Talk:Black Cube

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

For reference:

WP:COI

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.[a] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.[b]

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

--Nbauman (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire See also section keeps getting arbitrarily and maliciously removed.

There is an entire and relevant additional information section (The See also section that is being deliberately deleted through malicious acts of vandalism). If there are parts that need editing that is normal, but to remove an entire section is just plain vandalism.

Furthermore, this article lacks an index section and parts of the article need to be tidied up in order to make it consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Right now, this article does not resemble standard Wikipedia article formats and looks a bit sloppy because of that fact.

If parts are being deleted by members of the company, then that involvement is unacceptable and should discontinue at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.170 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Spain Murcia black cube

Black cube has done good things too right here in Spain. Helping find lost child .prove innocence in a cheating scandal.find the guilty party in a corruption case.good things that all private detectives do.if black cube is the best. Then they should continue helping people at a good price without breaking any laws.they are not ghost busters but who you goons call? In Spain we gave dozens of private eyes. But black cube is private and really good . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.193.163 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential neutrality issues

It's kinda shocking that the intro section to this article doesn't mention the Weinstein connection. That and a variety of other signs lead me to nominate it for a neutrality check, which I have done. Sdkb (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As a follow-up, when I dug a bit further, there appeared to be several single-purpose accounts manipulating this page. I asked the accounts via their talk pages to declare any affiliations and alerted the COI noticeboard; no response yet. Sdkb (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Sdkb, having looked at the users you referenced. I think it's almost certain there is a conflict of interest here. KukaiKoboDaishi (talk) 10:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how the reasonable fear of being targeted by a subversive, purposefully querulous and heavily militarized state-sponsored psuedo-terror organization fits in with wikipedia's vaunted editorial standards. i mean anyone who proposes to edit this 'article' is essentially looking down the barrel of a israeli rifle -- figuratively speaking or otherwise. do you want to aid and abet acts of state sponsored terrorism? then don't give them the forum to stage it. in short, thanks, but i'll pass re: editing this trash. why not just block the article entirely? it is the best way to deal with people like this...otherwise they will simply use you like they use everything else they have contact with. peace and love. 67.1.159.128 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

this entire article is written and edited like an ad for the company. 2607:FEA8:2923:F300:B503:D5B9:47A1:582A (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Article organization

@Ashmoo: I approve of your removal of the controversy section per WP:CSECTION. It does have the effect of making the "Notable projects" section even longer and more unweildy than it already is, though. Some subheaders or photos to break up the text and highlight the areas readers are most likely looking for (e.g. Weinstein) could help a lot if you or anyone else is inclined to go through and add them. Sdkb (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had the small feeling but wanted to make a start. I was going to split it by date, but everything has happened in the last decade. I did notice that a lot of the text is weakly supported and verges on WP:OR (many sources do not actually mention Black Cube). So, part of the cleanup would be to reduce the amount of text, which would have the side-effect of minimising the corporate CV feel that the article currently has. I also welcome any changes you think would help. Ashmoo (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing tags

I am removing the paid editing and neutrality tags because I believe they discourage good faith editing by dedicated community contributors. Regardless of the paid work that has likely taken place in the past, I don't believe that the paid editing tag properly addresses issues with the existing content on the page, nor does the tag direct editors as to how to address said issues (compared to say, "Needs additional citations" -- that directs editors to add more citations or remove unverifiable content).

If community consensus disagrees and wants the tags to remain on the page, so be it. I have no personal gain to keep the tags off, I just feel strongly that the paid editing tag ultimately does more to discourage quality editing designed to improve the page than it does to discourage paid editing. My hope is that going forward the Black Cube entry will attract committed editors who will improve the page with quality sources that abide by Wikipedia policy. My belief (based admittedly on my own feelings) is that the current tags may unfortunately turn away good faith members of the community, or may arouse undue suspicion surrounding those editors.

Regardless of Black Cube's ethics, they do appear to be a notable company, especially considering their connection to recent social movements. I don't think the intention of the tags is to limit good faith edits to the page, but I fear that may be the consequence. The Way of the Fewture (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Way of the Fewture, I think enough attention has been paid to the page since the tag was added that it's probably okay to remove it. Ideally, that notice would attract editors, not scare them away, although I can see how someone might be afraid of editing the page since they think they might be accused of UPE.

But if we see anything in the future that appears to be more UPE, the tags should go back. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I appreciate your feedback and agree wholeheartedly. The page is definitely a candidate for scrutiny and should have ongoing monitoring for paid/improper edits. The Way of the Fewture (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Snooganssnoogans: Are you copying and pasting from somewhere else? This edit places contracted with Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube in the middle of the article, which is clearly not appropriate. Please edit cautiously. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Honey trapping

Is there any evidence that Black Cube has been involved in honey trapping operations? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tactical Fiend for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: The Way of the Fewture (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:MarioGom thank you for starting this discussion. I've been a lurker for some time and have been coming across these flags and discussions more and more. Finally decided to take a stab at reviewing since no one seems to ever come back to review these. I don't plan to make any changes to articles, just provide reviews on talk pages. I have reviewed the edits from this user and provided a summary below:

• This edit on 4 August 2020 Neutral & non-controversial. (moved the position of the company's trading name)
• This minor edit on 4 August 2020 Seems fine to me, but could easily change back to "dealt with"
• This minor edit on 31 July 2020 This is an improvement, more neutral.
• This edit on 31 July 2020 This is an improvement. (changed the order of the History section to chronological order)
• This edit on 31 July 2020 This is neutral & non-controversial. (consolidated the information and replaced the dead link with another source that supports the information)
• This edit on 4 August 2020 This is an improvement, more neutral.
• This edit on 4 August 2020 This is an improvement, clarified the statement.
• This edit on 16 November 2020 This adds pertinent information from the source, which is the main highlight of the sourced article.
• This minor edit on 31 July 2020 This is neutral and adds clarity.
• This minor edit on 4 October 2020 This is no issue.
• This minor edit on 8 January 2021 This adds clarity around timeline and corrects chronology.
• This edit on 14 August 2020 This is the only significant addition to the page. Both of these sources are reliable outlets (The Times and Bloomberg) but are behind paywalls so I can't confirm the information in those. However, the information appears to be verified by this source. To be safe, this edit could be removed if anyone disagrees.

Besides the last edit in the list, everything is mostly minor and neutral, and many are actually improvements to the page. I don't see any issues with these edits, or even with the last major edit in the list. Was there something else concerning about this editor that I may have missed? Also let me know if there's a better way to summarize my review or if I should ask different editors to review. Thanks WyldEys (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:MarioGom I reviewed the article while adding a new source and copy editing, and went through a few of the major sources. I noticed the page has been frequently edited since the tag was put up and it appears to be up to the standard of objectivity. Pratat (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)