User talk:Pandroid

More than the word controversial
Apparently you missed some of the discussion: "In THAT article, the incident is properly covered. BTW, the notability of the company is not derived from that single incident . If we have to characterize the company, why aren't we mentioning that they're a large federal contractor instead of singling out a negative incident ." When you read that, what incident do you think I'm talking about if not the one in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * that "single incident" garnered a vast amount of column inches and essentially put them on the map in terms of public awareness, such a notable aspect warrants mention and is of encyclopaedic merit. Pandroid (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, let's acknowledge that the incident WAS part of the discussion, contrary to your claim that it wasn't. Now, much has been written about the incident, but Blackwater was notable before that incident and it was already well into the public eye, along with Halliburton, because of the size of their federal contracts. Want a good frame of reference for that? The incident happened in 2007. In the 2006 TV series Jericho, a Blackwater-esque private military contractor called "Ravenwood" was a big part. They were depicted operating a paramilitary force, assisting with the set up of a government apparatus etc. They were also supposed to have worked in Iraq. There was PLENTY of coverage about Blackwater prior to the incident you keep putting in and it was already on the radar of much of the public. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * great, so we agree they are widely known, notable, and of encyclopaedic merit, maybe we could add additional content you are pointing to? would help flesh it out. Pandroid (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was notable and widely known, as it relates to the company. Look a the Blackwater article and you'll see plenty of well sourced coverage and incidents that pre-date this. There's no reason for me to report them all here. The issue is not whether this incident was notable or encyclopedic. The issue is why this single incident belongs in the bio of a person who has no connection to the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This may be worth mentioning: You may be thinking I'm some sort of apologist for Betsy DeVos. If you look at the edit history, I've really had nothing to do with any edits, positive or negative, with things she was personally involved in. The only things I've contested are items she really had nothing to do with. I haven't removed anything negative about her involvement with charter schools or stuff like that. My objections have been to materials added have been things that really aren't about her. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally believe limited WP:WEIGHT tangentiality is warranted if connections are of encyclopedic value, here we have a case in point.Pandroid (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I believe that being related to the founder of Blackwater is a connection worth mentioning. Adding in the actions of employees of a company owned by her brother, a company she's never been affiliated with, is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Betsy DeVos edit
Hi--you reverted my edit to Betsy DeVos with the comment "Please read citations before removing sourced content." FWIW--as I think my edit comment made clear--I had read the citation; my objection wasn't to its factuality, but to giving such prominent placement to a pedestrian fact. That said, I'm not interested in an edit war. I started a comment block about it on the talk page, Talk:Betsy DeVos/Archives/2017 -- you're welcome to weigh in there if you like. — Narsil (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)