Talk:Chemonics

CIA
Why is no mention made of the fact that Chemonics works hand in glove with the CIA? 31.48.111.106 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a wp:rs reliable source, why don't you add it? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
Hello, I'm "LW" with the strategic communications team at Chemonics. I've created an account to suggest edits to the Chemonics Wikipedia article and I've disclosed my financial conflict of interest on my profile.

I will have more suggestions for improving the article but I'd like to start with the infobox. The one I've shared in this section uses the "Start date and age" template, provides a more specific location, add mention of the founder and CFO, links "president" and "CEO", includes areas served, and removes the unsubstantiated employee count.

Can someone replace the infobox with the one I've provided here? The company's logo has been updated, so I will tackle the logo swap once the infobox is changed. If editors have any questions about my requests, I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources for this information? We'd prefer independent, reliable sources if possible but affiliated would be ok. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I added citations as you requested. If you have any other feedback, I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for implementing this! I will be back shortly with Chemonics' current logo. LW at Chemonics (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I uploaded File:Chemonics_logo_2016.png. Can you add to the infobox? I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! LW at Chemonics (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated article draft available
Hello, I'm "LW" with the strategic communications team at Chemonics. I've created an account to suggest edits to the Chemonics Wikipedia article and I've disclosed my financial conflict of interest on my profile and in my earlier request to update the article infobox.

An updated article draft I created is available for editors to review: User:LW at Chemonics/Chemonics. Can someone review my draft and move its content into this article if it is acceptable based on Wikipedia's rules? (The infobox has already been implemented by User:Chris troutman.)

My draft restructures this article. You will see I shortened the introduction; created an "Overview" section; expanded "History", which is one sentence in the live article, by incorporating topics currently covered in "Criticism"; and added "See also" and "External links" sections. I tried to bring balance to the article, improve sourcing, and describe Chemonics' history and operations more comprehensively.

Looking at the live article, there is misleading information that can be clarified with some additional context. An example is the last sentence of "Criticism", which reads: "In 2016, A Department of Labor investigation into Chemonics’ hiring practices found that the group discriminated against applicants based on race while trying to fill entry-level positions". The investigation was in 2011. The issue was settled in 2016, and this article does not mention Chemonics' corrective actions.

If editors have any questions about my requests, I'm happy to discuss! I'm also happy to go through this in smaller chunks, if that is preferred. LW at Chemonics (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * this is good and substantial work, and it is clear that you are attempting to expand the article's detail, not just add promotional information. I do have a few questions though, as conflicted editing brings a closer degree of scrutiny.
 * I think your work on the hiring discrimination section is good, keeping the core complaint of the criticism, while providing additional context. The criticism about Afhganistan is largely preserved in its current form. Some other areas however, seem to have been treated differently.
 * The Haiti criticism section has been re-written to sound like the problem was that the contracts were no-bid, when currently the article states. "Audits specifically cited Chemonics lack of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan and that 'some of the performance indicators Chemonics developed were not well-defined.' Chemonics also spent more than 75 percent of program budgets on material and equipment when an expenditure of only 30 percent was planned." The criticism about lack of local partnerships and workers seems to have been removed entirely. These are not unsourced allegations, but findings of the USAID OIG, and I'm hesitant to remove them, especially from a conflicted party at a time when the article as a whole is expanding.
 * My preference would be to do one of the following: 1) include the existing text within your revision, 2) include the existing text alongside some expanded mention of Chemonics response, as you provided for the hiring practices section, or 3) hear a very good reason why the details of the criticism should be removed.
 * I know it's been a while since you posted this, so I appreciate your patience. In the future, you can place edit request in your section of proposed changes to draw the attention of editors looking to facilitate COI edits like this one. For this change specifically, feel free to ping me in your response. MarginalCost (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This feedback is very helpful. I had cut the material you noted above because it cited the USAID OIG and not journalistic coverage of the topic. But you bring up valid points, so I restored the material in my draft at User:LW at Chemonics/Chemonics. I included Chemonics' response to both points; however, I want to point out to you that the best source for this is an op-ed piece written by Rhett Gurian, who was the senior vice president of our Haiti and West Africa Division at the time. I understand if that does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, but I thought it was worth sharing for consideration. Can you review the updated draft to see if I have addressed your concerns? I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have made the requested changes. Keep in mind that, as always, work submitted in Wikipedia is released under CC-BY-SA as per our terms of use, and is subject to further changes by any editor at any time. This edit is not a certification that the article is now in perfect shape, just that on balance it represents an improvement over its previous state. I am also pinging who made organizational changes in the interim that have now been superseded by this revision.
 * If you are interested, I think the article could be further improved by adding some images, either of the headquarters or fieldwork. If the company is willing to release images under a compatible license, it could break up some of the wall of text. MarginalCost (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like a lot of work has gone into this massive overhaul. I don't understand why a piecemeal improvements wouldn't suffice, especially as its now overwritten my recent contributions. I am vary wary of Chemonics writing their own page, though does include much of the previous content before they were involved. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your hard work, review, and updates to this article are greatly appreciated. Sorry for my delay in responding, I wanted time to thoughtfully review all the updates before giving my feedback. There are a few items I wanted to comment on.


 * 1. A quote added to the article is misattributed. Teele did not say "I've always wanted a way to do two things: one, have my own C.I.A., and two, be helpful to people." The New York Times article that is cited quotes Gerald D. Murphy as saying that. (Directly from the article: Mr. Murphy said he started Chemonics in 1976 because "I've always wanted a way to do two things: one, have my own C.I.A., and two, be helpful to people.") Can editors please consider making a correction?


 * 2. The sentence "Chemonics received $6.7 million in contracts in 2000" was removed. The edit summary said the content was "redundant and unsource". This information is verified in the citation following the next sentence of the article, . If editors think this information is OK to include citing , I ask for it to be put back in the article. If editors think this is unnecessary detail, that is OK with me.


 * 3. The introduction now says Chemonics "has been frequently labeled a Beltway Bandit". To me, "frequently" seems like it could be one of Wikipedia's Words to watch, similar to "sometimes", "often", and "occasionally". I understand if Wikipedia editors believe the label "beltway bandit" belongs in the article somewhere, but its location in the introduction seems WP:UNDUE, and the word "frequently" lacks precision. I ask if this can be moved elsewhere in the article, perhaps to the "Overview" section or linked in the "See also" section.


 * As far as the way I chose to present my proposed updates: The previous version of the article was relatively short and I included much of the previous content in my draft, so I thought it would be helpful for editors to see exactly what I was proposing up front.


 * Thank you both again. I hope you can review my comments above and update the article if you find my points adhere to Wikipedia's norms. I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That misattributed quote has been fixed, I confused the two people. And removed the adverb. "Unnecessary" could be a better edit summary; we're not listing the value of taxpayer dollars received by year.Bangabandhu (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the misattributed quote and removing the adverb. And I understand about not adding the amount of contracts in 2000. Do you have thoughts on whether "beltway bandit" belongs in the introduction, "Overview", or "See also"? LW at Chemonics (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So there are a few issues here.
 * First, sourcing. Both of the articles linked to by do not directly call the firm a beltway bandit, only note that others do so. That can be fine - we're looking for documentation of general use after all - but both kind of keep the term at arm's length. Newsweek notes the term is used by "rivals" of the firms. The CEPR article is actually just a repost from AlterNet, which is considered "generally unreliable" on Wikipedia, and the article itself even uses "so-called" and scare quotes around the term. So overall, I consider the sourcing for this term to probably be inadequate.
 * Second, there's the issue of tone - is the term pejorative? The word "bandit" seems inescapably pejorative to me, even if the beltway bandit article claims it has lost its pejorative tone (and the Washington Post article it has as one its two citations for saying so doesn't support that claim - quite the opposite actually - but I don't have access to the book). Again, the linked Newsweek article notes the term is employed by the rivals of a given company.
 * Third, there's the issue of equity and precedent. I've also taken a look through what links here, and see that literally no other government contractor includes the term in their article, with the possible exception of Melpar, which doesn't apply it to the firm itself. So, at the very worst, omitting the term would bring this article in line with all other government contractors.
 * Finally, there's the issue of placement: is including the term in the lede too prominent? I think so - though on balance I don't think the current sourcing is strong enough to include it in the first place. Depending on the strength of any further sourcing produced, inclusion in the "overview" section could be appropriate.
 * I'm not taking any action just yet to remove the content, as I want to give Bangabandhu a chance to respond, and see if any stronger sources for use of the term can be located.
 * While I'm here, I'll also respond to Bangabandhu's question about the overall update. I note that the old version of the article was pretty much entirely criticism of the company, with almost no detail on its operations. LW@C's update preserves pretty much every criticism from before, but brings a raft of sourced content more in line with what would be expected in an encyclopedic entry, and maintains a more balanced tone. MarginalCost (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very thoughtful and thorough reply. You're right that the sourcing as it stands right now is a bit lacking. But it is abundantly reported in other sources. From the CEPR story, but put in the terms of another paper: "An analysis by the CEPR found that 70 percent of the $450 million awarded through reconstruction contracts has gone to Beltway companies like Chemonics" or in this article, "where USAID contract or grant recipients are large for-profits like Chemonics, Checci and Co, or Development Alternatives Inc. (these form part of a cohort referred to as the “beltway bandits.”)", the Boston Globe refers to the sector using those term "These two wars in two years and their aftermaths have brought out the Beltway Bandit companies in full force, and there is a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq.and Afghanistan". Chemonics is also referenced as such in books such as Hopeless but Optimistic: Journeying through America's Endless War in Afghanistan, which reads "the expensive new abattoir was constructed by USAID in connivance with beltway bandit Chemonics" (page 49)
 * Actually, I think the point probably deserves greater discussion in the article, not less. Other Beltway Bandits may not have it in their article, but they should, and anyway WP:OSE. As to your point about pejorative, I think the abundance of sources suggests its appropriate term, regardless of the connotations around "bandit". Bangabandhu (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your responses. I am not advocating for the term to be removed from the article, but placement in the lead gives it too much weight. I agree with MarginalCost that "Overview" could be the most appropriate place. LW at Chemonics (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You linked 4 articles. 1) The MinnPost article never uses the term Beltway bandit, just beltway. A random user in the comments section said beltway bandits. 2) Medium is considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia. 3) The Boston Globe article, quoting from the executive director at the Center for Public Integrity seems valid. 4) This book, written by a recognized journalist and published by a university press, seems valid.
 * As far as the issue of WP:OSE, I think this is a case that fits very with certain points of the essay's WP:SSEFAR subsection: when discussing whether to include such a phrase, it's valid to see how other articles have handled the matter, and seek some degree of internal consistency. In any case, I never intended that argument to be final or binding, and if it's not persuasive to you I'm content to drop it.
 * Overall, I'd say if there's some legitimate sourced criticism of Chemonics use of government funds, it should be included in the article. But putting "beltway bandit" it in the lede feels too much like making a value judgement as a summary. I still think these sources are mostly isolated mentions, and believe the term can be kept if moved to the overview section. In any case, the existing citations should be replaced by the better citations from the Boston Globe and Hopeless but Optimistic. If you still disagree, I wanted to gauge your interest in posting this at WP:3O? (While technically LW@C is also involved, I think given the COI this would be a good use of 3O's flexibility.) If someone else alerted there (or through another neutral channel) also believes it should be in the lede, I'm willing to drop my argument. MarginalCost (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want to post to 3O I have no problem with that and welcome the input.Bangabandhu (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * great. In accordance with 3O guidelines, I have created a summary section below to help the respondent. Go ahead and make any changes you wish before it is posted to 3O. MarginalCost (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me though it is appropriate to use the Newsweek article too. I can see the reasoning behind excluding the CEPR-published, Alternet originated article. Newsweek sees it fitting to run a story explaining the term and analyzing its appropriateness - it deserves inclusion.Bangabandhu (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've posted it to 3O. MarginalCost (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm an editor on the International Relief and Development Inc. page. I would like to point out that added the same "beltway bandit" sentence to the lede of that page and I raised a similar objection on  the talk page. I guess they followed through on their earlier statement: "Other Beltway Bandits may not have it in their article, but they should". I strongly agree with what has been said here that the term is derisive and almost never seen in impartial sources. It is definitely used in Washington circles, but it is not so widespread as to be part of the national lexicon, in the same way as "Washington insider" is for example. It almost seems like there is an attempt to further legitimize the term here. I don't think it should be the job of Wikipedia editors to pick and choose which labels they deem appropriate for certain organizations. Knoxinbox (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you many times, it makes no difference whether the Wikipedia description of Chemonics, IRD, or any other entity fits with your view of the organization. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, many of which use the term "beltway bandit". Its not "derisive", but is, as you point out, akin to using the term "Washington Insider". It's unfortunate that you'd like these entries to read about how these firms are "saving lives" or some such pr drivel - they're not. Content based on reliable sources contributed by impartial editors wouldn't never say something like that. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize to the Chemonics editors for hijacking their talk page, but the discussion is identical in both places and we might as well sort things out here. I have yet to see the "many" reliable sources you mention. Of the multiple links you've included here and on the IRD page only one seems quality enough wp:secondary to be considered - the book. Even that is lacking a clear explanation of why the organization is being labeled as such. The author seems to assume reader awareness of the term, and I guess the connection is self evident? At this point I'm curious on what really is the criteria for an organization to be labeled a "beltway bandit"?


 * I definitely don't think the "bandit" wp:label should be in the lede of the page, but have concerns with its inclusion anywhere:


 * I question how notable and due wp:weight it has. The fact that a washington organization was called something unflattering by a particular writer is nothing new. Why is this particular instance significant enough to merit prominent placement in the lede? Put another way, "It is important to know that Chemonix or IRD is a "beltway bandit" because…"?
 * If there is some notability to it, then it is still a subjective term. Is it not enough to say that these orgs are based in the Washington DC area and receive most of their funds from the federal government? That's what "beltway bandit" means after all. Or is the bandit/thief image important? If so then we're back where we started that the "bandit" wp:label is meant to be insulting. The source authors certainly meant it as such.
 * The term "beltway bandit" is more of a reflection on Washington contracting practices rather than something particular to Chemonics or IRD.


 * On a separate note, I don't even know how to respond to this:
 * ''It's unfortunate that you'd like these entries to read about how these firms are "saving lives" or some such pr drivel - they're not.
 * I have never said anything of the sort, and I'm not sure where you're going with it. I guess it's fair to say don't see any of this discussion as in wp:goodfaith. Knoxinbox (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to rehash the same discussions on here that I've had with you elsewhere and on ANI. You have repeatedly attempted to whitewash the sole entry you edit, yet you somehow suggest I'm not operating in good faith and have now followed me to this page.
 * The extent of the documented fraud, waste, and abuse differs significantly between Chemonics and IRD and they should not be conflated, yet they both meet the criteria for beltway bandits. You can call the term imprecise or subjective, but that's really not relevant. Based on any reasonable definition of the term, IRD and Chemonics are most decidedly beltway bandits. This is well documented in the ample sourcing. It is a disservice to readership to exclude it. PR folks for the respective organizations should have taken up the issue when it was originally printed in the Boston Globe, Brookings, an the other publications where it's used. Wikipedia reflects that usage. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source
The article currently sources extensively from Washington Technology - https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2018/11/07/2018-industry-innovators.aspx - which is an industry publication that looks like it offers a fee for coverage service and does not make meaningful distinctions between press releases and its own coverage. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I'm unable to find evidence Washington Technology offers fee-for-coverage - do you have a link to illustrate? Second, essentially all references in the article seem to be about placing on the magazine's various award lists (an acceptable use of WP:PRIMARY, as the publication's own lists are reliable authorities on the content of those lists, and there is no synthesis or interpretation required). Awards are not unusual for an article to mention, though this does perhaps use them more heavily than other companies - I had considered moving them to a separate section. If you can show these awards are pay-for-coverage or otherwise not independent evaluations, they should certainly be removed. MarginalCost (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

3rd Opinion Request: "Beltway Bandit" in lede?
Central question: should a sentence like the following appear in the article lede? A summary of the discussion is below. The consulting firm has received some of the U.S. government's largest aid contracts and has been labeled a Beltway Bandit.

Background: The article was previously filled largely with criticism of Chemonics, and recently underwent a major revision due mostly to suggestions from a conflicted editor. The sentence in question was added August 5, and while no reversions have taken place, discussion has ensued on this talk page under the above "Updated article draft available" section.

Major arguments for: the term is used by multiple reliable sources, and is an accurate descriptor of this major government contractor.

Arguments against: the term caries negative connotations which make placement in the lede appear to be a summary value judgement, mentions in sources are relatively isolated. Similar Wikipedia articles do not contain the term.

Options: 1) Include in lede, 2) move to "overview" section, or 3) remove entirely. MarginalCost (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Not sure if this is proper 3O since there already appears to be three persons involved (including the conflicted editor), but nevertheless. The prevailing consensus is that material of this nature must be adequately supported by WP:RS. Since that appears to be the case, (based on the above summary) then it would be improper not to include it. If the worry is about WP:UNDUE, then again sources are what must prevail - if the given statement is indeed only the object of "relatively isolated mentions" in the provided sources, then placing it in the lead would not be correct - a better place could be the overview section (since the same idea is discussed there). Again, this is all dependent on the sources, not one's judgement on the accuracy of the descriptor or the negative connotations thereof or WP:OSE (similar articles might not have been subject of similar treatment by sources). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable to me. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. done. MarginalCost (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your serious and thoughtful consideration of this! LW at Chemonics (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested updates
Hello, I'm returning to this page with more suggestions to improve the article on behalf of Chemonics. As a member of Chemonics' strategic communications team, I disclosed my financial conflict of interest here and on my profile. Here is a list of the updates I ask Wikipedia editors to consider:
 * 1. For "key people" in the infobox sidebar, replace "Susanna Mudge (President and CEO) William Keller (CFO) " with

"Susanna Mudge (Chairwoman)

Jamey Butcher (President and CEO)

William Keller (CFO) "
 * 2. In "Overview", replace "Susanna Mudge serves as president and chief executive officer (CEO)" with "Susanna Mudge chairs the board of directors. Jamey Butcher serves as president and chief executive officer (CEO). "
 * 3. In "History", add "In February 2020, Chemonics broke ground on its new headquarters in the Navy Yard."

Requested edits #1 and #2 are obvious updates to clarify the company's leadership. I requested #3 because the live article says Chemonics "plans to relocate headquarters to a building under construction in Navy Yard." This update would show readers that this plan is moving forward. If editors have any questions about my requests, I'm happy to discuss! KJ at Chemonics (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in reviewing another edit request for this article? (You reviewed requests from a colleague of mine last year.) An IP editor has since updated the infobox and "Overview" section with Chemonics' new CEO, but the content only cites primary sources, and removes Susanna Mudge, who is Chemonics' chairwoman of the board. I still believe my request would be an improvement. If you have any questions about my requests, I'm happy to discuss! KJ at Chemonics (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in reviewing another edit request for this article? (You also reviewed a similar request previously.) KJ at Chemonics (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

✅ Bangabandhu (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Origin of name "Chemonics"
It's an unusual name, and I was unable to find any mention of the name's origin on the company website. Could someone with knowledge of the subject, for example KJ at Chemonics, please add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:65A1:900:E761:154:DB03:DAF6 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)