Most recent edit "Disputed history"
I was thinking for a while how to put the history of the company when I added to the lede some time ago. The discussion on Wikipedia apparently is reversing title back to Blackwater, but not much has happened on the talk page since 2018.
It's a question if they bought the whole business from E. Prince or just material and contracts, but did not renew employee contracts. Sure there is intention to white wash but to some extent it may also be correct, sadly that post is not more specific about "purchased certain assets from Blackwater" and what exactly did and did not continue from Blackwater.
This is no pressing issue, but thinking about this I feel Blackwater may indeed be more appropriate as the page name, notability etc. (as some say in the discussion there) - also there seem to be no scandals after the change. -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Most corporations merge with each other or sell divisions to each other all the time, on purpose made to be hard to pin down. In my opinion, it is cleaner to try to stick to the "real core" of the business, ignore their PR and make our own judgements; Blackwater is catchier, as the later name changes are only meant to confuse the public - alternatively, sticking to Academi and adding the Blackwater history is no big deal. It is the same problem with Wakenhutter and G4S, the big banks etc Terje (talk)---