Talk:Lockheed Martin/Archive 1

strong bias here
this article has a very strong bias against lockmart. The items listed should be included, but any successes are blatantly ignored. Seems like Wikipedia will never be free of the politics!
 * Feel free to make changes if you are unhappy with the current content. Jskiles1 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is completely free of any criticism of Lockheed Martin, so appears to have swung in the complete opposite direction in terms of bias (pro company). Check teh Project on Government Oversight Federal Contractor Misconduct Database for info on controversies surrounding Lockheed. Should be its own section of the article.Enviropearson (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Enviropearson. This article is ridiculously biased in favour of Lockheed Martin. There is certainly no shortage of criticism about the company, and I'm happy to add it here in order to create a balance view of this company which is, in no uncertain terms, a war profiteer. Frank Pais (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the information from the Metrication in the United States article regarding the downed Mars Orbiter to the History section. Hopefully it won't be deleted by the PR brigade. 115.64.80.236 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That material is hardly relevent at the corporate level. "Balance" does not mean reporting every minor negative incident remotely connected with a company. I've also removed all statements in the artilce such as "Lockheed Martin is a wonderful company" and "Lockheed Martin, the company that loves peoples". Hopefully it's not "biased" anymore. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * what do you mean by "at the corporate level" and why is wikipedia restricted to a discussion at this level? the depth of information currently on the page does not reflect the nature of the product, and glosses over the nature of the products produced. given that LM is one of the largest manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction and associated trappings, it seems appropriate to discuss some of the controversies created by involvement in this field, even if you're talking about the company strictly in a business sense. the section on student protest seems especially relevant in this sense- the company has more difficulty than others recruiting, generating similar reactions to military recruiting. PeterWoodman (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By "at the corporate level" I meant that the census company is but one small part of Lockheed Martin, and not even a major portion of its business. WP is not a "discussion, but an encyclopedia, and it is also Not News - just because something has been protested doesnt' mean it rises to the level of encyclopedic notability, especially when it is based on biased sources. And what is "the depth of information currently on the page does not reflect the nature of the product, and glosses over the nature of the products produced" suposed to mean?

How is Lockheed Martin any differnt form the many other defense contractors? Canada itself has several large ones, though not quite on the scale of LM or Boeing, yet I'm not seeing similar protest info posted on their pages. Honestly, adding this type of material gives undue weight to small anti-war fringe groups, and really has nothing to do with the company itself. WP is not here to pass moral judgment on companies because a few groups think their products are "immoral". No one is posting any allegations here that LM did anything illegal, or even immoral in the traditional sense. Rather, they are going after them simply as part of war protest efforts, and using big companies to promote their causes. Thanks for your "attempts" to make the sections more neutral, but it still doesn't belong, per Undue weight and NotNews. - BillCJ (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin is different because it, like all companies, follows different business plans from other companies. Just because Pepsi and Coke make a similar product does not mean that the companies have the exact same business practices. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.67.95 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a US corporation, LM is free to conduct its business as it sees fit, within the realms of the law. While Canadian defense contrators may be forced to produce softdrinks for Pepsi and Coke, LM does not. Again, if charges have been filed against LM for breaking laws, that is significant; protest by fringe anti-war groups are not. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You continue to characterize anyone who in any way opposes Lockheed Martin as fringe extremists. This is not proper debate, as obviously, there are other people who disagree with you on that subject. Just because you don't think it's noteworthy does not mean you have the right to completely remove all reference to it. Why don't you work with us to come to a consensus rather than making all the decisions yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.67.95 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The controversies have nothing to do with the company's policies. Many defense contractors recruit at colleges (they are generally good-paying jobs, which is something many people actually want), and many companies make polling machines. Protesting a company that makes polling machines solely because it US-based parent company makes LEGAL weapons, as do many Canadian companies, is the actions of a fringe anti-war group. Again, it's not actually a controversy at all, it's simply another method for anti-war groups to get out there mesage any way they can. That is not's WP's purpose. Such minor events are simply not notable per WP:NOTABILITY. - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Being anti-war is not a fringe ideology, it is a major field of thought, and to dismiss anyone who follows it is un-encyclopedic174.56.67.95 (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

and this is why people think Wikipedia is too full of biased viewpoints and 'revisionists.' The whole "Controversy" section should be removed entirely. It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.55.86 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not dismissing the people or anti-war-ism, but the groups methods and the fact the protests are not notable to LM's article. This is about notability to an encyclopedia - WP is NOTNEWS - that's a key principle here. Again, no one had accused LM of legal wrondoing in these matters; the company is being critized simply because it is one of the largest defense contractors in the US. Tha;ts also POV, and adding htis material gives Undue weith to a minor issue. And again, this is not the Lockheed bribery scandals, as genuine issue of wrongdoing on the previous company's part. Groups are protesting a company that makes polling machines solely because of its ownership, not because the machines are faulty or otherwise defective. AT UNB, protesting one defense company when there are probably other defense contrators recruting there is not notable - again, LM is doing nothing wrong here. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

cross reference with nasa failures
haven't a lot of NASA contracted work with lockmart end in failure?


 * genesis
 * several mars probes

etc.

shouldn't this be mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathwhiz90601 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I realize that this message was brought up over a year ago, but I would like to respond in saying that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit. That said, feel free to make changes if you are unhappy with the current content.Jskiles1 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
What does "USAF" (mentioned in the history section in conjuction with the Boeing scandal) refer to?

&mdash;Leif Arne Storset 08:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It stands for United States Air Force. Avman88 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LMLogo.png
Image:LMLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Protector USV.jpg
The image Image:Protector USV.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical Fellows
Is there any description of Lockheed's Technical Fellows somewhere on Wikipedia? 70.251.1.149 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Whitewashing
Corporate whitewashing of articles is a known problem on wikipedia, it's been documented before. Why is there no discussion of the possibility of that occurring on this article? Any controversy section of the article is quickly removed after it's added, despite the fact that sections dedicated to controversy are a very regular part of wikipedia. I really think that there needs to be a discussion about the possibility that people working for Lockheed Martin are editing this article to show the company in a more favorable light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.67.95 (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition of "controversies" contrived by fringe groups is also a known problem on WP, and a far greater one. WP is WP:NOTNEWS, and such info is not really relevant to the company as whole. It's lile reporting every flea bite on an elephant - it's improtant to the flea, but just a minor problem to the elephant. Btw, if you have proof that I am in any way connected with any corporate entity of any kind, please let me know - I am currently unemployed for health reasons, and I would be glad to know that I am mistaken! - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BilCat, you seem to be trying to use wikipedia to propagate your own ideolgocial truth. On your page we can read : "This user believes global warming and 'climate change' has a simple explanation: It's called THE SUN!" "This user does not believe in anthropogenic global warming".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.186.240 (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1950s, 60's and 70s, Lockheed was involed in several high-profile bribery scandals. This real controversy is not only well-covered in the Lockheed article, it has it's own we;;0documented article as well, Lockheed bribery scandals. This is an example of the type of genuine conrtoversy that should be covered in company articles. Btw, accusations of "corporate whitewashing" are serios charges. If you continue to make such strong accusations without proof, you will be reported to a WP adiminstrator noticeboeard, and further action could be taken against you. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of permanent Whitewashing, some people created a "Hall Of Shame" Wiki for corporations. I suggest to add the controversies to the following page Lockheed Martin on the Corporate Hall of Shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.186.240 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some people" or yourself? The latter I'd assume. Please keep dubious claims and sources off of Wikipedia. Articles are not created for the purpose of appeasing every fringe group in the world with a controversy section. The inappropriate sources for the "controversy" section has been removed. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Airborne Multi-Intelligence Laboratory
I'd list the AML under Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Services, but that page doesn't exist either.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/332082/dsei-picture-lockheed-offers-business-jet-based-multi-int-capability.html

Hcobb (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discarded pictures from WWII
I inserted the link Camouflaged plant during WW II.

An editor deleted it because it wasn't current. You don't allow history? Things did happen before the day you were born BTW.

While I got it (like everyone) on email and couldn't vouch for the authenticity, there is a good likihood that it is true, and shows the thinking during that time frame, which should be about 1942 or so. There are many versions on the web. Perhaps another editor can verify. Student7 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no Lockheed Martin then. Read the History section.  Lockheed Martin was formed in 1995 as a merger between Lockheed and Martin Marietta.  Pre-1995 info goes in those articles not here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section - POV?, Notability, News (maybe) rather than Encyclopedic?
OK, I am stepping in late, and I see there was a vigorous discussion last year on scandals and controversies already, so I hope I am not stirring up a lot of bad feelings. But...do these items truly meet the notability objectives of WP? Even if they were properly supported by the citations (some of which are dubious IMO) are they significant items in the history of a company this size?. And are there truly controversies ongoing on these subjects? (thjat is to say, is there a controversy/debate going on in the wide world outside of this WP page?)

Here: "Since 1997, Lockheed Martin has donated $2,346,300 to both the Republican and Democratic party, and 8 Bush administration policy makers had ties to Lockheed Martin.[15][16] This has led some to accuse it of being involved in revolving door politics, and of being part of the military-industrial complex.[17]"

First, is a donation averaging around $150k per year really a significant item for a $43B company OR is it significant to either of the political parties mentioned? Seems like small potatoes to me. Second, are the 8 Bush Administration "policy makers" significant in terms of the then size of that administrations staff, or is it even worth mentioning a year into the Pres Obama administration? Is there any suggestion that these people did anything immoral or unfair, or illegal? Third, is there actually a controversy on this subject, out there in the world? I can't say I am hearing anything about it if there is, and I try to keep up to date with ongoing news and current affairs. Finally, who are the "some" here? Is it one of the threee references, all of which appear to be advocacy groups with their own axes to grind. Nothing wrong with that per se, but does not necessarily make them a suitable reference for a WP article.

Then there is this:

"Since 1995, Lockheed Martin has been forced to pay a total of $577.2 million for 11 instances of contract fraud, out of a total of 50 instances of various kinds of misconduct (including contract fraud, contractor kickbacks, nuclear safety violations, and others).[13][14]."

Why "forced"?, that does not sound like a neutral POV. It like saying I was "forced" to pay a speeding ticket. Is there evidence that they resisted paying a legal penalty after the relevant infractions were adjudicated? Plus, reference 14 which is a transcript of the Rachel Maddows show (and by the way, really? is this a credible citation?) claims LM were fined $68M, not $577M for the 11 contract fraud cases she claims (though, Rachel doesn't say where she got her data from). The other refernece (13) is an advocacy organistation called "Project on Government Oversight" and they claim 50 infractions over a 15 year period, with adjudicated penalties totalling $577 million. Now that amount is a little more significant, even for a multi-billion dollar corporation, but if this is truly an ongoing controversy it should at least be accurately summarised.

In the interests of self-protection against charges of "whitewashing" I will state that I am not now, nor have Iever been an employee or an agent of Lockheed Martin, nor do I own any of their stock.

Cheers, Turbine1 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As per the consensus achieved above, I have once again removed the bulk of what continues to be added to the controversy section as a means of pushing a political agenda. The sources are not reliable as the sources come from political fringe websites that are not reliable. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Weapons?
Lockheed Martin appears on the list of top weapons manufacturers, but the word "weapon" is not found in this article. What's up with that? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead says that LM "is the world's second largest defense contractor by revenue as of 2008[1], when 70% of Lockheed Martin's revenues came from arms sales", with link to a Top20-list. TGCP (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Washington Tech numbers do not seem to add up - when clicking "Defense Revenue" on 2009 (which lists by total, not defense) and further to LM, numbers are $15B total = $4B civil + $11B defense, but 2008 revenue shows $42B - which numbers are relevant, and what is behind the large discrepancy between "70% arms sales" and 11/42 ? SIPRI numbers show around $30B defense. 2007 and 2008 are about the same size. Also, date of balance sheet is somewhat amibiguous, as government fiscal year may not be the same as corporate fiscal year. TGCP (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to use Defense News' list. But their latest rankings seems to be for 2008 data (published in 2009). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2008 is probably the latest we can get, as 2009 numbers are not compiled yet from all balance sheets. The WaTech says "Data is collected on government expenditures related to information technology products and services, systems integration, telecommunications, professional services and engineering services" which does not sound like weapons. Each source seem to have different definitions of defense, with SIPRI (70%) and DefNews (95%) being somewhat similar, and WaTech standing out. "Largest defense sales" thus depends on the definition of "defense", "arms", "military" and so on. Are DefNews data from sales in 2007 or 2008 ? Although DefNews state 2008 and published in 2009 (where?), sales data could still be from 2007. TGCP (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, defense percentage of LM sales is 70% SIPRI, 92% DefNews, 26% WaTech. TGCP (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All numbers from all sources are likely correct, but the definitions and accuracy may differ. Some projects are partly defense, partly civilian. For example, the Atlas_V is sometimes launched with civilian cargo, sometimes military. According to Wa civ, LM had $4,047,938,722 civilian revenue in 2008 from (US?) "government expenditures related to information technology products and services, systems integration, telecommunications, professional services and engineering services", not counting civilian non-government sales (and maybe non-US sales, civilian and military). Total 2008 revenue was $42731 mio, so a maximum of 42.7-4.0 = 38.7 Billion could be military, and likely less. The 39.55 B from DefenceNews is unlikely to be as accurate. When F-35 kicks in, LM will probably be the undisputed defence contractor. TGCP (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove Controversy section survey
The current Controversy section appears to fail WP:Notability. Also WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply as only these issues are only getting local or regional coverage. I can not find any articles from large news services like BBC, and CNN. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your entry using ~ . Note polling is not a substitute for discussion, so please explain your reasons.


 * Support removal as they dont appear to be either controversial or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Incidents are non-notable and minor news items. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ""Support"" - if anything, they're particular to a business unit and not the corporation as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.69.145 (talk • contribs)

Survey comments
There has been no opposes. I'll give a few more days and close if this does not change. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin plagued by network security problems
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/defense-contractor-lockheed-martin-plagued-by-network-security-problems-20110527/

I'd give this a few days to sort out before entering it. Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576350083016866022.html Hackers may have infiltrated the networks of top U.S. weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp., according to a person with knowledge of the attacks.


 * May means not solid yet. Hcobb (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesnt at the moment appear to be particular notable for the article, it would have to have a really serious disruption or closure of the business to be encyclopedic and not just news. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Management section
I've pruned this to remove obvious/generic statements and removed the tag. IMO it's as relevant as much WP material is, and more relevant than a lot of the stuff I see! Chrismorey (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Link Dead
The link for the last citation, 58, doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.56.67 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Main Shareholders?
Not a single mention of the main shareholders, stock majority, owners of these? How come? Not interesting enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.117.125 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As a public company shareholder information is unlikely to be notable or encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Most large companies are owned mostly by mutual funds! Probably has been discussed before somewhere. Might be different for a closely held corporation. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Corruption Section
I've had a little time this morning to start work on the section, hopefully, I will conclude the additions later today, I'm not following other defence contractor articles which I beleive give undue weight to corruption investigations and will, therefore, attempt to keep the section both concise and neutral, regards. Twobells''t@lk 11:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Industrial Defender
Shouldn't Industrial Defender have its own page? I was redirected here when looking for info on Industrial Defender. My understanding is that it's a significant enough product that it should not just be lumped in as a single comment here. Thoughts? Tara Zieminek (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)