This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nisour Square massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 16, 2012, September 16, 2017, and September 16, 2020. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 [1] 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 [2] Blackwater: From the Nisour Square Massacre to the Future of the Mercenary Industry [3]
12.156.61.100 ( talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Be bold and move if a more appropriate name presents itself/has been adopted by the popular press.
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)
To my ears, this is a weasel-word for " stun grenade". mdf 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- RichardMills65 ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
-- RichardMills65 ( talk) 19:08, 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:
AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 19:16, 21 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)
Link to the relevant discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Kai9045 ( talk) 00:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
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 [9] (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)
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. [10]
- Kai9045 ( talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Done no objections so i added the text. Kai9045 ( talk) 08:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Another editor claims "no reason to have infobox for this article" I disagree. Kai9045 ( talk) 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Done. Kai9045 ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Done. Kai9045 ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Done. Kai9045 ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
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." [11]
Removed Text: The resulting casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war. [12]
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)
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)
@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)
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: [15] [16], 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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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:
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)
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)
[T]he convoy was hit with "a large explosive device" and "repeated small arms fire" which disabled a vehicle.
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.”
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the page name remain Nisour Square massacre or can it be changed to something more neutral? Meatsgains ( talk) 23:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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.
@ NickCT: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
With all due respect, the pages you listed cannot be compared to this incident.
@ Zedshort: 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nisour Square massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
The map at the top of the article seems to broken. All it displays is "<maplink>: 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 <maplink> 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 " but for whatever reason have been reverted back! Desb42 ( talk) 13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nisour Square massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 16, 2012, September 16, 2017, and September 16, 2020. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 [1] 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 [2] Blackwater: From the Nisour Square Massacre to the Future of the Mercenary Industry [3]
12.156.61.100 ( talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Be bold and move if a more appropriate name presents itself/has been adopted by the popular press.
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)
To my ears, this is a weasel-word for " stun grenade". mdf 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- RichardMills65 ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
-- RichardMills65 ( talk) 19:08, 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:
AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 19:16, 21 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)
Link to the relevant discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Kai9045 ( talk) 00:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
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 [9] (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)
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. [10]
- Kai9045 ( talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Done no objections so i added the text. Kai9045 ( talk) 08:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Another editor claims "no reason to have infobox for this article" I disagree. Kai9045 ( talk) 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Done. Kai9045 ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Done. Kai9045 ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Done. Kai9045 ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
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." [11]
Removed Text: The resulting casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war. [12]
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)
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)
@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)
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: [15] [16], 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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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:
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)
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)
[T]he convoy was hit with "a large explosive device" and "repeated small arms fire" which disabled a vehicle.
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.”
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the page name remain Nisour Square massacre or can it be changed to something more neutral? Meatsgains ( talk) 23:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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.
@ NickCT: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
With all due respect, the pages you listed cannot be compared to this incident.
@ Zedshort: 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nisour Square massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
The map at the top of the article seems to broken. All it displays is "<maplink>: 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 <maplink> 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 " but for whatever reason have been reverted back! Desb42 ( talk) 13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)