Talk:BAE Systems/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Controversy section

I removed the "Trade with dubious regimes" heading, since calling Israel a "dubious regime" is totally non-NPOV. I also removed a line under the image of the frigate sold to Romania as being "controversial". If there is a reliable source, and not from someone/some organization with a politically-motivated agenda, then please add it and cite it accordingly. Ccrashh (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed The company 'specific allegations of unethical and corrupt practices, including the Al Yamamah contracts with' etc as that content already has it's own section and most certainly does not belong in the first paragraph. Seems to be yet more politically-motivated non-NPOV. Twobells (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That text is in the third paragraph. The Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. Some details were removed to better do that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism section was expanded by myself as a result of the first (unsuccessful FAC). Perhaps I (and some other editors since) have went too far the other way, however I was simply aiming for the best standards of a balanced article. In fact in its second (successful) FAC the criticism section was described as "..is in WP's best tradition of NPOV". That's not to say it cant be improved, but let's remember our Assume good faith policy going forward.. Twobells. :) Mark83 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like Twobells' main issue was repeating the criticism text in the Lead, and not the Criticism section itself. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I've been away, yes that is my point exactly, such practice just repeats content which already has it's own section. I cite npov and removed it Twobells (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Revenue & Income figures

Why are the figures listed in thousands of millions instead of billions like all the other defence contractors? Seems very odd.Twobells (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty standard for UK companies to report in thousands of millions. Doesn't really matter does it? Same figures just different formatting. Mark83 (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Since BAE Systems is publicly traded, wouldn't it be relevant to include current stock prices along with general revenue numbers? Tim.mcarthur (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Because in the UK a billion (bi-million) is a million-million, not a thousand-million like it is in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Headquarters

Why does it say in the article that BAE's headquarters are locates in Farnborough? On the company's webpage

http://www.baesystems.com/CompanyInfo/

one could come to the conclusion that it's in London. --Gamgee (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

True. Their "registered office" is in London but their headquarters are in Farnborough. It would be good to have a mention of the former and cites for both. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, "Head Office is located in Central London but also has a number of support functions and functional specialists based in Farnborough, Hampshire" according to [1] --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The caption of the image of the Farnborough site says "BAE Systems' headquarters is in the Farnborough Aerospace Centre business park. Senior managers are based at the registered office in Carlton Gardens, London." Accurate, though perhaps the infobox needs expansion on this point Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a caption in the image that says that. I can't find the word "headquarters" in the source code. Also I can't find any archived copies of the page. If the caption is still there, how may I view it? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The image, caption and the word "headquarters" all appear in the article. Mark83 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the image: http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/content_image/bae_cimg_careers_head_office.jpg

I see the text:

"Overseeing and underpinning the success [...] and develop new projects."

What browser did you use?

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved this section here because of definite source problems

Human rights records

Like many arms manufacturers, BAE has received criticism from various human rights and anti-arms trade organisations due to the human rights records of governments to which it has sold equipment. These include Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. BAE's US subsidiary makes several subsystems for F-16s, 236 of which have been supplied to the Israel Defense Forces.

Look at this reference. Seems a blatant advertisement to me and does not meet the claims it is being used as a reference for. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if the reference was OK, there's nothing there to make this notable or important enough to include in the article. Without some explanation as to why, this same criticism could apply to most defense contractors. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(Repeated from section above) -- The criticism section was expanded by myself as a result of the first (unsuccessful FAC). Perhaps I (and some other editors since) have went too far the other way, however I was simply aiming for the best standards of a balanced article. In fact in its second (successful) FAC the criticism section was described as "..is in WP's best tradition of NPOV". That's not to say it cant be improved, but let's remember our Assume good faith policy going forward.. Twobells. :) Mark83 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in introduction

The company has been the subject of criticism, in terms of general opposition to the arms trade and particularly specific allegations of unethical and corrupt practices.

Is this appropriate at the start of the article? Since there is a large section devoted to criticism/controversy, and similar defence contractor wikipages do not have comparable introductions. All defence companies have their fair share of criticism, so this seems unnecessary (especially the general opposition to the arms trade part, which can be applied to all defence contractors). 164.143.244.33 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Defence Contractor (not military) 2nd largest

Its a defence contractor, and according to SIPRI the company is the second largest in the world. The Boeing figures in the Defense News cite include commercial air plane sales which is not relevant to this article, It is silly to point to the 'defence contractor' article which indicates BAE Systems as second largest defence contractor then use a cite pointing to an article that includes commercial aircraft sales, adjusted accordingly Twobells (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true on the revenue part. The Defense News 2011 ranking is by defense revenue, which is the first revenue column listed. The total revenue is only listed as extra info. Boeing would be first, and the 3rd and 4th place companies would be reversed if the ranking was by total revenue in next to last column. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Heritage

Surely this section needs a reference to de Havilland given that Hawker Siddeley took over their operations, which eventually became BAE Systems. Given that de Havilland was the creator of the first passenger jet, made in Hatfield it deserves being added to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.80.137 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)