Talk:BAE Systems/Archive 1

Name/capitalisation
Advice for editors regarding the official name and capitalisation of the name.

BAE Systems' Identity Guidelines website gives the following advice:
 * "BAE SYSTEMS" (in capitals) should be used for titles and headers
 * "BAE Systems" is the form that should be used in body text and is not interchangeable with "BAE SYSTEMS" for body text (see here). *The name should never be abbreviated, i.e. "BAES" is strictly not allowed (this would imply that "BAE" is also incorrect, but it is commonly used).
 * "BAe SYSTEMS" or "BAe Systems" is not correct, "BAe" was an abbreviation for British Aerospace. BAE is no longer an acronym, in much the same way that BP no longer stands for British Petroleum and AT&T no longer means Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone. Johnwalton 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) & Mark 21:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) & sugarfish 08:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hooray! User:Mel Etitis has moved BAE SYSTEMS to BAE Systems.  That is much better!  Wikipedia should be bound by the rules of common English usage, not the BAE marketing department's 'Identity Guidelines'.


 * I did it because, aside from decent English, the company's own Web site uses the lower-case version in the text; the upper-case version seems to be used only in their logos and headers. We're not bound by their house style-guide, of course. I'm glad that it made someone happy.... Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In summary:
 * Good: BAE Systems/BAE
 * Not good: BAE SYSTEMS (only BAE "guidelines" suggested it, and even BAE seem to have dropped it now)
 * Wrong: BAe Systems/BAe SYSTEMS or BAe when referring to BAE Systems and not British Aerospace. Mark83 22:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal name
The legal name for the company as it is listed on the LSE is BAE Systems plc and whenever it releases an official press release on the Regulatory News Service, it will list itself as such. If you visit the website, and check out their press releases, you will see as much. However, they also refer to themselves as simply BAE SYSTEMS as shorthand afterwards, so I understand that this would confuse people unneccessarily, I propose this page stays where it is. However, a link could be offered to its parent company - BAE Systems plc. Calexico (Talk) 17:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * We don't use "plc" in article names (see MoS Talk pages for a discussion of this). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Link errors
The Mike Turner the link in this article pointed at (this guy) is not the CEO of BAE. I removed it. Information about the correct Mike Turner can be found hereif anyone feels like writing an article about him.

Trial infobox
I haven't created this as a proper template until its suitability is decided. Please add comments etc. regarding this trial infobox. Does it aid navigation through BAE specific sites? Or is it merely covering links already very accessible on the main page itself?

One problem I can see myself is it could only be placed on BAE specific pages, i.e. it is far too obtrusive to go on Airbus for example. Mark 19:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Organisation" edit 25/11/05
I have made a major change to the organisation section, reducing it to subsidiary links only. Previously these were subheadings and a description of each division; as such the section was getting larger and larger and the TOC was rediculously long.

The change I have made is in line with other major aerospace/defence companies, e.g. Boeing. Also the titles of the companies are almost always self-explanatory and separate articles allow the information to be presented in a far better way than the summmary available here.

Also the BAE Systems template recently created will allow these pages to be linked well with other company pages. Mark83 13:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

To do
The following come from my peer reviewing JS script:


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. Done.
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2] Done

The article looks a lot better now; I'll go through with a more in-depth look soon. AZ t 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Progress

 * Expand lead - Attempted - I've had a go. I've attempted to both summarise the article and also provoke interest in the article.
 * Non-breaking spaces - Done.
 * Dates - Done.
 * Reorder/rename the last few sections - Done.
 * Weasel words - Done. - Though I'd welcome another opinion to make sure I haven't missed anything.
 * Footnotes/punctuation marks - Done. Mark83 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed
1. It is well written - PASS 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable - PASS plenty of references, nearing FA level even 3. It is broad in its coverage - PASS 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - PASS - does comment on arms trade etc 5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars - PASS 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic - PASS - images are all free What you could do is cite the products and Joint Ventures sections. Do we know anything about BAE's future? Make sure dates and units use adhere to the WP:MOS and keep footnotes after punctuation. Its doing pretty well. :) Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just that the auto peer review tool I have installed kicked up a few things. Here they are: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 155 mm, use 155 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 155&amp;nbsp;mm.[?]
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * Well I did check non-breaking spaces, however it was a while ago. The same for footnotes/punctuation. I'll check them all again. The final suggestion is of course right, I think that will be the biggest hurdle. Thanks again. Mark83 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the logo image needs a detailed FUR specific to that image. RHB Talk - Edits 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible use of material from this article by BAE Systems
I was reading the new BAE Systems heritage website and noticed almost verbatim entries there compared to this article (I noticed because I wrote the passage in question). So either I am guilty of a copyright violation from some BAE publication and have forgotten I did it! Or BAE Systems has based some of its heritage website on this article. If the latter is the case is there anything we should do about it? Mark83 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is bad. Editors should be getting info from their site, not vice versa.  From what I've seen someone e-mails the site's webmaster saying they are violating the GFD license.  That's all I know of that.  Good luck.. -Fnlayson 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. Some of the template e-mails are a bit legalistic, I sent a toned down "enquiry" type message. I agree with you that it's troubling - you go to the company websites for concrete information, it's worrying that their information could be based on Wikipedia! Apart from recognising my own writing, the other reason I reckon they used the material I highlighted below is because of this piece of the BAE website. Read the last paragraph and then read the "BAE Systems acquisition" section of United Defense. Again it's paraphrased, but I think unmistakeably adapted from our article. Mark83 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Section of this article in question
As a result of the British Aerospace-MES merger, BAE Systems is the successor to many of the most famous British aircraft, defence electronics and warship manufacturers.

Marconi Electronic Systems had a heritage of almost 100 years. Following GEC's acquisition of Marconi in 1968 the Marconi brand was used for its defence businesses, for example Marconi Space & Defence Systems (MSDS). GEC's history of military products dates back to World War I with its contribution to the war effort then including radios and bulbs. World War II consolidated this position, as the company was involved in important technological advances, most notably radar.[7] Between 1945 and 1999, the company became one of the world's most important defence contractors. GEC's major defence related acquisitions included Associated Electrical Industries in 1967, English Electric (including its Marconi subsidiary) in 1968, Yarrow Shipbuilders in 1985, Plessey companies in 1989, parts of Ferranti's defence business in 1990, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering in 1995 and Kværner Govan in 1999. In June 1998, MES acquired Tracor, a major American defence contractor, for US$1.4 billion.[8]

British Aerospace was the result of massive consolidation of UK aircraft manufacturers since World War II. British Aerospace was formed on 29 April 1977 by the nationalisation and merger of The British Aircraft Corporation, the Hawker Siddeley Group and Scottish Aviation.[9] Both BAC and Hawker Siddeley were themselves the result of various mergers and acquisitions; BAC incorporated English Electric Aviation, Vickers-Armstrong (Aircraft), the Bristol Aeroplane Company and Hunting Aircraft, while Hawker Siddeley was formed by Hawker Aircraft's purchase of aviation businesses including Gloster Aircraft, Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft, A V Roe and later merger with de Havilland in 1959. The acquisition of Folland and Blackburn Aircraft followed, and in 1960 this group was consolidated as the Hawker Siddeley Group.

BAE website entry
The Company is the successor to many of the most famous British aircraft, defence electronics and warship manufacturers.

Formed on 29 April 1977, British Aerospace was the result of large-scale consolidation of UK aircraft manufacturers including the British Aircraft Corporation, the Hawker Siddeley Group and Scottish Aviation. Both Hawker Siddeley and BAC were the result of various mergers and acquisitions; BAC incorporated Vickers-Armstrong and English Electric (Aircraft), Hunting Aircraft and the Bristol Aeroplane Company, while Hawker Siddeley was formed by Hawker Aircraft's purchase of aviation businesses including A V Roe, Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft, Gloster Aircraft and a subsequent merger in 1959 with the de Havilland aircraft group. . Folland and Blackburn Aircraft were also acquired and the business was consolidated as the Hawker Siddeley Group in 1960.

Marconi Electronic Systems' heritage stretches back almost 100 years, with the Marconi company purchased by the General Electric Company in 1968.GEC's portfolio of military equipment began in World War I when it supplied radios and bulbs followed by radar equipment in the Second World War. Subsequently a series of acquisitions helped to consolidate its position as a major defence contractor. Between 1945 and 1999 it acquired Associated Electrical Industries in 1967, English Electric (including its Marconi subsidiary in 1968), Yarrow shipbuilders in 1985, Plessey companies in 1989, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering in 1995, Tracor in 1998 and Kvaerner Govan in 1999.

Result
As a result of an e-mail to heritage@baesystems.com and correspondence with a BAE staff member the section in question was pulled from the website. No admission of use or explanation. Mark83 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see when a page covering the British Aerospace-MES merger is put back on their site. -Fnlayson 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag
I noticed the little edit war about the inclusion of the flag. Rather than appealing to precedent (always a bad idea), it would be good if those wishing to add the flag could describe here what encyclopedic benefit it brings to the article. Specifically, how does 🇬🇧 United Kingdom tell us more than United Kingdom does? If we get a good answer to that I have no problem with having the flag. Otherwise it should not be here. --John 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much folks for starting an edit war on an FAC that has been stable for about 4 years! I don't much care, but John's argument above seems like 100% common sense to me. Mark83 16:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a read of WP:FLAG:
 * Flags "[Should] Help the reader rather than decorate - Flag icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information in a general context, and is often simply distracting. Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration." Mark83 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people outside of the UK, and some inside, do not recognise the UK as a country and are confused about it (various surveys, including one conducted by a UK national newspaper in the USA that gave results saying that the UK is in the Middle East). Many people think of the UK as being England, which is obviously incorrect.  Stating England instead of the UK would also be incorrect as England is not a sovereign nation.  Adding the Union Flag gives people an additional iconic symbol to associate with the UK that is probably far better known than the UK or the United Kingdom. Because we, the writers of the encyclopaedia, know the difference between the UK and England and know where the UK is, does not mean that we should presume (wrongly) that other people also know this information. Darkieboy236 16:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article with a flag in place, it makes it easier for the casual reader to scan the page for info without reading. Visual aids should not be dismissed.  Furthermore, a flag will mean a degree of consistency with other companies.Darkieboy236 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point about UK vs. England would make sense if England was mentioned in the infobox. It is not. So let's boil it down to the point about UK with flag or UK without flag. The idea that more people could correctly identify the United Kingdom from its flag than the text "United Kingdom" is obviously wrong. I don't much care, it's the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that bothers me. Although thank you for discussing it. Mark83 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I apologise. That's not justified. Mark83 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:FLAG isn't an official policy (yet), I'll clarify why I restored the flag in the infobox that someone else deleted. WP:FLAG states right up at the top: "Flag icons may be appropriate in infoboxes to indicate nationality...." Later it says flag icons shouldn't be repeated in infoboxes, implying that their use in infoboxes is acceptable.

Furthermore, as far as governments are concerned (especially the U.S. government), corporations are treated like citizens in most respects, and given most of the same rights, except for the right to vote. As such, corporations have nationalities, and a visual aid to identify it is indeed appropriate. =Axlq 17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As Centrx put it at Template talk:Infobox Company: "In addition to being redundant, it [inclusion of flag in the company infobox] is misleading. Many of these companies are international, they have headquarters in a certain country but their business is elsewhere. It also makes it appear as though there is a certain patriotism involved, "flying the flag" rather than simply happening to be located in a country. It is at best pointless and at worst just wrong. These flagicons were intended to be used in situations where there is not enough space to put the whole name of the country, and in the stub templates to make them more noticeable and substantial." BAE is a perfect example - has a minority British shareholder base, sells more abroad, and owns more abroad. Mark83 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see neither the value of quoting another editor, nor the logic in that argument. If it's appropriate to name the location of a corporation, it's appropriate to supply a visual aid for it.
 * I'll say that BAE is indeed a perfect example of where a flag icon is appropriate. This article focuses on the parent company, which is UK-based. We have other articles for divisions in other countries, such as BAE Systems Inc. and my current employer BAE Systems Land and Armaments. Every employee is aware of the nationality of the parent company, and the nationality of their own company. If the location is named in the infobox, it's perfectly reasonable to include a visual-aid flag - for any article about this company. If you don't like the flag, then remove the location as well. =Axlq 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with quoting someone else if you believe they have made a good point. You don't see logic in my argument?? And then you say if I don't like the flag then remove it and the location text as well? And no middle ground? That is the defintion of illogical and also not a little intransigent. I've lived with the flag icon on this article for a long, long time with no problem. It's just the arguments recently put forward for keeping it have been weaker than those put forward for removing it so I've got involved in the discussion. I'm yet to be persuaded to change my mind.Mark83 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine if you believe someone else makes a good argument; I simply saw no value in quoting that person as an authority, and I disagreed that the quoted argument was valid, because each sentence in the quotation contained an assertion that I considered false.
 * Middle ground? All I'm saying, if it's inappropriate to designate a location with a flag icon, then it's logically just as inappropriate to designate it with words. Don't discount the value of visual aids.
 * I have no stake or interest in changing anyone's mind. I don't mind either way if the flag icon stays or goes. I lean towards keeping it, that's all. It improves the appearance of the article, and does not detract value from the article. The only reason I restored the flag in the first place was because the person who deleted it cited WP:FLAG as a reason, when it seemed (to me) that WP:FLAG actually supported the flag's inclusion. =Axlq 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I see how you could think that - no I wasn't quoting that person as an authority.
 * As for "It improves the appearance of the article" -- that is pure aesthetics and thus not a reason for keeping the flag. WP:FLAG in that sense very much does NOT support keeping it. "if it's inappropriate to designate a location with a flag icon, then it's logically just as inappropriate to designate it with words" is totally illogical! Farnborough, United Kingdom, conveys all the information needed. Adding the flag is analogous to writing Farnborough, United Kingdom, United Kingdom. i.e. it's redundant. Further, if we went totally the other way and just had Farnborough and a British flag it would be much less informative because while no one could be confused by the link United Kingdom, some could be confused with just a Union Flag because not everyone will know what it represents. Mark83 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with having Farnborough, England, UK as the location like lots of other companies: Barclays, Vodafone, HBOS etc. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.131.61 (talk • contribs)
 * What value does adding "England" give? Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.  -- Astronaut (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments
I'll leave these here to avoid cluttering up the FAC page with niggly writing points:
 * In the first para of History: I'm possibly putting too much emphasis on the need to separate the lead and main text, but the introduction of the 'BAE Systems-MES merger' feels much too abrupt here. Could it be expanded on the lines of 'BAE Systems was formed in 1999 by the merger of two companies with long histories in Defence manufacturing: British Aerospace and Marconi Electronic Systems. As such the company is the successor to many of the most famous British aircraft, defence electronics and warship manufacturers.'?
 * In any case, if the wording in the lead is correct, it shouldn't be BAE Systems-MES merger anyway, since BAE Systems was the company formed by the merger, not one of the companies being merged. If you don't like suggestion one, suggest that it should at least be re-worded to 'British Aerospace-Marconi Electronic Systems (MES) merger'.
 * 'Marconi Electronic Systems had a heritage of almost 100 years'. Being picky, can you have a heritage of years? I'm not quite sure, but it feels as if it ought be a 'heritage of 100 years of experience' or something similar.
 * Suggest checking that all abbreviations/acronyms are given in full with short form after in brackets at the first appearance in the main text - done in some (many?) cases, but not for MES. May be other cases.
 * Should GEC be given in full (General Electric Company?) at the first occurence in the main text? Or would that not be more meaningful? In any case it should probably be introduced more fully - 'British Engineering and Defence firm GEC'? 4u1e 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ' Between 1945 and 1999, the company became one of the world's most important defence contractors': Which company is 'the company'? GEC presumably, but then we're not exactly talking about Marconi any more. Better to be specific. I know you've already stated that Marconi branding was used for defence firms within GEC, but I'm not sure the significance of this is clear at present. I know the history of these companies is horribly complicated and you are right not to get dragged into it, but I feel some adjustment is needed to make this para clear, I'm not sure what it is yet, though! ;-) I'll think some more! 4u1e 11:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're right. The main text can't rely on the introduction to establish important points. I've made the merger details clearer.
 * "Heritage of 100 years" - I'm honestly not sure, but the more I think about it the more I think you're right. I've reworded that.
 * I've reorganised the article a bit in the past few weeks, hence abbreviations not being explained at the first instance. I will double check.
 * The first instance of GEC > General Electric Company. It reads "BAE Systems was formed on 30 November 1999 by the GB£7.7 billion merger of British Aerospace (BAe) and Marconi Electronic Systems (MES), the defence subsidiary of The General Electric Company (GEC).[5]" - putting "British Engineering and Defence firm GEC" in there might make the sentence clumbsy?
 * How about: "BAE Systems was formed on 30 November 1999 by the GB£7.7 billion merger of two British companies: Marconi Electronic Systems (MES), the defence subsidiary of The General Electric Company (GEC) and aircraft and ship manufactuer British Aerospace (BAe)."? Is that an accurate statement? 4u1e 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the lead here? If the lead it's fine, except BAe had no shipbuilding assets, all brought to the new co. by MES. Mark83 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the beginning of the heritage section: trying to introduce the players at their first occurrence, although I agree it can become clumsy to do so. 4u1e 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind - overtaken by more recent edits, I think. 4u1e 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As for "Between 1945 and 1999, the company became one of the world's most important defence contractors" - it's really the defence business of GEC. GEC was a defence contractor before it acquired EE/Marconi - it was only after that acquisition that the defence businesses were folded into Marconi. Therefore I've changed it to the more generic "Between 1945 and 1999, GEC's defence business became one of the world's most important defence contractors." Does that work? Or should " Following GEC's acquisition of Marconi in 1968 the Marconi brand was used for its defence businesses" be merged with that statement somehow to explain it better. You're right, it is an extremely complicated history, but I'm open to any suggestions to make it easier to understand. Mark83 11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about 'becoming one of the world's biggest defence contractors', you need to be talking about a defence contractor, not 'GEC's defence business', I think. Did all of the defence work fall under a Marconi parent or shell company? Or a division within GEC? Or was it less structured than that? 4u1e 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know when I was writing that I wondered if it sounded right! I've clarified. Mark83 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some other GEC subsidiaries achieved defence sales (e.g. the telecoms businesses), however the vast majority was GEC-Marconi/MES. In my opinion these other sales are not worthy of mention in this article. I'm open to suggestions though. Mark83 20:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this bit's sorted now. Hafve struck my original comment above. 4u1e 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth summarising (one liner) in the Heritage section what each company was at the time of the merger? In 99 BAe was already well down the track to being a 'systems integrator' and was far from being simply an aircraft manufacturer, as implied by the heritage section. Marconi was much less of a single entity at the time and so is rather harder to define (at the time of the merger there were those who said that Marconi companies didn't mind merging with BAe - it was working with each other they didn't like!). Something along the lines of 'GEC's defence interests, gathered under the Marconi brand, were largely focussed on defence electronics and ?'? 4u1e 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read reports of how they were a "good fit" - BAe being largely (but not totally as you point out) a platform provider, while MES was more a systems integrator. Would that be a good way of summarising (and referencing) it? As for how to describe Marconi - I think that (a systems integrator) plus VSEL/YSL (naval/land systems).Mark83 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Platform provider' (with an explanation of what it is!) is probably a good term for BAe at the time - although my personal recollection is that they were already chucking around the systems integrator label before the merger, obviously go with what the sources at the time said. 4u1e 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Formation: 'It was widely anticipated...' When was it widely anticipated? My vague recollection is that the idea had been floating around for quite a while. 4u1e 11:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In this section, would it be useful to mention the strong links at the time between BAe and DASA through Airbus and Eurofighter? These were part of what made the move look logical (to me anyway, obviously that would have to be sourced!) 4u1e 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean pin down better when the BAe/DASA merger suggestions started/got more serious etc.?
 * Yes. 4u1e 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about links/logic. Should be easy, I've read how the thinking was to create a 'European Military Aircraft Company', with Airbus more or less its civilian arm - I suppose a European Boeing. Mark83 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. That's how I remember it looking at the time, for what it's worth. 4u1e 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the much fuller explanation of the background to the merger that you have added. 4u1e 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have other things I need to do today, but will come back later - so far it's looking like it's just clarifying various points, rather than anything more substantial! 4u1e 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's hard to tell, but I think all my points above have been dealt with (I haven't checked the acronym thing) 4u1e 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Background info
I think it would be a good to copy background info from here to the BAe and MES article, when things get settled down with the FA changes. Those articles look like they could use more info. I can help some with the BAe info, but I don't know enough about Marconi to do much there. Thanks. -Fnlayson 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also if this article starts to get overloaded with detail (due to my obsession with understanding how and why things start!) the excess could possibly go to those articles. 4u1e 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Further niggles
Further niggling writing/structure comments (Stop me when I get annoying! :D)-
 * Most of the above is now addressed, although I'd like a clearer idea of how GEC's defence work was structured at the time, not really for inclusion in this article, but to be sure that the current wording gives the right impressions.
 * Anyway, back to niggly stuff. 'British Aerospace executive John Weston' Is there a word missing there?
 * I suggest it would be useful to introduce Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin at first appearance. Many may only be aware of them as builders of airliners, and you need to say they're American to bring out the significance of the pressure on European companies. Ditto for DASA, Aerospatiale and CASA.
 * CASA still not explained, but they were very much a minority partner, I think?
 * 'Firewalling' - will readers understand this? They may well do actually, the concept is far more widely used (in a computing context) than it was 10 years ago. Can also be called a Chinese Wall, for which concept Terry Pratchett gives a nice explanation towards the beginning of Going Postal ;-) 4u1e 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Added American corporations to Boeing & McD to clarify. Although, that mainly refers to where they are based, like with other large corps. -Fnlayson 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your comments.
 * Well GEC was reorganised in 1998. Describing the move The Independent said "GEC's three main divisions will be Marconi Electronic Systems, a defence electronics business; Marconi Communications, which makes telecommunications equipment; and Industrial Electronics, which makes products ranging from Hotpoint washing-machines to gas pumps." (The Independent July 5, 1998 "Profile: Lord Simpson - The action man of GEC; The big test is still ahead, writes Edward Orlebar") Does that clarify it enough or would you like more detail? I'm happy to dig a bit more.
 * No there is not a word missing in "British Aerospace executive John Weston" - I was going for the generic "executive", i.e. board member. However you're right, it would be better to be more specific, I'll double check and add his correct title.
 * Good edit to point out the American corps. - which makes the John Weston quote more significant. You think DASA/Aerospatiale etc. need a short description at first mention, or just clarify nationality?
 * I've linked firewalling. Explanation enough? Mark83 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, although you may pick up a complaint that the article is almost entirely about the 'Chinese Wall' term rather than 'firewall'. I think that's probably just a shortcoming of the 'Chinese Wall' article, though. 4u1e 09:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The news article lists Weston as the "managing director of BAe's defense wing". That's too long to list imo, so executive seems fine. -Fnlayson 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect his business card at the time would have had 'Managing Director (Defence)' on it then, which is short enough, but maybe not really in prose style. Another option would be 'board member'. My concern is that 'executive' is a bit too generic and could sound like 'sales executive' or 'junior executive'. 4u1e 09:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know that position was on the BAe board then or is that just a guess? -Fnlayson 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point! It was an assumption (a pretty safe assumption) but given its not verifiable as yet I've reverted to "British Aerospace Defence Managing Director John Weston" -- that sounds OK I think. Mark83 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I asked that because board of director members in most large US corporations, don't generally have other duties with the company.  There may be executive councils for positions like business unit/division chiefs though.  That may not be different from UK and European corps though. -Fnlayson 14:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To use a current example, Walt Havenstein is both a BAE Systems plc board member and president & CEO of BAE Systems Inc. However I can't be sure about Weston so better to leave it as we have agreed. Mark83 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
I think more details could be added to the criticisms section. For example Zimbabwe is mentioned; they were supplying Robert Mugabe, until as recently as 2000. Could do with more details on their arms deals with Indonesia, which facilitated the violent oppression of East Timor. There is some good information about some of their misdeeds here - http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=185 - that could be included. Surely their hilarious attempt at greenwashing in 2006 by developing biodegradable landmines and lead-free bullets also deserves a mention. Vorpaul 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'll certainly look into it. However one important issue - corporatewatch fails to distinguish between British Aerospace and BAE Systems at times. e.g. "Arms exports began as early as 1978, but the biggest controversy began in November 1996" -- both of these dates before the creation of BAE Systems. Anything post-November 1999 is of course relevant to this article. Mark83 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More FAC comments
I know, I'm a born niggler:
 * 'Expansion' - Starts rather abruptly: can we have a little introduction to this? I don't think I know enough to make a proper suggestion, but topics to be covered in an intro might include: why did the expansion take place? (was this a reaction to changing markets, a change in BAE systems view of its role, a tidying up after the merger, or just part of the normal development of a large international company?); where have these changes left the company? (it looks to have continued the move from aircraft manufacturer to defence systems integrator at a quick glance); have whatever these factors are been consistent over the last eight years?
 * Provided such an overarching view can be established, it would then be useful in the rest of the section to tie the various changes to that view.
 * I realise that this might be difficult to ref, by the way! 4u1e 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure - I might have too much information for that!! I'll have a stab at it.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At the same time (and yes, this is an unreasonable request!) the 'Expansion' section feels very long compared to the rest of the article. Can it be cut down? Do we need the details of all the mergers? Something to consider, anyway. 4u1e 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll consider each case and see if it is really significant.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While you're there, and anticipating something Tony1 might bring up if he looks at the FAC this time: Every para in that section starts 'In (year)...' or very similar. It would probably be better to vary the approach somewhat! 4u1e 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Minor) The link to Broughton goes to a disambiguation page. And should that be Brough, East Riding of Yorkshire? 4u1e 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I guess it's not Brough, they do Hawks there, not airliners! 4u1e 14:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much (again) for the comments. All very constructive. Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sale of the Airbus plants - has that now ended UK-owned involvement in civil airliners, and is that worth mentioning? 4u1e 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BAE sold them to Airbus in 2001, but got a 20% share back in return. But the link was finally cut in 2006 when they sold that share. I'll make that clearer.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Mark83 18:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Products' As the company is now primarily a military manufacturer, it seems odd to start this section with mention of the rump civil aircraft work. Perhaps move that to later in the section? 4u1e 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Areas of Business': It seems odd (especially given the size of the contract) that although Saudi is mentioned right at the start of this section as a 'home market', there is nothing else in this section on how BAE is working in Saudi. This would also serve as an intro to the 'Criticisms' section later.
 * That was also suggested at Featured article candidates/BAE Systems - the mention of "home markets" was just the first stage of expanding it like you suggest.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned the problem with 'fixed price' contracts. Is there any room for changes under Smart Acquisition here, or is that going into too much detail? SA started in the late 1990s. MOD has changed its approach to acquisition massively since the Levene reforms, while the current wording implies that nothing has changed. 4u1e 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Going down that road could get too detailed, however I'll try and describe the 1999 to Defence Industrial Strategy period better.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And don't even get me started on 'fixed' versus 'firm' contracts...4u1e 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Criticisms': "BAE Systems does not manufacture land mines." This comes rather abruptly at the start of the second para: can it be introduced with something like (I assume) "Although BAE systems has been accused of manufacturing land mines..."? To put it another way, why is it here? 4u1e 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That was because of this. -- I agree though, too random. I've heard BAE been criticised for many many things, but land mines hasn't been one of them as far as I know. Removed. Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right too, if that's all it was! 4u1e 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "the only NAO report ever to be withheld" I can't see that this is covered by any of the refs. Have I missed it? It's quite a big claim. 4u1e 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is true, I'll find a reference.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Mark83 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Organisation': I think this also needs an intro paragraph giving an overview of how the company is structured. And a picture, perhaps? 4u1e 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'd expect to see organisation further up the page, perhaps between 'Areas of business' and 'Corporate Governance'? 4u1e 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do.Mark83 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No trouble. Sorry it's taken a while. 4u1e 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Images
Looks like this article is an FA now. I just thought it'd be good to have some images of BAE's facilities, like one of headquarters at Farnborough. Looks like that'd mean someone taking a picture of it and uploading it. -Fnlayson 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's me again (81.77.159.18). I've found the photos I mentioned above.  See Image:FAC HertfordHouse1.jpg, Image:FAC HertfordHouse2.jpg, Image:FAC HertfordHouse3.jpg, Image:FarnboroughAerospaceCentre panorama.jpg, Image:FarnboroughAerospaceCentre1.jpg and Image:FarnboroughAerospaceCentre2.jpg.  Use the photos if you wish.  I'll delete any remaining unused in a couple of weeks.  87.115.6.70 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)       (Deliberately anon ;-)
 * Thanks a lot! -Fnlayson 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that! Mark83 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms (again)
Mark83 reverted "BAE systems is also accused of employing spies to gather secret information from its opponents . " He asked "what opponents?" Did he check the refs? Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He also said that was covered in the first paragraph of the section. Take a look at it.. -Fnlayson 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I could see from the refs what you were talking about. I was making a point that you don't finish sentences in a reference. You say "BAE systems is also accused of employing spies to gather secret information from opponents such as CAAT..." and then add a reference. Primarily, as my edit summary and Fnlayson pointed out, it was repitition. Mark83 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies. More haste, less speed. Vernon White  . . . Talk 00:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First sentences
An earlier edit makes me think the first 2 sentences should say what BAE is before getting into the defence ranking and so forth. Something like this would do that.


 * BAE Systems plc (BAE) is a British defence and aerospace company headquartered at Farnborough, England, which has worldwide interests, particularly in North America through its subsidiary BAE Systems Inc. BAE is the world's third largest defence contractor, the largest in Europe, and a commercial aerospace products manufacturer.

That's a first cut anyway. Give it some thought anyway. -Fnlayson 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Good idea. It takes care of both Cruftbane's concern about how it reads and mine about talking about where it's based etc. before what it does. Mark83 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. That could be rearranged/reworded a bit more.  I thought about including the ranking after 'British defence and aerospace company', but it seems repeatitive to mention defense twice in a sentence.  Tweak it more if you want. -Fnlayson 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. It's too piecemeal to do it like that. It is established that BAE is a defence/aerospace company in the first sentence and that is a top ranking defence contractor in the 2nd, which is fine. Also both BAE & commentators value the company's US assets highly, so mentioning those in the first sentence is probably better. Mark83 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the first sentence really read that "BAE Systems plc is a British defence, security and aerospace company" with international interests? I'm not sure that this is the case any more. BAE's own website states that it is "a leading global defence, security and aerospace company" and the article goes on to state that the company is the world's second-largest defence contractor. Since the company is the largest/sole defence supplier to a number of large countries, I think it would be more accurate to change this to "global". 80.5.47.211 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a British registered & headquartered company. Regardless of what businesses Lockheed Martin or Boeing acquire Wikipedia will always describe them as American, why should BAE be different? BAE's preference to be described as "global" is irrelevant. The original version of the article was more informative & correct - saying it is a British company with global business. To say it is a global company with global interests is vague, repetitive and less informative. Also it suggests that BAE is omnipresent when in fact it focuses on specific markets and neglects many parts of the world. Mark83 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Image request
A picture of BAE's HQ at Warwick House in Farnborough would be an excellent addition to this article. I can't find an image anywhere. Presumably it would have to be taken by a BAE employee with the appropriate permission as I doubt the immediate area is open to the public? Mark83 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the area is restricted. The use of cameras / camera phones is prohibited across all BAE sites, so it may be difficult to get a photo of Warwick/Hertford House. Johnwalton 11:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I used to work there and I'm pretty sure I took a photo of the exterior of Hertford House before I left. But, it could take me some considerable time to find and scan it.  81.77.159.18 01:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)       (Deliberately anon ;-)
 * The Farnborough site itself is not restricted, and although it remains private property is nevertheless open to public access. Indeed, the public frequently have to access the site to gain access to unrelated businesses that share the site or border the site.  The BAE Systems buildings themselves are, of course, very restricted access. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Hertfordshire
The reason i have added Herfordshire is that this or it predecessor played a vital role in the economy of Hertfordshire, particularly but not limited to Hatfield. Simply south (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA: postponing to April 29th ?
I have suggested to the FA Director to postpone putting this FA on MainPage to April 29th, the anniversary of the founding of British Aerospace, the predecessor of BAE Systems, in 1977. (See User:Raul654/archive16.) --PFHLai (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rest v. Other (Parts of the World)
I dont want to drag a great article into a revert war, so I'm bringing it up here. To me, "Rest of the world" seems very off hand-ish. Almost as though the "rest of the world" doesnt matter. Whereas "Other parts of the world" seems as though they are being included and not in an afterthought kind of a way. It could just be me, but since it was reverted, someone else thinks otherwise. Comments? (on a side note, this post was blocked twice due to a spam filter... that I was adding some odd link... I'm not, and this was a direct paste of the last time I tried to add this)  Queerbubbles |  Leave me Some Love  17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was removing those links because I couldnt post unless I did. They are blacklisted links...  Queerbubbles  |  Leave me Some Love  17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, sorry. Were you using the new section button above to start this?  Seems like that way would avoid the spam link check. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I tried repeatedly, thinking that would definately eliminate that issue... but nope. I ended up having to go to the blacklist section and start poking around there to find out that that was the issue... I was freaking out.  No problem though, I realize that it musta looked odd.   Queerbubbles  |  Leave me Some Love  17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But, here's the link you removed: Indimedia. If it's blacklisted, why was I just able to post it here? --12.193.27.158 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a great question... but I can post too, and so can Fnlayson. You can check out my contribs to see that I did try to get help and am not making this up though...  Queerbubbles  |  Leave me Some Love  17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it now. Over on the Meta Wiki's multi-wiki blacklist, it was removed just a couple minutes before your post that removed the link. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Figures, thanks. A blocked link can be irritating.  It was fine a few weeks before and then now it's not... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think "Rest of world" is more encyclopedic. But as I suggested in my edit summary I don't feel really strongly about the change so if you want to revert to "other parts of the world" I won't object. " Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Sweden" could be another substitute heading? Mark83 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the company divisions is called 'UK and the Rest of the World.' (The other one is North America.)149.254.200.220 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First Robotics
might it be relevent to mention that BAE systems hosts multiple robotics teams, as well as several regional events? Eljawa (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think something like that was in the article before, but it was removed because it is minor/non-notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism left and right
Why has this article not been semi-protected yet? I thought featured articles were semi-protected during their time on the main page. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the type is new to me, at any rate: under Internet Explorer 5.1 and Netscape 7.0 on a Mac, and Internet Explorer 6.0 on a PC, the page displays perfectly normally: but under Firefox 2.0 on a PC, it displays a pageful of "FUCK!!!"s (I have them all open simultaneously at the moment).


 * How's that been done? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An administrator has to protect the page. That vandalism has been reverted.  Reloading the page should clear that up. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, it's not your browser, it's just that you happened to read the article, with Firefox, at the point where it was vandalized. Anyway, I've requested (WP:RFPP) that the article be protected against IP editing for a while.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, reloading cleared it up. Thanks. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for requesting protection. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was declined. I hadn't realized that this is the Main Page featured article.  The good news is that a lot of editors are watching it, so vandalism tends not to last. The bad news is that 90% or so of IP edits are going to be vandalism or unconstructive changes.  The good news is that this will drop off sharply once midnight (UTC) comes around and another article takes its place on the Main Page.   -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just the price of success - Watch and fix! - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have quite different definitions of "success". (But this is not the place to hash over the larger issue of semi-protection for main page articles.) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * True, it was worthy enough for several IPers to vandalize it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deterrent/Arsenal
The text says this: "BAE is also the UK's only nuclear submarine manufacturer and thus produces a major element of the UK's nuclear deterrent."

I wonder whether using the word "arsenal" is less POV than "deterrent", since it is POV that nuclear weapons constitute a deterrent. If one does believe that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, then they will understand the same thing from the word arsenal, while the word arsenal does not assume said POV position. I didn't want to act unilaterally though, incase this wording has already been consensused. Any objections? Jdcooper (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but 'deterrent' is certainly what it is normally called here in the UK. I've rarely if ever heard it referred to as the UK's 'arsenal' (and I work in defence). One could argue that changing from the common name to a theoretically more neutral term, is POV in itself, and it would certainly constitute OR unless the term is commonly used elsewhere. There's also a slight technical difference - an arsenal is a store of weapons, a deterrent is a defence capability. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4u1e is right. The loose definition of arsenal would be fine, but I think the strict definition is not applicable - arsenal in reference to nuclear weapons would suggest the stored warheads, not the active ones attached to missiles.
 * Is "deterrent" POV? UK government policy (the last time I read it in detail) is to have nuclear weapons both to deter other nuclear weapon states from attacking the UK and to provide a deterrent against countries using chemical weapons against British forces and/or interests (the UK not having chemical weapons of its own). Mark83 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "deterrent" is a non-neutral political term that has nevertheless become common parlance, which is exactly what the pro-nuclear lobby would have wished. Unfortunately, this usage is bolstered by a logically unsound argument. This is that nuclear weapons (any, but expecially the West's) ARE a deterrent simply BECAUSE there has not been another nuclear war. But whilst even one nuclear strike might disprove the thesis, no amount of non-strike can prove it - one would have to wait for an infinitely long time and even then there might be an infinite number of OTHER reasons why a strike does not take place. So "arsenal", although a little archaic, might be preferable. But why not simply ".. a major element of the UK's nuclear capability."? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Deterrent" is ""Newspeak" for "weapon", so the phrase might read ".. a key element of the UK's nuclear weapons capability."? A spade is a spade and a weapon is a weapon, which may or may not deter or may be thought to deter, if one favours massive expenditure on the Military/Industrial complex.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right, Vernon White. A vast stock pile of nuclear arms is one way to avoid a nuclear war by means of deterence. But that doesn't really seem to be the safest way to go about it. Another, possibly cheaper, way is to agree that no one has any nuclear weapons at all. But I'm sure these arguments are all well run elsewhere. Were just discussing one word here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So is there a consensus on "... a key element of the UK's nuclear weapons capability."? as a replacement for "Deterrent"? Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. More encyclopedic than anything else that's been suggested (and "deterrent"). Mark83 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With linking full dates optional now, I fail to see why it's worth the trouble to remove the links in articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the greater prominence this proposal would give to high value links. Are the links really useful anyway? I have never (on this artcile or other) found myself reading about event X happening on date Y and then thinking 'what else happened on that day?'


 * Fnlayson—it's a simple matter of pressing a tab using a script. Will do now. Tony   (talk)  13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like you should get a consensus to make these changes, especially with this one not be required. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we have more input, then, please? Tony   (talk)  04:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

SFO Prosecution
User:Abercromby recently added a section about the recent SFO prosecution announcement.User:Fnlayson reverted twice claiming WP:CRYSTAL. We discussed this over on User talk:Fnlayson/Archive_5. I think the news of the SFO announcement is a legit past event which should be included in the article. --Alastair Rae (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * to be sure, I only put the thing in once. I asked User:Fnlayson to account for his reversions, and I'm hoping he does so. This is newsworthy, and we can't (in the longer term) hold out. Baroness Scotland is under pressure from many directions (there is a political timing aspect to this) and the current status of BAE Systems needs to be placed in the public record (wikipedia). I'll check in the morning to see if things are straight. We have two votes for, and one against right now. Lets see how it plays out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.172.36 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this is newsworthy, but Wikipedia is not a news service. Wikinews does that. Wait until something is actually done, then add it here. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fnlayson. This will be a very important piece of the article, however there is no point adding something tonight based on speculative media reporting - BBC says SFO offered BAE a fine of millions to avoid prosecution, ITN says fine over £1 billion. The story will be very fluid for a few days at least. Let's hold back until either BAE accepts a plea bargain (or similar) or it is announced that it's heading to court. Mark83 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No point in holding off - we can always change it later. As long as what we write is true _tonight_, then no-one has the right to roll it back. We have to try to model reality as it appears to us at this point. 87.114.172.36 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing speculative about my entry. Fnlayson has brought up an aspect of necessity versus sufficiency. In this case, a huge, multinational company has suffered a significant slide in its share price as a result of some news. The news itself is notable and verifiable, notwithstanding other concerns. Please rebut this properly, or I'll have to reinstate the change. Cheers, 87.114.172.36 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Right, I'm going to bed soon. I've put the entry back, and I hope my friends here have no objection to that. As matters change, we are all able to react and put things in place. That is the purpose of this site. As things stand, BAe is "under inspection". Potential share buyers have the right to know these public facts, and wikipedia is bound to reflect the realities. Let me know if there is any dispute, else have a nice night! 87.114.172.36 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC).


 * In retrospect, perhaps I'm a bit hasty here. Clare Short has said that the company has been ripping off developing nations. I suspect there'll be plenty more to add here in a day or two. No use flip-flopping. Let's freeze this site until things transpire, then fill out the blanks. It makes sense. Cheers, 87.114.172.36 (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The term used by Clare Short is "ripping off", not "cheating". Why has this been edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abercromby (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That phrase is not in the BBC article or the video on the page with it. It looked like a rephasing of what she said in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
I wish to organize the Criticism content, by having a few more sub headings, however my edits have been deemed by some to fall foul of WP:NPOV.

For starters, The nuclear section shouldn't be in the criticism section - It is stating a fact, and should be integrated in the sections talking about the range of other armaments they are involved with.

Does anybody object? Chendy (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would leave it there but start the para with "The government pension fund of Norway excluded BAE from its portfolio in 2006 (ref) due to BAE's indirect involvement ... . That's a NPOV statement of Norways's POV.--Alastair Rae (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Corruption Probes" section
Information relating to investigations into BAE wrt corruption shouldn't be in the criticism section - but just before it in a "Corruption Probes" section. It is a fact they are getting investigated, not a criticism.

Anybody disagree? Chendy (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be a criticism section in the first place. Criticism should be properly integrated with the rest of the article. Criticism sections inevitably end up as dung heaps. We should certainly not be moving things which have been integrated into the article into a criticism section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BAe is controversial. As long as NPOV is maintained, it is useful to group aspects of that controversy in a single section. --Alastair Rae (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is easy to group aspects together. It inevitably leads to low-quality articles, where "balance" or "NPOV" is maintained simply by counting the number of "pro" and "con" sentences and trying to get them equal. It is absolutely required that to improve the quality of the article the criticism must be properly integrated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I sort of agree with both of you. However, what is your verdict regarding moving "Corruption Probes" out of "Criticisms"? Chendy (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with moving anything out of the criticism section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It did pass Featured Article review generally like this. However, distributing the section as the criticism tag suggests is a good thing if done properly. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was promoted in 2007, when our standards were considerably lower for FA. I'd be surprised if it passed a review right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Chris above could be paraphrased as "it is absolutely required to hide any criticism by chopping it up into little pieces and spreading around a very long article where it can get lost." --Alastair Rae (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually see such specious assertions of bad faith coming from new or inexperienced users, not from people who should evidently know better. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Right people lets be friends :)  ... As there is no real opposition (just opinions that both ways may be valid), the section will now be moved Chendy (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Status
Is it against WP policy to have entire sections devoted to criticism and controversy? If so, would this not challenge the article's Featured Article status? My Name is Wiki (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not strictly prohibited. Did you read the tag  there and follow the links? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)