Talk:Raytheon/Archive 1

Controversies
I will not delete it or change it, but why are the deaths of four Raytheon employees during the September 11 attacks listed under the "Controversies"? That's general company history.

My above point is the main one, but as additional note, I do not think the paragraph on a Raytheon employee editing the article merits inclusion. Wikipedia is here to be edited by everyone on the planet. People make changes that are disputed or reversed or whatever countless times a day. The point that it was a Raytheon employee editing the Raytheon article, and removing a particular piece of negative information, seems hardly worth mentioning--too petty to merit mention. (I realize this issue has been in the news since the IP tracer thing came out, but Wikipedia has higher and better standards). 72.24.86.95 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above user: it seems awfully self-indulgent of Wikipedia to include such a triviality - the action of a single employee - alongside actual controversies. It really ought to be deleted. 98.226.184.153 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Belmont
Raytheon once manufactured televisions and marketed them under the Belmont brand name, is that right? So my parents once said...
 * I belive so, I am meaning to add the information once I can locate the dates in "The Creative Ordeal" while that book is probaly very authorative it is an "ordeal" to find things in it.
 * My understanding is that Belmont was also a milatary contractor in WWII, but I have not waded that far into the book.
 * First I have to put in the (mostly) unsucessful suit against RCA and the (forced) purchase of QRS's Tube Business. cmacd 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is way too focused on controversies and not one mention of the AutoTrac III, air traffic control system. It's a huge Raytheon product and is currently installed in over 150 airports, some being the largest in the world. You would think people would want to know about a product that directly touches everyday life. Yet not much of anything. A huge oversight IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.112.170.65 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Delition
(Deleted 207.136.9.114 's vulgar complaint about what a Raytheon is.)

Brand name
Raytheon was a brand name of rectifier tube created by the Early founders of Raytheon AS it stated in the article. Dominick 18:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Company name
The company's web page http://www.raytheon.com/about/ gives the name as Raytheon Company (not Corporation); move page to "Company"?


 * Why not just Raytheon? Edward 10:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Most Employees just use Raytheon. After the consolidations, many different flavors of Raython were used such as Raytheon Electronics Systems, Raytheon Systems Corp. Now most just say Raytheon officially, AFAIK no other entities exist.Dominick 14:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Chain edits with one sided Raytheon Criticism
Numerous chain edits on the page were done from a single activist source. I looked at PoV for most, perhaps this should be a boilerplate corporate page, and then add the comments and controversy where they belong. Many removed comments have little to do with Raytheon, others are unsubstantiated. If there is better than a single source for those comment please post here and lets make this a better article.Dominick 14:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the article sounds like a long indictment of Raytheon. I'm in no position to say whether what's said is true or not; however, it is a bit bizarre to focus on the scandals and hardly say anything about the history of products from that company. My impression is that anyway all major companies, especially those dealing with government procurement, have had similar scandals. David.Monniaux 15:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good restructrure job. I will look for a good source on product lines, and add more. I think that someone read an expose. Most was previous management. Raytheon is a leader in having a high level and high profile Ethics office. Dominick 02:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Chain editing with one sided comments are out of hand. What to do... Dominick 02:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

This is Whit Larrabee here. I apologize for the chain edits. I am just learning how to do this. Some of the source information for this article came from the Multinational Monitor which may be found at www.corpwatch.org under Raytheon Profile.

The Bush speech at Andover is found at

Bush, George. "Exchange with Reporters in Andover, Massachusetts, on the Iraqi Offer to Withdraw from Kuwait." Public Papers of the Presidents: Administration of George Bush. 15 February 1991. Washington: GPO: 147-148.

---. "Remarks to Raytheon Missile Systems Plant Employees in Andover, Massachusetts." Public Papers of the Presidents: Administration of George Bush. 15 February 1991. Washington: GPO: 148-150.

http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/PatriotQJS.html

I don't believe that the inclusion of negative comments about raytheon violates the no point of view policy. I have attempted to remove editorial comments and just report the facts. When I came upon the article, it was imbalanced in that it said nothing of this company's misdeeds. More balance would be added if more information were added. The negative information, if truthful, should not be removed just because it is negative. If the facts are as I have stated them, they are not "one sided." The facts are the facts. The truth has no sides. However, I encourage people to add balance to the artice by incorporating favorable information about Raytheon's accomplishments. I have a high degree of confidence in the facts presented.

Some of the other information I have incorporated in the article is sourced at http://www.gis.net/~larrabee/raytheonprofile.htm.

I will return with more evidence of sources

Whitfield Larrabee 01:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The Bush speech can be found at:

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/91021504.html

"Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted. And given the fact that this Scud missile has no military value, simply designed to devastate cities and wipe out population, imagine what course this war would have taken without the Patriot."

Whitfield Larrabee 01:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Reference to Raytheon's criminal conviction can be found at:

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/jan97/96-1430.01a.html

What could be more relevant to an article about a corporation than its conviction of a crime in the core activities of the corporations enterprise, defense contracting?

With regard to the SIVAM scandal, the exact quote from the wiretap was deleted by someone. One can imply from the quoted material that bribes were paid. The publication Isto E "this is" for those who don't speak portuguese, is cited. By deleting the factual information from the article and then complaining that it isn't "sourced," the reader is left without enough information to make up his mind. I recommend returning the quote of the wiretap to the article to allow the reader to make up his or her mind.

I recommend deleting term Scandals. Scandals suggests a point of view. Whether something is a scandal depends on your perspective. The "negative events" in Raytheon's history should be under history.

The securities fraud happened under the "new management" of Daniel Burnham, who recently was replaced. It is one of the top ten securities fraud settlements in the history of the world. I agree that Raytheon is a leader in having a high level of ethics and high profile Ethics office --- in comparison to Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing and Health South.

I agree that the word "Corporation" should be deleted from the page title. No one who knows the company calls it that. It should be Raytheon or Raytheon Company.

It is important to explain that Bush declared that the Patriot was over 95% successful to put into context later findings that it was at best 40% successful and possibly as low as 0% successful in hitting Scuds. That is the core of the factual dispute.

Whitfield Larrabee 01:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

With regard to the SIVAM scandal, the sources for that claim can be found at http://www.gis.net/~larrabee/Brazil.htm

This report is based on reports in Boston Globe, The LA Times and Associated Press.

Here is corroborating source for the quote I incorporated in the SIVAM article yesterday.

The transcript details conversation regarding the SIVAM project, specifically the frustration that Assumpção felt with Senator Gilberto Miranda who had been stalling the implementation of the project. The Ambassador's response, as published is Isto É, is "Why? You have already paid him off".

http://www.brazil-brasil.com/p16jan96.htm

This translation is slightly different. I would tend to go with the quote I used 6 years ago based on research in respected US papers.

Further discussion of the bribery scandal, corroborating deleted post:

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1096.05.html http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11107

Michael S Serill, "Hello, how about a bribe?", Time, 11 December 1995; Jan Rocha, "Scandalous threat to image of new Brazil", Guardian (UK), 29 December 1995

Whitfield Larrabee 02:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * To make this read more like other pages of other companies, Lockheed Martin Halliburton. I am speaking up because even the Halliburton page is more NPoV than this one! I think we should have some sub pages, the top page being boilerplate, and the extensive lists of products, locations, details, scandals, and officers on subpages to this. Anyone interested can look there. To include loads of negative information in a profile and not any nuetral or postive information makes the POV negative. Raytheon isnt a criminal enterprise, and the overall article makes it out to be. The overall article should be NPoV and that includes how you pick facts. You spent a lot of time doing this, lets do it right! This isn't an activist resource, these should be white glove articles with balanced treatment. As far as source data, we should stick to primary sources, and I will look through the articles today. I will split the page in a bit to make the subsections, and if you want to run with the scandal page fine. Please put references in for the scandals with a primary source. I will probably do products in the next few days.Dominick 11:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I am going to move this page to Raytheon Company.

Dominick. Rather than breaking up the article, why don't we just add information about the company that you feel would add more balance. The scandalous history of the company makes for more interesting and informative reading. Other corporations don't seem to have subpages for negative information, why should Raytheon?

Whitfield Larrabee 00:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This page should be at simply "Raytheon". Use simple titles. --Minesweeper 23:53, May 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * It was a pointless move but it is a fait accompli. I guess my going out of town is a problem.

"The scandalous history of the company makes for more interesting and informative reading. Other corporations don't seem to have subpages for negative information, why should Raytheon" Because the other company pages dont have 90% of the information on the page negative. I think your PoV is showing. This is a hack job article as it sits now. The scandals and such as you list have no balancing PoV. I am going to split this to provide for a boilerplate top page, perhaps a detailed products, locations and history page, then your history of scandals. Competitor pages are not this big. SO far no one else objected to a split. Obviously the point you want is a negative PoV Raytheon Article, not a NPoV Raytheon Article. Dominick 20:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The proposed formatting change might be objectionable and might violate the no point of view policy if it highlighted certain information and de-emphasised other important information.

If it is just a matter of inserting lines in the page breaking up the page, as appears to have been done, then I see no problem.

A number of companies with controversial pasts have lengthy profiles -Enron and Halliburton, for example.

The difficulty in satisfying the critique that the controversies and litigation section is "imbalanced" and violates the no point of view policy is that I am not aware of any positive information that would counterbalance the truthful negative information, except possibly the fact that Raytheon maintains an ethics office. I will information about Raytheon's Ethics Office to this section. For example, recent evidence that Raytheon committed securities fraud and defrauded its investors by hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. How can this be counterbalanced by positive information. Has Raytheon set up a foundation giving away hundreds of millions of dollars in repentence for its misdeeds. When Raytheon was convicted of committing a felony, did it set up a group to prevent corporations from committing crimes in the future.

Whitfield Larrabee 23:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Whitfield Larrabee
This troubles me a lot. I wonder how to approach this. A lawyer specializing in Raytheon [lawsuits and litigation] posts here. I don't know how to pursue this. My father says, "People don't get mad for free, they have to pay to be mad". Are there any wikipedians who like to take a crack at an approach to this?Dominick 10:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Criticism
ad hom·i·nem adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

As long as the information is accurate in a writing, the position occupied by the person making the argument should make no difference. For example, a lawyer who has investigated a corporation over a period of years might be in a better position than a person randomly selected from the streets to comment on the activities of that corporation. There could be an argument made that the lawyer had a conflict of interest if the lawyers writings stood to benefit the lawyer financially. The same could be said of an employee of a corporation. An employee might have a conflict of interest if the employee recieves financial remuneration from the corporation who is the subject of the article.

Whitfield Larrabee does not have any conflict of interest because he is not presently pursuing any claims against Raytheon.

Whitfield Larrabee 16:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You have a conflict of interest. This isnt a forum for activism, this is a place to create a reference work. Dominick 21:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Businesses & products
I know theres been a lot going on with page concerning litagations, etc. I say just keep it in similar size to the problems Boieing and Lockheed have had. Lets focus on updating the businesses of Raytheon. 

Agreed. I'm one of many who seem to think that this article focuses a bit too much on the scandals -- but like you, my preferred approach is to beef up the factual discussion of the company and its products rather than wage a losing battle over "how much scandal" to include or delete. Engineer Bob 05:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly approve of beefing up factual discussions about the company. I posted some negative factual information about the company because I happen to know a lot about negative aspects of the company history.  I am sure the company has other positive sides as well.  I have never tried to delete truthful positive information about the company.  The goal should be to give a complete picture of the company.  Deleting the negative information would result in a white wash.  Not only would it make for boring reading, but it would deprive people, who might want to improve the company internally, of useful information about mistakes that the company has made in the past.  If mistakes the company has made are suppressed, no one in the future can learn from these mistakes and avoid them in the future.  Whitfield Larrabee 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NPoV violations
Mr. Larrabee is muddling facts with points of view. Just because something is a fact does not make it neutral. Furthermore, using that fact to jump to negative conclusions is definitely not neutral.

Example: "Since the Raytheon makes most of its money by manufacturing missiles and missile-related systems, many see it as being a war profiteer, materially benefiting from armed conflicts around the globe.[2][3][4] Some commentators point to Raytheon as an example of a player in the military-industrial complex.[5][6]"

The second citation reports the doubling of CEO salaries. That is the fact. The point of view comes in when the allegations of war profiteering come into play. Moreover, the use of the word "many" is misleading. How many is many? In citation 2 one person accuses Raytheon of war-profiteering. That's not many. Additionally, while "people saying Raytheon is a war profiteer" is a fact, the inclusion of that fact in this article definitely supports a point of view.

In short, I don't have the time to manually fix each of these articles, so I'll flag the page and see what happens. I recommend a full re-write of this section. While corporate oversight is important, Wikipedia should be a repository of information, not an activist mouthpiece.Ehsiao 21:27, 15 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I wrote the section cited as an example of my bias. I  don't believe I wrote anything about the doubling of CEO salaries either.


 * See Example: "Since the Raytheon makes most of its money by manufacturing missiles and missile-related systems, many see it as being a war profiteer, materially benefiting from armed conflicts around the globe.[2][3][4] Some commentators point to Raytheon as an example of a player in the military-industrial complex.[5][6]"


 * I don't think this section adds much from a factual standpoint to the article. Of course, it is obvious that a military contractor as large as Raytheon does benefit from armed conflicts around the world.  It may very well be that some commentators have identified Raytheon as being part of the military industrial complex.  My critcism with this section is that it does not give the reader any new information about the company, other than the fact that some people have opinions about the company.  Before the notice questioning the point of view in the article is posted, it would be best to propose a modification that would eliminate the alleged point of view violation.


 * I would suggest deleting the war profiteering section and eliminating the notice questioning the neutrality of the controversies section. Other than the war profiteering section, the remainder of the controversies section fairly accurately discloses information about actual controversies without displaying the viewpoint of any one editor. Whitfield Larrabee 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Raytheon Polar Services
There is no mention in the article of the Polar Services division of the Raytheon Corporation. The division contracted with providing support service to the McMurdo station and South Pole station. Anyone have any info to add to the article?

Polar Services falls under Raytheon Technical Services (http://www.rpsc.raytheon.com/AboutRPSC/). --Native conformation 20:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Gerry Schwartz
just a comment - someone keeps trying to mention the leader of Onyx, but his outfit is just buying one relativly small business from the firm. cmacd 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Widow of Navy Pilot Sues Raytheon Over Husband's Death During Iraq Invasion
BOSTON — The widow of a US Navy pilot who died when his fighter jet was struck by a Patriot missile during the 2003 invasion of Iraq has sued the air defense system's maker, Raytheon (RTN) Co. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250699,00.html Crocoite 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Subsidiaries
Don't know if this is the place to mention it, but there's no article for one of Raytheon's subsidiaries - Solipsys. See their main page, and in particular their importance in the post-9/11 world in the NORAD suite link.

Raytheon's Fullerton facility
Hello I have a quick question,

When Raytheon acquired Hughes Aircraft in 1997, did they keep the Fullerton facility? 1901 W. Malvern Ave, because according to the Fullerton webpage on Wikipedia it claims that Hughes sold it and got rid of it for real estate purposes and property values. I looked at Raytheon Company webpage and YES they operated a facility in Fullerton. Thank you

67.142.130.34 05:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Fabricated Controversy Section
The fact that Raytheon employees were killed on 9/11 is in no way controversial. The insinuation being made is obvious. Everyone that has worked on this article in the past should be ashamed. Wikipedia has no credibility because of wingnut edits like this. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've dumped the section. Among other things, the secion was unsourced, making it POV. In addition, there is no explanation of why it's even controversial. - BillCJ 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the person that made the edit was clearly insinuating some form of ludicrous 9/11 conspiracy involving Raytheon. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems that way, and that's my assumption too. But please be careful of branding all the editors involvedin an article because you were the first to catch this, or at least speak out on it. Wikipedia has alot of turn-over, and many editors just move on to other areas on Wikipeida, or get busy in life and haven't checked the page in a while. What matters is that you spotted it, spoke up, and that it's gone now. - BillCJ 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pain Ray
Shouldn't we have something here about Raytheon's Pain Ray device? Nazdakka 09:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles county jail has obtained one to control inmates.  The ACLU is worried about its potential to be used as a torture device. - Elmarco 07:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MMU.jpg
Image:MMU.jpg 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

3.8 Missiles (Missing Info)
Some missiles that are fairly prevelant are missing from this list...including...

Stinger Weapon System

 * (Shoulder fired anti-air missile)

EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle)

 * which is meantioned in the previous section (3.7) but isn't listed

TOW Family (Tube Launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided)
- Huper Phuff   talk  19:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Stewardship additions
I'd like to add a section under Corporate Stewardship about the Sum of all Thrills. Perhaps this: "In October of 2009, Raytheon Company opened Sum of all Thrills™ at INNOVENTIONS at Epcot® at the Walt Disney World® Resort. The exhibit lets park guests custom-design their own ride using mathematical tools, a touch-screen table and a robotic simulator. Sum of all Thrills, the first ride to be located within INNOVENTIONS at Epcot®, is an example of Raytheon's approach to help educate young students about math and math-related activities." Source: Raytheon Librarian 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raytheoncompany (talk • contribs)

Corporate Stewardship additions (cont.)
I'd like to add a paragraph about the U.S. STEM Education Model. Perhaps this: "In 2009, Raytheon developed the U.S. STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) Education Model and donated it to the Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF). The model was designed to help policy-makers, educators and researchers understand the U.S. education system and identify potential solutions that could increase the number of STEM college graduates." --Raytheon Librarian 11:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raytheoncompany (talk • contribs)

Tucson?
Some mention should be made that the missile making facility of Raytheon is in Tucson, AZ. So is Honeywell's. There has been much local protest of the plant over this.Also, Raytheon's policies of firing perfectly good workers from Fullerton,CA, when they acquired Hughes Aircraft. It seems Raytheon only believes in sheepskins--if you have no degree, no matter how long you've done your job or trained how many in gyrocompass guidance, you're out of a job. They also take experienced workers off lines when they bought Beechcraft in Wichita, KS, due to any problem in their health records, no matter how long they'd been on the job. Tucson won't hire without a government-issued calibration certificate. They expect 20-30 years loyal service, but won't invest a dime in their potential hires.70.176.118.196 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Solipsys
Raytheon Solipsys is a clear pun on "Solipsism" with "Sys" for system. 216.227.117.35 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reincorporation
Reincorporation in "Established in 1922, the company reincorporated in 1928..." (near top of article) links to incorporation. Why not just say "...incorporated in 1928..."? 71.139.169.27 (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

POV
It seems the corporate social responsibility section is heavily pro-corporate. Sources would be nice.182.250.246.42 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COI from corp's own computers. No wonder there's a problem with WP:MISSION, WP:PEACOCK, etc.. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Apollo
Raytheon did huge amounts of work on Apollo. There's no mention of it in the article. Someone more knowledgeable than I with cite-able sources might want to add something about it. I'll try to find a source myself too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.148 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Fairchild acquisition
There doesn't seem to be anything about the acquisition of the semiconductor division by Fairchild Mhelshou (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Subsection depleted uranium
should this section title include "production"? None of the sources claim production, only that the patents say the weapons could be produced with uranium. Maybe "patents for depleted uranium weapons" would be a better title? Mysticdan (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Undue weight" tag
I'm not sure if I understand this cleanup tag on this article. Can you explain the reason for this tag? Jarble (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it had to do with an IP user's edit warring to restore legitimate deletions of the so-called controversy sections by User:Garuda28. It was supposed to be accompanied by a note here on deleting the section, but I got busy with other things. I had hoped to involve the original editor in the discussions also. - BilCat (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)