to, the writers of that article talk about those quotes coming from "an incident report prepared by the U.S. government" that Time had "obtained".

I also edited part of an update posted by the editor Gretakirsten where I got rid of what I thought was a superfluous clarification of Democracy Now's site address and added the link to their Wikipedia page so that readers can go there to see information or visit their site themselves. I also removed what I saw as unnecessary descriptions of the Blackwater's Youngest Victim report and moved it's hyperlink to the "exclusive interview" text so that readers could merely click on that link and see more information about it. I will also add this report to the list of links at the bottom or the article. If anyone has any objections to these changes, please let me know. --Enderandpeter (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording in lead
The wording in the lead was recently changed by another editor from saying "Blackwater military contractors shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians" to "Blackwater military contractors were engaged in a shootout that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians", with the reasoning given that it is more "accurate and neutral". New user, Kai9045, reverted it initially with no reason, then when I put it back in (saying it seems more neutral), Kai9045 reverted it again claiming that it is "not neutral at all as it is disputed that even one shot was fired at them." Based on the article and several sources, I have to disagree with Kai9045. The state department report uses the very similar language as what it was changed to, saying they "were engaged with small arms fire", and that an "estimated 8-10 persons fired from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms." I think that the word were could be taken out, because it could imply that Blackwater was fired upon first. So I propose it be changed to "Blackwater military contractors engaged in a shootout that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians..." I'll await Kai9045's response. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The current lead sentence "On September 16, 2007, Blackwater military contractors shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad." has been there for years. It is factual and neutral.
 * I am against this change. To use the language of one site can not achieve neutrality. Or how can it? Kai9045 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has not been that way for years (just months ago it said "allegedly" before 'shot and killed') and even if it had been there for years, that is not a valid argument for keeping it that way. And multiple sources contradict your claim that "it is disputed that even one shot was fired at them"; it isn't only the one source. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting while a discussion is ongoing and you have found consensus. No i am keeping it because i do not like change but because your new version is biased as explained. Blackwater guards killed at least 17 Iraqi civilian New York Times. I suggest conflict resolution in case you still insist on your new version. Kai9045 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't made a valid argument for your side yet. You first claimed that it was disputed that anyone shot at them (which if you read the article or any of the sources, you would see is false). Then you said it should stay because it's been there for years (which was incorrect and not a valid argument). Now you say it is biased but you don't say how or why it is biased. Also, this is not my new version. I wasn't the first person to change it. You reverted that person. This means there is consensus for changing it. Please explain how it is biased to say that they "engaged in a shootout that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians." It is a statement of fact that reflects the content described in the article. You need to present a better case for your opinion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not put words i my mouth i never said. "You first claimed that it was disputed that anyone shot at them" I never said that and that is not the point.
 * "Then you said it should stay because it's been there for years" I neither said that.
 * There is no consensus and i am going to invite RichardMills65 to this discussion and will start conflict resolution if you still insist on that version.
 * It is biased as it is verified in RS that the 17 civilians were shot and killed by Blackwater guards. I have given you the source. (not an opinion) . You are repeating the single sided claims of one of the involved parties what is surely not neutral. Kai9045 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is that they were in a firefight. The state department report(not disputed) says the same. Seems you agree per the comment above. If you applied the same to an incident in the US, if someone was shot and killed, you would want to know if they were robbed, murdered, etc, or if they were engaged in a mutual gun battle with another person. It makes a difference and the circumstance should be included in the lead. Adding that they were in a firefight at the time does not diminish the outcome(nor is anyone trying to remove those facts)--RichardMills65 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is the point I've been trying to make. In my first edit on the subject I stated that both versions are accurate, but the new version is more neutral and better overall because it provides context to describe what happened. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Thank's for dropping by.
 * The point is that it is highly disputed that they were in a firefight. That is the point. Just to repeat a single sided disputed claim can not be neutral.


 * "Not one witness heard or saw any gunfire coming from Iraqis around the square."
 * Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.
 * “There was not shooting against the convoy,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government’s spokesman. “There was no fire from anyone in the square.”
 * I think it is strongly disputed that they were in a firefight so it would be misleading to claim that in the first sentence. Look at this sources and please indicate if they verify that the claim is undisputed. Kai9045 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you THINK, I have looked at your "this sources", and note that they are all from 2007. More recent reports (Even from the NYT) indicate a different version of the events. Regardless, a US state dept finding and FBI investigation hold more water than a news outlet who simply clipped quotes from an "iraqi spokesperson". --RichardMills65 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The single source that you have presented is biased. Do you have other sources? Would be nice you would present these sources. This is still disputed up to now. The Iraqi's and witnesses still dispute that shots came from the square, that has not changed and the court trial is ongoing.
 * Blackwater guards present on the scene say the shoutings were unjustified 2010
 * Prosecutors allege that they opened fire "recklessly and unjustifiably." June 2012
 * Witnesses tell a different story – including Mohammed Kinnani, who later sued Blackwater – alleging that the Americans wantonly shot unarmed civilians and were never in any danger. A Blackwater guard who witnessed the shooting later described it as "murder in cold blood". June 2012
 * Sorry but your claim that it is the truth that they came under fire is NOT verified and disputed up to now. Where are your sources? You have not posted a single neutral not involved source that verifies that they came under fire. "Regardless of what you THINK", You have to verify your claims with links to sources. Thank you. Kai9045 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You just refuse to believe anything else. I think your problem is that you have decided it was one way and won't consider any other options. You should keep an open mind. In support, here is one:

--RichardMills65 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14509748
 * Here's another, already cited source that has quotes from iraqui citizens describing a car bomb going off before the shooting: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297255,00.html

--RichardMills65 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another that shows forensic evidence that bullets from the scene were not from blackwater guns... Hmmmm i wonder where else they would have come from. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-01-blackwater-report_N.htm  --RichardMills65 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

None of us were there so it doesn't matter what we 'think'. Regarding the sentence in question, it also isn't relevant whether or not anything was "justified"; all that matters it is whether or not it was a shootout. Obviously prosecutors are going to allege that it was unjustified; that's their job. There's plenty of content regarding justification throughout the article.

If there was a shootout in which the contractors received fire (regardless of who shot first), it is misleading to only state that they "shot and killed" civilians. You, Kai9045, are claiming that the Blackwater contractors did not receive any fire during the incident, but the sources and comments you are making are focusing on whether or not their fire was justified. Here are multiple sources that state or give evidence that shots were fired at the contractors:
 * State department report: they "were engaged with small arms fire"; an "estimated 8-10 persons fired from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms."
 * CNN article: the incident is called a "street battle" and a "firefight". Shortly after saying that Condoleeza Rice called the Iraqi Prime minister to express regret, the article continues with "The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square. The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, the ministry said."
 * Time article: "According to the incident report, the skirmish occurred at 12:08 p.m. on Sunday when, "the motorcade was engaged with small arms fire from several locations" as it moved through a neighborhood of west Baghdad."
 * Associated Press news break: "FBI scientists were unable to match bullets from the square to guns carried by the Blackwater guards, even though nobody disputes that the men fired shots, and investigators found foreign cartridge cases not used by U.S. or Blackwater personnel."

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @RichardMills65


 * Your 1th source (2007) NPR does not verify that they came under fire it just verifies that Blackwater claims that. A simple claim that is not the truth and widely contradicted.
 * Your 2th source (2007) Fox NEWS "raq's prime minister Wednesday disputed Blackwater USA's version of a weekend shooting" Blackwater spokesperson claims Iraqi prime minister disputes their claims. Does not verify that they came under fire.
 * Your 3th source (2009) USA Today, "Prosecutors say the contractors launched an unprovoked attack on civilians using machine guns and grenade launchers. The guards maintain their convoy was ambushed by insurgents. The FBI lab reports, obtained by The Associated Press from someone not involved in the criminal case, allow for both possibilities. . But shootings are not uncommon in Nisoor Square and those shells could have been left behind before or after the Blackwater shooting." Does not verify they came under fire. In fact verifies that this is unclear so that it should not be presented as the truths.
 * None of your sources verify that they received fire. They verify Blackwaters disputed claims, that's all. That does not make the truth especially when this version has been disputed by the Iraqi government, Iraqi witnesses, prosecutors and Blackwater guards present on thee scene. Verified in your sources and the sources i gave you.


 * @AdventurousSquirrel
 * Your first source is a primary source. And your interpretation of this primary source is most likely false and disputed by many other secondary sources. By best original research WP:NOR.
 * Your second source CNN (just a few days after the shooting) "Blackwater said its employees acted in self-defense. The U.S. State Department said it plans to investigate what it calls a "terrible incident." Initial claim by Blackwater and the US. Has been disputed by many in the weeks, month, years after.
 * Your third source TIME, just one day after the shooting the initial report. This initial US/Blackwater version has been disputed by Blackwater guards, Iraqi witnesses, prosecutors and by the Iraqi government in the weeks, month and years after.
 * Your forth source Assosiated Press (2011) You are presenting a partial quote. Here is the rest: "Shootings in the square were not uncommon, making it unclear whether shells were from the shooting in question or from other incidents." Does not verify they came under fire.


 * It is not "it is misleading to only state that they "shot and killed" civilians." because that is verified and not disputed. Blackwater guards killed at least 17 Iraqi civilian New York Times.


 * @AdventurousSquirrel You are misquoting me the third time to a point where it becomes annoying. "You, Kai9045, are claiming that the Blackwater contractors did not receive any fire during the incident," I never said that. Please be more careful.


 * I do not know if they came under fire or not because there is no credible non involved secondary sources that verifies WP:VERIFY that. What we have verified is that Blackwater and the US in the days after the shooting claim that they received fire. Not sure what the US government position is today. We also have Blackwater Boss Prince who until now claims they received fire. One the other hand we have verified that the Iraqi government, prosecutors, Blackwater guards and Iraqi witnesses that say the attack was unprovoked. This has not changed (i gave you the sources from 2012). The dispute is ongoing and maybe we will never know.


 * Finally, your sources have not changed my position. It would be misleading to claim in the first sentence that they came under fire. The things we have verified are already in the lede (Third sentence) "The Blackwater guards said that the convoy had been ambushed and that they had fired at the attackers in defense of the convoy.


 * The sources are clear that is not even a borderline case, if you still insist on the change than i suggest conflict resolution. Kai9045 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you think I am putting words in your mouth. I want to be sure of exactly what part of the change you have an issue with; I assume it is the word "shootout" as it seems that you have been disputing that it was a shootout. Would you be okay with a change that didn't include the word shootout?  I think we could come to a compromise rather than have to seek conflict resolution. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read what i wrote? Just taking out "shootout" won't fix it. I have stated the issues clearly. I am fine with the first sentence but i am absolutely open for improvements. Please go ahead and make a new proposal for the first sentence according to issues we have discussed. Please post it here and i would be happy to see improvements. (If possible with a reason why it should change). I would also like to include the alternative name: also called Nisour Square massacre into the first sentence per MOS:LEADALT and references. Is that fine with you? Kai9045 (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion, it seems that you do not want it referred to as a shootout since it is disputed and you gave accounts that say its disputed. I don't believe it should say "shot and killed" civilians because since it has no context and it gives the impression that they shot civilians purposefully and for no reason and there are plenty of accounts that dispute that as well, saying that they were fired upon. So I propose that we change it to a version that satisfies both of those issues. This is from a former version of the page that was changed without discussion:


 * On September 16, 2007, seventeen Iraqi fatalities and twenty four injuries occurred in the Blackwater Baghdad shootings.


 * "Nisour square massacre", should absolutely not be included in the lead. It is not described that way in enough reliable sources and it was in no way a massacre. If you really want to try that, bring it up in another thread so we can focus on the issue at hand. I believe that the proposed change satisfies both sides. It doesn't imply that it was a "shootout" and it is inline with standard formatting guidelines as it has the title of the article in bold. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. What former version is that? Seems to be highly outdated. Please post a link to this version.
 * You don't want to mention that Blackwater guards shot and killed the 17 Iraqi civilians?
 * The first sentence should say "Blackwater guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians" as this is a verified fact and the subject of the article. It is the topic of the article, verified and not disputed. It is also not true that it suggest they purposely shot. Purposefully or not does not change the fact that Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. There is enough context as the third sentence says "The Blackwater guards said that the convoy had been ambushed and that they had fired at the attackers in defense of the convoy."
 * The lead in it's current form does not suggest they were killed purposefully. It does not even mention that the Iraqi government, Blackwater guards. Iraqi witnesses and prosecutes allege that they shout that. That needs to be added to the lead.
 * Our policy MOS:LEADALT says alternate names should be included. "Nisour square massacre" is a WP:V verified alternate name. It makes also no sense to discuss this in a separate thread as alternate names are part of the first sentence. Kai9045 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To say that fatalities occurred in the Blackwater shootings is a more NPOV way of saying Blackwater 'shot and killed'. They both say the same thing. The former is just more neutral way of saying it because it doesn't have the implications that I mentioned. It sounds like your goal isn't to improve the article, but rather to add your POV into the article.
 * Nisour square massacre is absolutely not a "verified alternate name" and should not be included. If you search google news for Nisour square massacre, you get 2 results, one is the article you posted and another is democracy now. Not even close to enough to say it is a common name for the incident and it is highly contentious POV. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is nothing neutral in hiding facts. It is biased. As said many times it is verified and undisputed that "Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians". Those two sentence do NOT both say the same. For the rest Kindly do not attack me and accusations of bad faith never help.
 * Links to Google searches are seldom helpful and often original research and misleading. 297.000 for "Nisour square massace" in quotes. Including: The Nation, Reuters, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, washingtonindependent, nationinstitute.org, www.unhchr.ch, NPR... i stop here because of our interaction above i suspect you still will doubt the obvious. Look the BBC explicit verifies "the so called Nisour square massacre" If The Guardian says it is called "Nisour square massace" than that is a fact WP:V and not original research. That here as well is not a borderline case so i suggest we go to conflict resolution if you still disagree.
 * NPOV is achieved by including the views of both sides. Not by leaving them out. Kai9045 (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that you just said "Links to Google searches are seldom helpful and often original research and misleading" (which is a ridiculous claim) and then immediately followed that claim with a link to a Google search that you use to back up your argument? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well i have shown that there are hundreds of thousands of Google hits for "Nisour square massace" and i have also given you other arguments. Read it again. On your side i do not see any other argument then accusing me of Bad faith why we should not include it per MOS:LEADALT. We have a source that verifies that it is the so-called Nisour Square massacre references and we have hundreds of thousands of sources that do use the name. Kai9045 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, it could be used a million times in a million blogs all over the web; that doesn't make it reliable or appropriate for this article. That is why I used Google news to search for it. You only have one decent source that uses the term. Not enough for something that contentious on a controversial topic.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would have checked for sources carefully you would have noticed that there are more that one reliable source that calls it a massacre. Anyway i will post the sources for you. According to what you just said and MOS:LEADALT we would include this alternate name anyway. Kai9045 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to the relevant discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Kai9045 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Claim "this quote is NOT in the article. clearly you need to read it."
Another editor removed this quote two times. As i have read the source the third time now i wonder he read it carefully?

Quote:Shootings are not uncommon in Nisoor Square and those shells could have been left behind before or after the Blackwater shooting."

The article (the given reference)

I take other editors comments serious so i checked it the third time. Look at the about (depending how you count) 11th paragraph. It's there. reply to this thread if you still can't find it. Kai9045 (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for pointing out that I am correct. That is not the quote in the article. You are putting it in your own wording and then putting quotes around it. I'm removing it again. I have things to do and can't sit here all night so please stop trying to add your POV into the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * False, i am not pointing that out at all. Fourth time, please do not put words in my mouth i never said.
 * It is exactly the quote from the source and i have not put it into my own words. That is false. Putting it in my own wording? As it seems to me that you are not able to communicate according to our rules. Kindly do not attack me and accusations of bad faith never help. I am going to ask for help in another forum to verify the quote. Kai9045 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, i ask for help and we figured it out. It is a actually a quote as i said but from another article. I will edit the lead accordingly tomorrow. Again my apologies. Kai9045 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * After a second thought i suggest to remove this from the lead as it takes too much room to tell both sites of the story. Only the lead is biased. If someone rejects than i will do add both sites of the story to the lead. The article text already explains the whole story here here. Kai9045 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Another editor claims that i had removed content without explanation. That is obviously false and i do urge this editor to read the talk page and edit summaries carefully. Kai9045 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have waited for more than a day without getting an reply to my explanation so i am going to fix the problem by removing the biased part for the given reason. Kai9045 (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the last thread you said "NPOV is achieved by including the views of both sides. Not by leaving them out." I agree with that statement, which is why I feel it is strange how you could remove the only paragraph in the lead that is from a secondary source that could corroborate the side of the Blackwater contractors and then say that you are removing bias in the edit summary. Every single edit you have made as an editor on Wikipedia and on this page has been to emphasize one POV, the one you hold, on this subject. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Every single edit you have made as an editor on Wikipedia and on this page has been to emphasize one POV, the one you hold, on this subject."


 * False. Once again Kindly do not attack me and accusations of bad faith never help.


 * Information for other editors: AdventurousSquirrel moved the topic to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wording_in_lead_of_Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings Kai9045 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested here in this post to fix the issue by removing the bias statement as i think it does not belong into the lead anyway. That has been rejected. Is there any objection that i add the here bolded text?

On April 1, 2011, the Associated Press reported that the FBI scientists were unable to match bullets from the square to guns carried by the Blackwater guards and investigators found foreign cartridge cases not used by U.S. or Blackwater personnel.[16] As shootings in the square were not uncommon, it is unclear whether the shells were from the shooting in question or from other incidents.

- Kai9045 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

✅ no objections so i added the text. Kai9045 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Another editor claims "no reason to have infobox for this article" I disagree. Kai9045 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been waiting for more than a day but the other editor did not engage in a discussion about the issue here on the talk page. So i re-add the info box as it is common practice and useful to have one. Kai9045 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained that here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well civilians have been attacked. 17 Iraqi civilians died. 20 Iraqi civilians have been wounded. Kai9045 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you do not see any reason not to include this box. Do you know any other infobox that could be included instead? Kai9045 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Names of the vitims
I added a box with the names of the victims to the article as it is notable information and common practice. See also Kandahar massacre, Haditha killings, Virginia tech and many other.

Another editor removes it" Claiming it would be POV. Violation of WP:NPOV to name the victims?? Unexplained and most likely false so that i re-added the box. Kai9045 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

✅. Kai9045 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to external media
I added a link to photos of the Car and the Blackwater guards as it is notable information and there seems to be no free images that we can include directly.

Another editor removes it" Claiming it would be POV.

Violation of WP:NPOV to add a link to this notable information? That is unexplained and most likely false so that i am going to re-add it. Kai9045 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been waiting for more than a day without getting a meaningful explanation and reply to this thread. So i assume that there is no violation of WP:NPOV by adding a link to this external media and re-add the link. Kai9045 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

✅. Kai9045 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

FBI says civilian attack was unprovoked
I added FBI in the lead to the list of parties that say the attack was unprovoked.

Another editor removes it" Claiming it would be POV.

Violation of WP:NPOV to add notable verified information? That is unexplained and most likely false.

I have added the source: The FBI concluded that the Blackwater guards were unprovoked when firing on the crowd Kai9045 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been waiting for more than two day without getting a meaningful explanation and reply to this thread. So i assume that there is no violation of WP:NPOV by adding this WP:V verified claim and i will re-add it. Kai9045 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

✅. Kai9045 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information
I added text to the article that has been removed:

Another editor removes it. Claiming that would not be in the source.

The source says: "The so-called Nisour Square massacre was the single bloodiest incident involving American private security contractors during the Iraq conflict."

Removed Text: The resulting casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war.

What is wrong with this interpretation? Could you please explain and help to improve the article instead of simply reverting everything? Kai9045 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is an interpretation; that's what is wrong with it. Find a source that says it is the "single highest casualty number involving American contractors during the Iraq war", and then you can include that text. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be called copyright violation. Want me to quote the original text? Kai9045 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

New lead sentence
The new lead sentence provides more information making it more accurate and conforms with wikipedia formatting better. Kai, you argue that it should say shot and killed because "all victims were shot and killed by blackwater guards" per your edit summary. This is false because there were injuries as well during the Blackwater Baghdad shootings. Again, the new lead is more informative and it is neutral and accurate. What is your objection exactly? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are acting irresponsible and you do not have any support nor good arguments for your change.
 * You are removing an important fact "that blackwater guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians".
 * Previous discussions. and  with no consensus for the change.
 * I would appreciate that you would stop edit warring. I have reverted back to the old version and suggest we now start on of conflict resolution processes that Wikipedia provides for such disputes. Kai9045 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You say I have "no good arguments for the change"? I just listed several. If anyone reads the article they will have no doubt that the guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Whether or not it is in the first sentence does not change that fact, so it is not necessary to put it in the first sentence. The new lead gives more information, is more accurate, more neutral, and looks better because it complies with Wikipedia formatting guidelines. Previous discussions held no consensus for the version that you prefer. There are in fact 2 people who are in favor of the version I changed it to and you are the only person who objects. Please answer my question as to what your objection is with the new lead sentence and how your version is necessary. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And you are the only one who want to take out the fact that Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians and i oppose that, it has been discussed with no result so that's why i suggest formal conflict resolution.
 * That Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians is a fact and it is the subject and it can not be taken away from the lead sentence WP:LEAD. Kai9045 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw you have also remove from the lead sentence that they were civilians. How come? Kai9045 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not make false accusations about me. I am in no way taking out the fact that Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. What person would read this article and not know that that is a fact? It is explained clearly throughout the article. I am only improving the lead sentence, making it more accurate, informative, and neutral. Please give an argument that proves the opposite rather than continually displaying that you don't like it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that civilians was left out. It was a mistake and I added it back in. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * the article states twice that the FBI investigation found that the guards killed at least 14 Iraqi civilians without cause. the fact that the blackwater guards killed Iraqi civilians is not being taken out of the article by this change. I don't see any POV problems with the sentence. RichardMills65 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel, 5th time please do stop misinterpreting what i said. You have taken away the fact from the lead sentence (as i said) that all 17 civilians were killed by the Blackwater guards as well you have taken away the fact that they were civilians. Removing these most important facts from the lead sentence is not an improvement. How come you do not want to mention the most important facts in the lead sentence? - that seems to be extreme POV and against WP:LEAD. @RichardMills65 please get familiar with the sources. All 17 civilians were killed by Blackwater guards. Kai9045 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I included the word civilians in the lead sentence. It is clear as day that the Blackwater guards killed the Iraqi civilians. Anyone who reads the lead will come to that conclusion. The lead sentence accurately and neutrally describes the incident; all important facts are given in the lead. So contrary to your opinion, there are no violations of wp:NPOV or wp:LEAD. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was quoting the article to point out that it was obvious that the guards killed the civilians which is why your argument doesn't make any sense. RichardMills65 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @RichardMills6 That the "FBI investigation found that the guards killed at least 14 Iraqi civilians without cause" is not the same as Blackwater guards killed all 17 Iraqi civilians what is an undisputed verified fact. @AdventurousSquirrel I read the lead again there is nothing that says all the 17 civilians were killed by Blackwater guards. That fact is not in the lead sentence anymore after you have removed it and this fact is not in the lead at all. Kai9045 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I fixed it. Now the lead includes all of the important facts. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deadliest incident
Kai is attempting to add this to the lead: "The casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war." with these sources:, neither of which make that claim.

The first uses the term "bloodiest" but that is up to interpretation and it alone is not enough to make this statement.

The second mentions "a string of incidents in Iraq during which [Blackwater's] heavily armed guards were accused of using excessive force," and then says "In the deadliest incident..." It was clearly referring to the deadliest incident out of the incidents that Blackwater was involved in. It does not say that it was the deadliest incident of the Iraq war involving PSC's.

These are not sufficient sources to say this had the single highest casualty number among PSC's during the Iraq war. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If they killed 17 civilians but 3 were justified, does that make the 3 enemy combatants?
Something that isn't clear here is if they WERE taking fire, and 3 of the killings were "justified", were those 3 "civilians"? If that is the case then why are we implying "civilian" means unarmed/innocent/no threat to the convoy? The obvious attempt to sensationalize this event to malign US security contractors really leaves this article to be a confusing read at best. Batvette (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha, please read the article and the sources, they were civilians. It is a simple undisputed fact. Kai9045 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What's not "undisputed" is why are they saying 3 deaths were "justified" if they were civilians and posed no threat to the convoy? It appears there is a third "unidentified" person who was considered a justifiable shooting? When did we justify shooting civilians? Doesn't that mean he's a combatant? Weren't all the insurgents civilians? What Army was killing about 100 US soldiers a month in Iraq? What uniform did they wear?Batvette (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just some quick answers. All victims are identified - all were civilians. Killing civilians is "justified" under certain circumstances. The US military killed hundreds of civilians at checkpoints including women and children. All "justified" to kill civilians. None of those killed by the Blackwater guards were insurgents. All were innocent civilians. - apart form the policemen who was an innocent policemen and tried to stop the car after the driver had been killed. I know the article is confusing in many section so i recommend you do read the original sources to get a better picture. Kai9045 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading more sources. Who is saying 3 deaths were "justified"? Please give me a reference. I do not think that is the case. Kai9045 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what is claimed by the FBI report per reference number 19. Batvette (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no "...may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force to be used in response to an imminent threat, the F.B.I. agents have concluded. They concluded that Blackwater guards might have perceived..." No the FBI says in the report that they found 14 killings were unjustified and the other 3 killings may or might be justified or not. Kai9045 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess there is a distinction, but let me ask you this in context of the tone of "gunning down innocent civilians" most of these stories are written with: Since those who would be attacking such convoys, or our regular military troops, are not enlisted or commissioned in any formal military organization, and don't wear uniforms, isn't it unfair to use terms like "innocent civilians"? How would anyone know the difference? An insurgent could get shot and on the way to the hospital he tosses his AK-47 and later dies. For all anyone knows we killed a civilian, right? Batvette (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but we can only put into the article what has been repeated by reliable sources. I think the article has presented the incident pretty neutrally considering the controversy that surrounded it. The guy you were talking to recently was banned from editing and he was intent on making the article into a hit piece on Blackwater, calling it a massacre. Luckily he didn't succeed. RichardMills65 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I think then you can understand why I asked that question specifically of him. Batvette (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC: List of the names of those killed
RfC: Do the names of the victims belong into this article?

A small group of POV editors most likely connected to Blackwater repeatedly deleted the names of the victims. These names are facts and belong into this article. RichardMills65 started the deletion with a claim that the source of the name is a primary. This argument is invalid as the Court document is doubtless a valid reliable source. 84Brandon (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I question the motives of an editor who continually violates the rules and policies here, using multiple accounts to try to make it seem that they have consensus for edits. You have been banned from editing twice already for sock puppetry and have only ever edited this one page in an attempt to make Blackwater look bad. Based on your past behavior, I can only conclude that that is the reason you wish to add the names of victims of this incident and you have no regard for NPOV. You had a chance at discussing and collaborating on the article, but you've lost that chance after consistently breaking the rules here and editing dishonestly. It is very obvious every time you create a new account to edit this page that you are the same sock puppet, and each time you do it, you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Please stop wasting your time and the time of editors who are trying to contribute to this project to make good quality and neutral articles. RichardMills65 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm counting correctly, this editor has already tried using three different accounts to edit this page, all of which have been banned for sock puppetry. After that he tried 2 new IP addresses, and now he just made another new account, 84Brandon. RichardMills65 (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You still have not given any valid reason for the deletion of the names of the victims. The source is reliable. You still dispute that? Is your new claim that naming the victims in an article about their killings isn't NPOV? Please do tell us how the names of the victims violate WP:NPOV. How? Please tell us how that could be possible against WP:NPOV It obviously it does not. I think my assumption that you are connected to Blackwater is right. The names of the victims are simple facts and do belong into this article. 84Brandon (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are not absolutely disqualified. They can add precious detail to our articles, but they should be used carefully. I think the names are very relevant to the article, so it would be a good idea to add them. Sometimes if we use a legal document as a primary source, lay wikipedians could get tangled up in legal language and misinterpret something (or we could miss an important piece of context, ie. treating the defence's claim as gospel even if the defendant was later convicted), but I don't see how that problem could happen here, if we're just getting the names. Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 08:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the list because it went against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and because it was an edit by a banned sockpuppet. I would fully support including a link to the names in the external links section. RichardMills65 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of the list of victims formatted in an infobox as shown at this diff . Lists per se are not in contravention of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and this list is informative of the topic of the article and presents information on the scale and significance of the incident in a readily digested form. If sock puppetry is an issue that should be pursued but that is a matter independent of whether or not the list of victims should itself be included. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with FiachraByrne; the accusations of sock-puppetry and other malfeasance can and should be pursued elsewhere, but a list of the victims on the model of Columbine High School massacre fits into the article without difficulty and is useful detail. Khazar2 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No - WP:LISTPEOPLE is the applicable guideline here, and it has two requirements: namely that there is a reliable source, and that the person is notable under WP:BIO1E. BIO1E makes it clear that in this case, we cover the event and not the person and that the person is not notable; therefore the names do not meet LISTPEOPLE and should not be included. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Blackwater Baghdad shootings is not a stand-alone list (also referred to as list articles) hence subjection WP:LISTPEOPLE part of WP:STANDALONE does not apply. 14.102.152.130 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, I should have referred to WP:NLIST. The essay Victim lists provides policy based arguments for not including this list as well. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first part of WP:NLIST is concerned about WP:STANDALONE so is not applicable. The second part is about ALMAMATER. Could you please give us an explanation how that would be relevant?
 * As you say Victim lists is an essay, not a policy. I can not find the policy based arguments that would not allow to name the victims. Please be more specific and name these policy based arguments so that we can discuss them. So far i do not see a policy violation and agree with FiachraByrne and Khazar2. 14.102.152.130 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If the source is reliable then I don't see a reason why we can't add names of victims. I agree with Khazar2 that Columbine High School massacre model is ideal. Haditha killings, Virginia Tech massacre also has list of victims. If the source is not reliable then wait or search for reliable source.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite sockpuppetry by others, list of names killed returned as per RfC resolution
Conclusion after closure:

"There is a rough consensus to include the name of the victims, as long they can be find in (at least) one reliable source." Armbrust The Homonculus 05:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition, compare with: List of private contractor deaths in Iraq which similarly includes names based upon primary sources.

I recognise the sockpuppetry behind the edits to include the list. But sometimes sockpuppets are not always wrong. In fact, sokpuppetry is often a fall back of those attempting to bypass systematic bias. Sometimes editor consensus on one page is contradictory to editor consensus elsewhere. On this; see also the list in 2012 Aurora shooting and Columbine_High_School_massacre). In anycase, recent edits to remove sockpuppet additions go against consensus as per RfC above.

Either:
 * Victim lists are ok (and so one should be included here).
 * Or they are not (and should be removed from above Wiki articles & elsewhere).
 * Or Wikipedia should treat Iraqi victims differently...

Clearly it's not the third option, and the first is most in line with editor consensus more broadly. -- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

POV in lead
I am concerned with the revisions NickCT (talk) is making to the lead of this article. User is continuing to replace a neutral standpoint with POV. I'm also offended that NickCT (talk) is citing WP:FRINGE when the references included are from the Associated Press and the Boston Globe. Meatsgains (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Number of points -
 * 1) I'm restoring the lead to a historic version.
 * 2) My WP:FRINGE comment related to how that lead sentence is phrase. Do you agree that "seventeen Iraqi civilian fatalities and twenty injuries occurred in the Blackwater Baghdad shootings in Nisour Square, Baghdad" doesn't explain that Blackwater gaurds caused the fatalities? NickCT (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to cite WP:FRINGE (basically calling me a crazy person) just because I think it is better to use neutral wording in the lead? Look at the wording in the sources provided below:


 * ...an infamous Baghdad shooting that left 17 Iraqis dead,...Seventeen people were killed,...


 * I understand that active voice is generally considered a better writing style, but it's not encyclopedic—it makes the article sound like an accusation rather than a neutral description of fact. If you disagree, perhaps we should get another opinion.


 * Also, on an unrelated note, is there a reason why the page title is "shootings" rather than "shooting"? Wasn't there just the one shooting? Meatsgains (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I neither think you are a crazy person, nor did I accuse you of being so.
 * The actual title of the NY Times articles included "Guards Killed 14 Iraqis"
 * I don't completely understand your "active voice" comment. Saying "seventeen Iraqi civilian fatalities and twenty injuries occurred" strikes me as slightly ambiguous. If you read that sentence alone, you wouldn't really understand what the article was about. You're immediately left with the question, "How did the fatalities occur?". The notability behind the event is that folks got shot by someone, not that "fatalities occurred". Isn't my wording a little clearer and too the point?
 * Listen, I don't mind if you want to reword it to make it less "accusatory", as long as it's clear from the lead sentence that this event was about Blackwater guards shooting people.
 * re "is there a reason why the page title is "shootings" rather than "shooting"" - Hmmm.... Good question. Not sure. Let's see.... Looking at the comparable Aurora issue I see - 2012 Aurora shooting, and at least [one reference supporting the singular "shooting". But I also see other references using the plural (1,2). Not sure what the right answer is here. Seems like "shooting" and "shootings" is used interchangably. May I ask what you are basing your feeling that the singular is correct on? At the moment I'd be neutral on a move. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand what you are saying. I think we got off on the wrong foot. I usually associate WP:FRINGE with 9/11 truthers and tin foil hats, but I can see now that this was not your intention.
 * I think my major disagreement is that this incident was not simply that "Blackwater military contractors shot at Iraqi civilians", but that there was a significant firefight, and it was only by the grace of god that no Blackwater contractors were killed. To quote from the article:
 * "[T]he convoy was hit with 'a large explosive device' and 'repeated small arms fire' which disabled a vehicle."
 * Saying that the incident was simply "Blackwater contractors shooting at Iraqi civilians" is extremely misleading. In fact, the title itself is misleading. The word "shootings" is a term used to describe massacres like (as you brought up) the 2012 Aurora shooting, not a controversial military engagement in which Blackwater contractors fired back in self-defense.
 * I would be in favor of renaming this page to something more descriptive of the actual events. BBC News calls it an "incident" rather than a "shooting", however, I think "incident" is too vague. Meatsgains (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we did get off on the wrong foot. To reiterate, I was really wasn't trying to suggest you're a tin foil hatter.
 * Re your assertion "there was a significant firefight". You sure about that? That's not what I've come across in the majority of sources if looked at. Your quote is from the vice president of Blackwater. Is that a neutral source?
 * See the New York Times piece -
 * "Government officials said the shooting occurred when security guards fired in response to gunfire by other members of their unit in the mistaken belief that they were under attack. One official said, “I wouldn’t call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement.”"
 * That seems to be the story supported by the majority of the sources. NickCT (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The page was recently renamed/moved to Nisour Square massacre however, the word "massacre" is far from neutral. Can we discuss changing the name of this page to something less discriminatory? My suggestion would be: "Nisour Square shooting", as it can be supported in a number of reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Convoy of ?
I'm guessing that previous versions of this article gave some introductory detail about the convoy in question. As it's written now, there is just this vague "convoy" mentioned throughout. Was it a convoy of US State Department officials? Or was it just a mass of vehicles deadheading? This article suggests that it was a convoy ("Raven 23"?) solely of Blackwater (Xe/Academi) employees who were doing traffic control. Is there anything more recent/definitive? --Jhfrontz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Transliteration Help - Nisour versus Nisoor
Any chance someone a little more informed on Arabic transliteration could weigh-in on whether "Nisour" or "Nisoor" is the more correct spelling. Sources on the matter seem somewhat split. NickCT (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the page
Should the page name remain Nisour Square massacre or can it be changed to something more neutral? Meatsgains (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses

 * Support Changing the page's name to "Nisour Square incident". Meatsgains (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Move page to ""Nisour Square incident," per my comment below. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Moving page to the more neutral "Nisour Square incident," Jschnur (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of "incident" - "Incident" is too vague. Keep current title or move to "Nisour Square shootings".  73.223.96.73 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nisour Square massacre and Oppose use of "incident" - According to Google, "Nisour Square incident" gets 30 hits, "Nisour Square massacre" gets 72. "Massacre" is over twice as common as "incident". NickCT (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming. I searched GBS and existing name is extensively used in English language literature. This RfC does not follow WP:RM. Also it violates WP:RFC which says that RfC statement should be neutral. This RfC statement is not neutral because it implies that current title is not neutral enough. This RfC should be cancelled. Anybody who wants to propose change of the name should follow RM procedure. I came here because I was invited by RfC bot (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment: The page was recently moved to Nisour Square massacre however, the word "massacre" is misleading and discriminatory. My suggestion would be to change the page name to: "Nisour Square shooting", which is supported by reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: this appears to be the edit at issue here. The previous title was "Blackwater Baghdad shootings." Fyddlestix (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick google finds multiple reliable sources that refer to this event as the "Nisour Square Massacre," including The Guardian, The Nation, however other sources such as the New York Times and NPR use "shootings" and "incident" instead. It looks to me as though "Nisour Square incident" is the single most common phrase used to refer to this event. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support changing the name, or moving the page, to "Nisour Square incident" also. Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Can we see your results? - What about the word "massacre" is misleading? If there's something wrong with the word "massacre" we'll need to look at pages like Boston Massacre. Perhaps change that to Boston Incident too? NickCT (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nisour Square shooting gets 90 hits from Google. So if we are to base this decision off the google hit trick, Nisour Square shooting beats the other two options. To touch on NickCT's other point, the word is POV. The characterization of this event as a "massacre" is purely editorial and contains no information. Meatsgains (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - So why call the Boston Massacre the Boston Massacre or My Lai Massacre the My Lai Massacre? And do you support "shooting" or "incident" as your vote above suggests? P.S. The "google hit trick" is what we call search engine testing on Wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support "incident" or "shooting" but not "massacre". "Massacre" is an emotionally charged word with a negative connotation used to describe an event. Notice that on Boston Massacre's page, the first sentence notes that it is "known as the Incident on King Street". My next project will be getting the Boston Massacre page name changed, if I can find the time. The My Lai Massacre involved the deaths of over 300 people... much different than what we are dealing with here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. So granted you're right about the "emotional charge" on the word "massacre". But I think WP:COMMONNAME is the overriding policy. If people call it "massacre", so should we. All the sources call it the "Boston Massacre", so it is the "Boston Massacre", regardless of whether the word "massacre" fairly describes what happened.
 * There are a lot of names attached to historical events which might not give a fair impression of the event. But it's not for we editors to decide what a "fair" name is. It's up to the sources. That's what WP:COMMONNAME tells us.
 * Granted, again, "shooting" and "massacre" seem like they recieve roughly equal usage. I think most US sources were using "shooting" b/c there were men on trial, and I imagine a number of outlets didn't want to attach potentially predijuical titles. I think one would find that among more recent publication, "massacre" wins out.
 * Regardless, I strong oppose "incident" on the basis of WP:COMMONAME. Also, there's the obvious fact that "incident" is completely ambiguous. I think you can apply the same rationale to "shooting(s)", though I'd have to admit, it's a bit less strong. So I think I'd weak oppose "shooting(s)". NickCT (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I strong oppose "incident" on the basis of WP:COMMONAME. Also, there's the obvious fact that "incident" is completely ambiguous. I think you can apply the same rationale to "shooting(s)", though I'd have to admit, it's a bit less strong. So I think I'd weak oppose "shooting(s)". NickCT (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we should use the name used by reliable sources. I understand your reasoning behind opposing the word "incident", even though it is used 30 times in "recent" sources. "Shooting(s)", however is more informative and ranks highest on the Google search engine test. Do you think "massacre" is less ambiguous than "shooting"? Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting, WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." The sources used as references on the page do not call it a "massacre" but rather an "incident" or "shooting". Best, Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "Do you think "massacre" is less ambiguous than "shootings"?" - The word shootings in my mind can refer to a number of things. It's a slightly broader term than massacre. A single individual can perpetrate "shootings" (e.g. 2011 Florence shootings, Virginia Tech shooting), and generally fewer people are killed. A "massacre" generally infers you have heavily armed people killing folks who aren't, on a fairly large and gruesome scale (e.g. Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, Boston Massacre, Columbine High School massacre, Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre).
 * I realize this is slightly POV, and it's hard to find dictionary definitions that explicitly state this, but if you do look at those definitions (e.g. ), a massacre infers that killing is indiscriminate and one sided.
 * Now there's definitely some grey zone here. I would have thought you might call the Kent State Shootings a "massacre" (though I guess 4 deaths might not be enough to qualify). But I do feel like "massacre" better describes this event, as you essentially had troops shooting into a large number of unarmed civilians.
 * What's your rationale for "shootings" being more descriptive?
 * re " ranks highest on the Google search engine test" - I think search engine testing is ambiguous when comparing "shooting" to "massacre". Searching news the number of hits are close. "Shootings" has a slight edge. Under a general google search though, "massacre" has the edge (compare "nisour square massacre" to "nisour square shootings"). My interpretation of the search engine results is that "Shootings" = "Massacre" > "Incident".
 * re "This includes usage in the sources used as references" - So if I switched the references to ones that used "massacre", you'd be for using that word? ;-) NickCT (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Shooting" describes what caused the individuals' death. "Massacre" describes the manner in which individuals died. Both terms can be applied to a single person or a group performing the act.


 * Switching the references to include "massacre" is an absolute no lol, you and I both know that. Reason I brought that up in the first place is because I was reading through WP:COMMONAME to refresh my memory on the policy and the statement stood out to me.


 * At this point, do you still support using the word "massacre" over "shooting"? I originally was in favor of using "incident" but through engaging in discussion, it seems we can meet in the middle and use "shooting". What do you think? Meatsgains (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * re "Both terms can be applied" - Both terms can be applied. I just think one is more specific than the other.
 * re "Switching the references to include "massacre" is an absolute no" - I do know that. I guess I was trying to make the point that if there are an equal number of references available that call it a "massacre" (as demonstrated via google search), then isn't it just chance selection of the current selection used in the article that led to your "This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." point?
 * re "At this point, do you still support using the word "massacre" over "shooting"? " - I do. But I'm not going object too strongly to using the word "shooting". I do object to the word "incident". NickCT (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

- - re "This RfC does not follow WP:RM. Also it violates WP:RFC which says that RfC statement should be neutral. " - Hear hear! - Might we respectfully suggest you retract this RfC and consider relaunching it as a RM. It sounds like you may now be leaning towards "Nisour Square shootings" anyway. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My intentions were not to provide a slanted RfC statement, please assume good faith here. I asked if the page name can simply "be changed to something more neutral". This can be answered from either a "yes" or "no" stance. "Yes", it can be changed to something more neutral or "no" it can't be changed to something more neutral. I'd be willing submit an RM but should we come to a moderate consensus on a "neutral" wording for the RM reason first? Meatsgains (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - By saying "more neutral" you're implying (conscientiously or otherwise) that the original title is not neutral. Regardless, no one is saying you were acting in bad faith.
 * re "moderate consensus on a "neutral" wording for the RM reason first" - Good thinking! How about, "This RM is being posted to determine the neutral title for this article." NickCT (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it took so long to revisit this. I just read through WP:RM to begin the nomination on moving the page and it states that "nominations need not be neutral". I am not for submitting a biased nomination but this struck me as a bit odd. Thoughts? Meatsgains (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ah. You're right. Good reference to policy. You can propose the RM using non-neutral language, unlike an RfC. So for instance, you could say "This page should be moved to X, for WP:NPOV reasons". If you want to do taht, it's fine. I would point out though, that in this editor's humble opinion; when given a choice between neutral and non-neutral wording, the good editor always chooses the neutral wording. ;-) NickCT (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. I'll submit a neutral RM. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2015
Nisour Square massacre → Nisour Square shooting – Is the current page name neutral? WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." The sources used as references on the page do not call it a "massacre" but instead a "shooting". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Meatsgains (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment to me "shooting" is suggestive of, in this kind of context, a single victim as per Shooting of Stephen Waldorf and Shooting of Michael Brown. Parallels may also potentially be drawn with Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting, the Columbine High School massacre and the Dunblane school massacre.  See also List of events named massacres.  In many cases there was at least a context of conflict involved.  Certainly in the UK where shooting is not regularly mentioned on the news it seems out of place especially as the vast majority of references to shooting, epec. on Wikipedia, remain related to sport.  News refs to "Nisour Square massacre" and "Nisour Square shooting" are at a ~ 8:5 ratio.  It was an aadmitedly provoked situation that led to an in some ways very condemned result with sentences extending from life to 30 years.  "The FBI investigation found that, of the 17 Iraqis killed by the guards, at least 14 were shot without cause" with "20 counts of attempted manslaughter and a weapons violation" also being taken into account.
 * Oppose move to singular "... shooting" and, from comparisons seen, would be ambivalent in regard to a move to "... shootings" which would fit have comparison to many articles such as Cumbria shootings. GregKaye 12:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - From search engine testing I'd agree with Meatsgains that "shooting" is probably very slightly more common than "massacre". That said, I think I'd still oppose for two reasons. 1) "Shooting" seems like an overly sanitized and somewhat ambiguous description of what this incident was (i.e. the use of lethal force indiscriminately on a large number of civilians). Strikes me as though "shooting" is unclear enough that it might contradict precision. 2) I'm guessing most US media used the term "shooting" because the perpetrators of the incident were on trial. Generally, for incidents which are subject to court cases, many outlets will intentionally try to avoid sensationalizing the incident, as a matter of journalistic ethics. The trial ended recently. The name has probably changed too. NickCT (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "Nisour Square shooting" or "Nisour Square shootings"- As stated above, the references currently provided on the page use the word "shooting", not "shootings" or "massacre". NickCT, I'd have to argue the complete opposite..."shooting" is much more descriptive as it explains the cause of the deaths, while "massacre" is an ambiguous pejorative used to explain the manner in which the individuals died. A reader does not know what caused the deaths when the word "massacre" is used. Massacre is a very broad term and could encompass: bombing, use of any weapon, fire, war, disaster, etc. Meatsgains (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "I'd have to argue the complete opposite" - I don't know meat. If you browse through pages that are called "X shooting", you typically find events where some unfortunate minority member is getting shot on questionable grounds (e.g. Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant), or a lone crazed shooter is taking people out (e.g. 2014 Fort Hood shooting, Virginia Tech shooting).
 * "Massacres" on the other hand are bigger and more violent and involve troops or heavily armed persons shooting at folks that don't expect it (e.g. Boston Massacre, Mai Lai Massacre, Marias Massacre, Štrpci massacre). This event pretty clearly shares more in common with the latter group than the former. NickCT (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By no means am I supporting Blackwater's actions but weren't the guards ambushed and decided to fire at the attackers in defense? Calling it a "massacre" by claiming the victims didn't expect it would not apply here. Meatsgains (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - "weren't the guards ambushed" - There was no actual ambush. The claim from the guards was that they thought they were being ambushed because a car drove through a nearby roadblock. So they started shooting. NickCT (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did some digging and yes, you are right, the shootings were unprovoked. I still go back to my original argument though, "shooting/shootings" is much more descriptive than "massacre" in the sense that it explains how the victims were killed without the emotional connotation. I'd like to see this RM gain more traction with others' thoughts on the page name. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Nisour Square shootings as per precise titling and in line with many other shooting and shootings articles. Words like "battle" present straight forward fights.  Shootings seems to me to a reasonable terminology to use here.  GregKaye 06:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Page name
As per the closing statement of the original RfC and RM, "shooting" is the compromise between "incident" and "massacre". Can we move forward with moving the page to "Nisour Square shooting"? If so, how is this process performed? Meatsgains (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - While I think "shootings" is better than "incident", I'm still opposed to any name change, and I don't see that you've demonstrated consensus supporting a move. I don't think the closer saw it either.
 * Frankly, if you want to pursue this, I'd suggest you'd wait some period of time (probably at least a month a two) then redo the requested move to see if consensus has changed.
 * re "how is this process performed" - Are you asking how to perform a move? Anyone can do a page move you know.
 * Again, I take and appreciate your point re "emotional connotation", but I think the basic fact here is that the WP:COMMONNAME is ambiguous, and this event is more similar to events that are referred to as "massacres" than "shootings". NickCT (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. No definite consensus was met but I, along with the closer, saw "shooting" as a compromise between both of our suggested page names. Even you stated, "I'm not going object too strongly to using the word 'shooting'." I think "shooting" is neutral, descriptive, and fair. Meatsgains (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The closer only said they thought we might compromise on "shootings", not that "shootings" was a good compromise.
 * Look Meatsgains, if you feel that strongly on the issue, go ahead and unilaterally change the name. As I said, I won't object too strongly (I will object a bit though).
 * I will say that if I was in your position, I would seek to demonstrate some kind of consensus for a title change. Why not just sit on this issue and simply rehash it at some point down the road? In a month or two we could simply do another RM and you might get consensus. Is this title so egregious that you think it needs immediate change? NickCT (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nisour Square massacre → Nisour Square shooting – Current page name is not neutral. Nisour Square shooting receives 160 hits on Google News, while Nisour Square massacre receives 73. We should used what is most published in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - In the RM I submitted on June 11, 2015, it seems the best compromise between "Nisour Square massacre" and "Nisour Square incident" was "Nisour Square shooting". Rather than moving forward on changing the name without a definitive consensus, and with the suggestion by NickCT, I decided to wait some time before opening up a new RM. The current page name (Nisour Square massacre) is emotionally charged. The proposed name (Nisour Square shooting) is what's most widely used by reliable sources and has no emotional ties. After over a month, I am opening this RM back up to see if we can reach some kind of a consensus. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support + Suggestion - the key argument seems to be that 'massacre' is not the Common Term, therefore should not be used. I also think that a 'massacre' is usually different in both kind and scale (Srebrenica, coordinated military operation, already 'arrested' civilians, 8,700 dead - My Lai, coordinated military operation, already 'arrested' civilians, 4-500 dead etc.). Does Nisour Square killings or Nisour Square murders help? I can see the sense of 'shooting' being euphemistic, but understatement is preferable to Hyperbole. Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC) … ps 'shootings' would be preferable to 'shooting Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment. Seems to be agreement to move away from "massacre", but we might need further discussion about which variant of shooting/shootings/killings/murders to use. Jenks24 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming I can see no reason to whitewash this massacre, using the justification that it is "emotionally charged". A large number of genuinely reliably sources such as The Guardian, The Boston Globe, The Nation and The New York Times have described it as a massacre. The astounding ongoing attempt to airbrush this horrific crime is shocking and totally at odds with the principle of Wikipedia. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a massacre as "An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people:" and uses the example of "reports of massacres by government troops" I find it depressing that when middle class American teenagers get shot dead by fellow students that is labelled as a massacre without protest (Columbine High School massacre) but when Iraqi civilians are killed en masse by an (illegally) occupying force that is an "incident". A shameful example of WP:GEOBIAS and barely disguised racism. AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, we keep hearing the argument that we need "neutrality", namely "The state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc". So are you claiming we should not take the side of the facts and the side taken by the Justice system? Should such logic be extended to Holocaust denial? AusLondonder (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. This RM is not over use of the word "incident" and instead "shooting". Also, how are we "not tak[ing] the side of the facts"? We are reporting what is commonly used in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Help with edit
Sorry, but I pretty much fouled up the opening sentence. My editing skills are poor. I was trying to fix the vagueness in the entire article, which obliquely refers to "the convoy" in places without explaining what it was and its relation to the Blackwater personnel. So I tried to simply insert the relevant words at the end of the opening section after "Baghdad." But I failed and it's a mess. Can someone restore the previous text but insert my attempted clarification as well as the former footnotes as well as the one I tried to insert? The point here is that Blackwater was escorting an embassy convoy that day, and this is surely something readers need to know. Many thanks. The NYT article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0   Isoruku (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisit page name
I know this has previously been discussed in depth but I wanted to revisit the topic. Should we change the name of this page from Nisour Square massacre to Nisour Square shooting? The reason I bring this up again is because after reading through the recent 2015 San Bernardino attack, I realized we are using the term "attack" rather than "massacre". Both tragic events resulted in a similar number of deaths and injuries to civilians. If we are going to use "attack" in the page name for the event that took place in San Bernardino, we need to use "shooting/attack" in the page name here to maintain consistency. I'd like to hear what others think. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging all users that were involved in previous discussions on changing the page name:, , , , . Feel free to notify any editors that I may have missed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm still for Massacre. This event has more in common with the Boston Massacre or Mai Lai Massacre than it does with the 2015 San Bernardino attack. Of course, all of those are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.
 * If you really want to pursue this, I'd suggest RfCing or putting in an WP:RM to see if there's consensus for a move. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When an event happened in 2007 and has its wiki article title last discussed in Aug 2015 there would need to be good reason for taking more time to discuss name change. GregKaye 18:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would endorse 'shooting' or (better) 'shootings'. However a handful of 'pinged' should not decide this, so maybe GregKaye should be heeded.Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest opening up another RM? Meatsgains (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's up to you, whilst I thought 'massacre' inapt at the previous discussion, I see the logic of saying that 'enough is enough'. How clear was consensus on retaining present? How clear that this was commonname? Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly returning to a settled matter in so short a time amounts to dunning and is not just inappropriate procedure but borders on inappropriate behavior in general. Zedshort (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will move forward with an RM. Consensus in previous discussions were very weak. Meatsgains (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nisour Square massacre → Nisour Square shooting – Reliable sources call this incident both a "shooting" and a "massacre" but to avoid neutrality issues and maintain consistency (see the recent 2015 San Bernardino attack), the page should be moved to something along the lines of "shooting", "shootings" or "attack", not "massacre". Meatsgains (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Maintain consistency? Check out Boston Massacre, Mai Lai Massacre, Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Whenever you have troops shooting at civilians (which wasn't the case in San Bernardino), the "consistent" thing to do is to call it a "massacre". Also, many of the sources supporting "shooting" are US sources which were probably trying not to editorialize while there was an ongoing trial. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need to change anything. The name is not causing confusion except in the mind of those who don't like the suggestion that the United States of America has been involved in massacres and the excuse of aiming for consistency is a smokescreen for the pursuit of an agenda. I suspect the person suggesting this change is less interested in improving Wikipedia than in "sanitizing" and assuaging a sense of shame and guilt. Zedshort (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Please see the style guidelines at WP:NCEVENTS - you generally want to avoid the word massacre, but it is acceptable if it has consistently been described as a massacre in reliable sources and meets the definition. "Shooting" is really too general in my opinion. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
With all due respect, the pages you listed cannot be compared to this incident.
 * Boston Massacre was in 1770...
 * Mai Lai Massacre resulted in the death of over 300 civilians
 * Jallianwala Bagh massacre resulted in over 300 dead and 1200 wounded
 * I understand there were troops shooting at civilians but this incident was recent (2007) and when compared to some of your examples was far less extreme (17 dead). Meatsgains (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Well listen. I could give you 1,000 examples where the term "massacre" was used (e.g. Hondh-Chillar massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, Kandahar massacre), but you're obviously going to find ways to poke holes in all of them. At the same time, you're not going to provide a single example where military personnel were shooting unarmed civilians, and it was called a "shooting". NickCT (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are actually numerous pages using "shooting" in the page name to describe military personnel shooting unarmed civilians: 2009 Fort Hood shooting, Kent State shootings, 2011 Sindh Rangers shooting incident, and 2007 Shinwar shooting just to name a few. Meatsgains (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't the page name confusing the reader. The issue is neutrality. It is not our responsibility to use emotionally charged words to describe an event. I am by no means condoning the incident which took place but it is not our place to sensationalize what took place. As I listed above, there are countless articles using "shooting" in the page name so why are we calling this incident a "massacre" when reliable sources also called it a "shooting"? I am here, just like everyone else, to improve Wikipedia as a whole. Please focus on content here and leave your emotions and accusations out. Meatsgains (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting to hear there are many articles that use the term "shooting", perhaps we should instead change the name of those to something more appropriate. The question would then become one of determining when the word "massacre" should be applied. When does it rise to the status of a massacre and when to a shooting and when to and "incident"? As it stands you seem to be on a campaign of removing the word massacre from the English language. I guess I haven't received the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, perhaps I could borrow your copy. Zedshort (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Find a single example where you have a group of armed military folk shoot and kill more than 10 unarmed civilians in a situation which seems mostly unprovoked.
 * Shootings perpetrated by single individuals (e.g. Fort Hood) rarely get labeled massacres. NickCT (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nisour Square massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070918191738/http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/18/blackwater.iraq/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/18/blackwater.iraq/index.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is incomplete
Reading the article, there is no clue what Donald Ball was accused of and why the charges were dropped. There is no description of what each man was accused of. So then it become a rag about American private guards versus Iraq, which is not as useful.

Assistance in fixing this?

Vowvo (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm not super familiar with the Donald Ball thing. If you have specific facts you'd like to include and references to back those facts up, let me know! I'll be glad to help put them in. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Broken map
The map at the top of the article seems to broken. All it displays is " : Couldn't parse JSON: Syntax error" Damianea103 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

And just as i wrote that, the problem somehow magically fixed itself. It seems the issue must have been on my side. Damianea103 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The JSON Syntax error is due to the use of double quotes within Template:OSM_Location_map The wikitext

|mark-title1 =Blackwater "Raven 23" convoy enters Nisour ... will trigger the issue. I have tried changing the quotes to &amp;#34; but for whatever reason have been reverted back! Desb42 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Election campaign posters - Flickr - Al Jazeera English.jpg

Adding opinion on top of source
Someone cited a source about the trial and conviction and included “wrongly” tried and convicted. There was nothing to suggest anything was wrong about either. 71.201.50.216 (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Suppressing the truth on wikipedia
I tried to edit a page got a warning for vandalism when what I posted I provided credible sources for. 2A00:23C7:5686:5C01:B08F:858A:5DCA:E6B5 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)