Talk:Northrop Grumman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

War profit section

You really don't understand how a government defense contractor works or the benefit in a strong defense. War for profit is not only wrong, it is the complete opposite. War costs these companies. These companies (and Northrop Grumman is no exception), would much rather be working on R&D. In times of war all the extra money goes to the troops and war effort. The small amount of work these companies get is just to replace existing equipment, this is where the least amount of profit is. Also, the idea is peace through strength. Why don't you get this?

I've reinserted the war profit section, as it is well sourced, written in fairly neutral language (i.e, it reports the criticisms instead of criticising), and I believe it to be relevant. The fact that other top defense corporations doesn't have it is not a reason to remove it here. While I personally don't agree, a significant number of individuals think that the actions of N-G and the source of their profits are morally wrong, and have criticised N-G for it. (I would however, welcome a better title for the section). Henrik 09:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Henrik. I really appreciate your help, and I think you're being even-handed. A better title would be fine with me, but I'm not sure what to call it. I had called it "War profiteering" at first, and someone changed it to "war profit". It is definitely sourceable that NG is criticised for "war profiteering", and this is the criticism section, so I think it's best to use the terms critics use in that section. Sarah crane 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So, Henrik, you are admitting yourself you are doing it based on personal feeling that it is "morally wrong". Again, personal opinions do not belong on wikipedia. You are going against what Wikipedia is designed for. Congratulations for thinking about that. ViriiK 13:33 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reread that sentence, ViriiK. I personally have no problems with weapons manufacturing. But I am aware that many do consider it immoral and I think their position should be respected and represented. The same way anti-smoking activism should be mentioned on tobacco companies entries, and anti-sweatshop activity on, for example, nikes entry. Henrik 14:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing my mind here, on this section. I removed about half of the "War profit" content, removed the section and merged the remainder with the section above. Someone justifiably pointed out that a company that makes weapons is OBVIOUSLY war profiteering, thats the WHOLE POINT of the company. Criticising them for that is a little bit like charging a toilet paper company with dealing in shit. Henrik 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet some people do criticise them for this. Even if you think it isn't fair to criticize them for this, they are widely criticized for selling bombs that kill people. Shouldn't the article mention that? Some people criticise tobacco companies for selling tobacco, or drug dealers for selling drugs, and even though that's their whole business, that doesn't mean they're not criticised. In fact, Senator Leahy referenced them as "war profiteers" in a bill, which is referenced in the part you removed. Isn't that noteworthy? In addition, you removed the sourced quote that "The non-profit group CorpWatch summarized Northrop Grumman's business as "simply selling death". It is true that they were so criticized, and it is sourced. Why should it be removed? Sarah crane 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Valid points, Sarah. Any companys goal is to make a profit, and most people seem to believe selling bombs is more valid than selling drugs (tobacco probably comes somewhere in between :-) ). Criticising them because they profit from what is considered by the majority to be a valid activity is a bit too biased. It is a valid point to make , but I think this encyclopedia entry is probably not the best place. I'm not sure which article it should be in, but I've come to think that this one is not it. If you look at other major defense contractors (Boeing, Lockheed or BAE Systems), you'll see that they're criticised for other things, but not for the act of selling weaponry itself. It is true (and verified!) that they were criticised, but the WP:NPOV policy doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover every criticism, only those held by a significant enough minority. The war profit section slid under my threshold after I asked some others what they thought, but I think the rest should remain. Henrik 18:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason it should be removed, besides the problem of them not being reputable sources, and the problem of giving them undue weight, is that claiming "war profiteering" when we're dealing with a defense contractor is pure tautology. There are entirely too many "some peoples" in the world to outline every criticism. Lines need to be drawn. And arguments need to be presented in their context. One must also take care, when citing politicians, especially the more partisan ones. I would be as hesitant to cite Leahy on defense as I would be to cite Cheney on the environmentalists. Signficant - yes, reliable... possibly not (though there would be exceptions, such as citing McCain on Prisoners of War). Izuko 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason it should be removed is this discussion is not at all applicable here and all this information is entirely incorrect. That alone I believe is a violation of Wikipedia as this information is not at all verifiable. First and foremost, this is a philosophy question at best. Does the USA not have the right to defend herself? Do you believe in peace through strength? Do we as the greatest nation have a reponsibility to ensure human rights and their dignity are respected throughout the world? When an act of war is commited against the United States do we have a right to respond and if so when? These are the real questions here. Further, Northrop Grumman is required to exist by the Federal Government. If it was not Northrop Grumman it would simply be another company to ensure a free, competive market for defense. There is a requirement that there cannot be a monopoly in the defense market. The people who work at the company have every right to take home a paycheck as you do. As far as profitering? The company has been bailed out of bankruptcy so many times by the federal government it isn't even funny. I believe you have to first make a profit to be a profitter. I have worked at the company for six years and my husband for 30. If you are going to cite facts, please at least make sure they are facts. Do your homework first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissyP (talk • contribs)

It's simple, Sarah. CorpWatch's agenda (and that of yourself, obviously) is to twist the perspective of readers seeking information about Northrop Grumman. Your criticisms belong in an article regarding war in general, and not that of a specific organization. Why are you singling out Northrop Grumman over everyone else? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If the War Profit section were to remain here in the Northrop Grumman article, it would make sense that a similar section be inserted into the articles for Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. All of these sections in all of these articles would say more or less the same thing: defense contractors profit from military sales, defense contractors engage in lobbying, etc. This would not make any sense. As previously noted, it's tautological to say that defense contractors profit from military sales. All large companies lobby. None of this information is unique to Northrop Grumman. The section doesn't belong. It would be like putting an Air Pollution section in the middle of the General Motors article. It doesn't mattter how fair or even-handed the Air Pollution section is, it doesn't belong. If you need evidence, just read the Wiki articles for Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. That's what this article is supposed to look like. Truejim 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree on removing the Gov influence section and war profit related content. Not so sure about the Scandals section though. Other corp articles have that type content, I beleive. -Fnlayson 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I added the Scandels section back in. There's was nothing about Gov. influence in it. Removed a poitn about Nothrop, since it is a Nothrop Grumman article. -Fnlayson 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ow source

Someone replaced the oligopolywatch reference with a global security link, which is great -- but other parts of the article still use oligopolywatch as a source. So now both references are there. Sarah crane 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone took out the oligopolywatch source again. Why? That source was the only place I found that gave the estimate that 85% of NG's business comes from the government. Please don't delete sources without giving reasons on the talk page. Sarah crane 14:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because the person recognizes that OW is not a viable source. The fact that it's the only place you could find a citation does not make it viable. In fact, it should raise questions. Izuko 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Leahy Source

I'm sorry Sarah crane, but you keep failing to read the full article especially with the Leahy source

" Northrop Grumman Corp., whose Vinnell Corp. subsidiary was awarded a $48 million contract to train the new Iraqi Army last year, according to published reports. Northrop Grumman has been penalized $191.7 million in the past four years, including $750,000 paid to the Pentagon in 2000 in a case involving allegations of providing faulty replacement parts for the JSTARS airborne surveillance system."

Now, that says a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman which they own but have independent decisions provided faulty replacements parts for the JSTARS. That is not to say that Northrop Grumman themselves decided to tell Vinnell Corp. to provide faulty parts. I suggest you put this in the Vinnell Corporation section. However, another history lesson for you. The 2000 incident was by Vinnell Corporation when they were independent from Northrop Grumman. They were bought out by Northrop Grumman in 2002. Again, your source is irrelevant. ViriiK 13:26 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you need an extra history lesson why Northrop Grumman is paying a fine? When they acquired the company, they inherited all problems including fines that were from the past. A great example of this would be the Halliburton Corporation when they acquired Dresser Industries Inc. during a time when a lawsuit was going on against them regarding asbestos. When the ruling was in favor of the plaintiff, Halliburton was docked with a 4 billion dollar fine for something Dresser Industries Inc. did when they were independent. ViriiK 13:29 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. (You could make the same points without being rude, however, and it would be just as effective.) I'll try to fix the article to reflect this information. Sarah crane 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Something you should probably understand about NGC is that it really is pretty much just a holding company, anymore. Each of its sectors acts fairly independantly. Ie, Northorp Grumman Newport News shipyard (NGNN) is still pretty much run by the same people who were in charge when it was Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, who are the same people who were in charge when it was part of Tennco. Some policies and programs have come over from corporate. But, for the most part, the head of NGNN can be considered to be a CEO in his own right. It's NGC's policy to acquire firms that are performing well, and not break them. Thus, for the most part, NGNN has far more interaction with Norfolk Naval Shipyard than it does with Litton. Izuko 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reinserting the "OW" source

Sarah crane, is it me or do you see any sourcing for the website you keep insisting to push? They are not valid at all and they do not source their arguments. Again, GS belongs back in there. Until you find a financial record of their company demonstrating 85%. It's like the argument saying "Oh, I heard someone did this so it must be true". It's not acceptable and partisan activist personal feelings do not belong here.

But you didn't remove the 85% figure, you just removed the source. Now it's an unsourced statement. How is that an improvement? Sarah crane 00:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Then take it out and revise it. However that biased website does not demonstrate any record of financial records. Maybe we can do Finance Yahoo in this case regarding SEC Filings. Keep continuing putting back in biased source especially for a company you're solidly against which I will remove. Financial Information should be corroborated which that site you kept citing does not do that. - ViriiK 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ViriiK, the external link you added was a good one. Thank you. But the link you removed, http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2004/12/27.html, is also a valid link. It's informative, it deals with the company, and it was used when writing this article. You say that the website is biased, but when I read the page, it doesn't sound anti-NG to me. Even if it were biased, the NG official website is obviously biased in favor of NG, but we include that link. So why remove the oligopoly watch link? Sarah crane 15:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

When you read their website even furthur as I've demonstrated

"Are oligopolies sinister? Very possibly. But I think it's more useful to see how and why they work than simply rail against globalism and greed. While there are hatefully crooked businessmen (take any set of former Enron or Tyco executives for a start), most oligopolies are based on struggles for survival, not a result of innate evil. Like those proverbial sharks moving forward, businesses either grow or fail, and since most mature markets have limited growth potential, companies often grow by buying other companies. If nothing else, it's fascinating to see how they do it."

Especially with the website name using the "Oligarchy" as part of their website. The site is designed to expose companies they review. Not give them fair reviews based on NPOV observations. It is nothing but a "corporate activist watchdog".

I rather prefer you use something more like FAS, Globalsecurity, Finance Yahoo, CNBC, the likes. They have more validity than a "watchdog" that is run by 1 person. ViriiK 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you think the overall website is biased against oligarchies, although I disagree. But the specific webpage linked to, http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2004/12/27.html, isn't anti-NG, as I've said before. Even if it was, we frequently link to biased sites. Please don't remove the link again. Thanks. Sarah crane 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you view the site as "neutral" does not mean it is not biased. You admit yourself you are against this company so you are resorting to using websites to help support your argument. Nothing more nothing less. It is not valid. Go find something that will corroborate it. Like I said, I rather prefer you use something more like FAS, Globalsecurity, Finance Yahoo, CNBC, the likes. They have more validity than a "watchdog" that is run by 1 person against "Oligarchies". ViriiK 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason to remove a valid link, is it? It isn't a site "against" oligarchies, it's "about" oligarchies. The word "oligarchy" isn't pejoratave, you know, it's a descriptive term. And I'll repeat: wikipedia links to biased sites all the time, so long as the link is useful and relevant. It's clearly useful and relevant, since it's where I got a lot of the info I used when writing this article. Please stop removing the link. Sarah crane 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that's your excuse that wikipedia links to biased sites all the time? There is no way to monitor all these pages all over the site but you are trying to insert a biased website by a "corporate watchdog" managed by 1 person. This is not your soapbox. I will keep removing the link. ViriiK 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert it again, as that will be in violation of the three revert rule. Henrik 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So this argument you're employing is something you support that is hardly a credible source compared to FAS, Globalsecurity, Finance Yahoo, CNBC, the likes. But you're giving more validity to 1 person. It's like an argument we should support the HUMINT that people claims that the Pentagon admits that WP is a chemical weapon. Valid Sources matter. Not a site that a person agrees with. This is not yours or Sarah crane as you're trying to make it. ViriiK 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So vote on a consensus on a questionable and "corporate watchdog" site

The problem is that you are giving more validity to a 1 person managed website that is hardly corroborated than a credible site like Global Security, Federation of American Scientists, CNBC, Yahoo!. That website does not belong on the site. I would accept controversy but the problem is that it needs to be corroborated. You can't put a website that accuse Dick Cheney of a secret plot against the President based on a site like Rense for example. You want to support lunancy? This isn't your soapbox to do so ViriiK 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that link is fine, it provides some interesting information on the background of NGC and how it was formed. The source of a link is far less important than the content it contains, even though well known sources *are* better, there are no rules prohibiting links to other sites. Henrik 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I think the link is quite useful. The page is obviously not "lunacy", "activist", or any of the other epithets thrown at it here. I think any reasonable person who reads the page can see that. Sarah crane 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

John Chain

I wrote an article on John Chain, the chairman of the board at Northrop Grumman. It's now on the main page! Cool! If you're interested, take a look. Sarah crane 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Henrik 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this may be an error. I believe the Chairman of the Board at Northrop Grumman is Ron Sugar. He is CEO and Chairman of the Board. Truejim 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The categories were suitable

Do not remove them again Sarah crane. ViriiK 11:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is in the Northrop Grumman category, and the NG category is already in those categories. If an article is in a category that is in other supercategories, there's no need to put the article in those supercategories as well. See Wikipedia:Categorization. And please, chill. Sarah crane 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR. You think you're immuned to rules? Leave it alone. Categories were perfectly fine. You want examples Sarah crane that disproves your entire silly argument? AT&T, Boeing, Ford, Raytheon, BAE Systems Inc., US Military, IBM, Intel, government of the United States, United States Constitution. There are many examples that do these "Supercategories" that you're naming. You want to do an entire encylopedia revamp? They're appropriate and it belongs there. I will call the 3RR on you and revert the removal you make. Don't like it? I don't care. Also of the fact that when people read this page, they'll want to see other categories related to this article. You're only limiting their ability to do that. Oh and Supercategories? Don't exist. Not against the idea of anything in the category page you're trying to claim. You claim there is no need but I feel there is a need. Leave it alone.

It's also even ironic that you link to the Wikipedia:Categorization that does the same thing you're trying to remove. Don't believe me? Look at the bottom. Let me know when you go on your crusade to remove all these "Supercategories". ViriiK 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Viriik is correct in this case, but you should ask at Wikipedia:Categorization to be sure. Gflores^Talk 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I too would have to agree with ViriiK on this issue (but please, be more civil - wikipedia is not a battleground). The reason is one of usefulness, only having category Northrop Grumman makes it harder to find other related articles and companies from this article. And as the above linked articles indicate, that seems to be the norm. Henrik 06:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the categories should remain. Noisy | Talk 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. ViriiK, please don't keep assuming the worst about me. I removed the categories because I thought it was correct, according to our guideline. It turns out I was wrong about that, so I don't want them removed anymore. I would have found that out just as easily had you not been rude. Sarah crane 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Ron Sugar is the CEO of Northrop. Is it really that difficult to get simple facts straight? You discredit yourself greatly when you can't get simple facts straight. In this case, a good thing, you should be discredited. You really don't understand how a government defense contractor works or the benefit in a strong defense. War for profit is not only wrong, it is the complete opposite. War costs these companies. These companies (and Northrop Grumman is no exception), would much rather be working on R&D. In times of war all the extra money goes to the troops and war effort. The small amount of work these companies get is just to replace existing equipment, this is where the least amount of profit is. Also, the idea is peace through strength. Why don't you get this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.245.123 (talk • contribs)

Northrop redirection

Since Northrop Grumman is the present company and has more hits, should Northrop redirect here? Shawnc 05:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not. This is a perennial problem for corporation articles; if you reflect all the mergers in article structure, your historical narrative gets very messy, with different sections for each of the mergees, and links from a reference to competition for contracts get comical, with links to both parties mentioned ending up at the same article. In this case too you'd have to maintain separate lists of aircraft. So a merge would end up with a disjoint "article within the article" that somebody would want to split out later. Stan 12:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman was purchased by NNG, and more

(below I sometimes call Northrop Grumman 'NOC', which is its stock ticker symbol)

In Northrop Grumman's 10-K, I found a record saying: "On April 2, 2001, NNG, Inc., a newly formed Delaware holding company, exchanged its common shares for all of the outstanding Northrop Grumman Corporation common shares on a one-for-one basis, through a merger in which Northrop Grumman Corporation became a subsidiary of NNG, Inc. In connection with this merger, NNG, Inc. changed its name to Northrop Grumman Corporation and the former Northrop Grumman Corporation changed its name to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (Northrop Systems). "

And this NNG was formed in the merger process between Northrop Grumman and Litton, as 10-K says, "On January 24, 2001, the transaction (between NOC and Litton) was amended to provide for the formation of a new Delaware holding company, NNG, Inc., and an exchange offer in which Litton common stockholders would be entitled to receive for each Litton common share $80 per share in cash, the equivalent of $80.25 in common stock of the new holding company, or the equivalent of $80 in liquidation value of a new preferred stock of the new holding company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, the new holding company cannot issue more than 13,000,000 shares of its common stock nor more than 3,500,000 shares of its new preferred stock in the exchange offer. Therefore, election by Litton stockholders to receive the new holding company's common stock and preferred stock may be subject to proration. Holders of Litton preferred stock may exchange their Litton preferred stock only for $35 per share in cash. Immediately prior to the closing of the exchange offer for Litton stock, the new holding company would exchange its common shares for all of the outstanding Northrop Grumman common shares on a one-for-one basis, through a merger in which Northrop Grumman would become a subsidiary of the new holding company. Following the purchase of Litton shares pursuant to the exchange offer, a subsidiary of the new holding company will be merged into Litton and the remaining common shareholders of Litton will be entitled to receive $80 per share in cash. Shares of Litton preferred stock that are not purchased in the exchange offer will remain outstanding as preferred shares of Litton. Following consummation of the merger, the new holding company will be renamed Northrop Grumman Corporation and the new holding company's common stock will trade on the New York and Pacific Stock Exchanges and each of Northrop Grumman and Litton will be subsidiaries of the new holding company. Northrop Grumman will change its name to Northrop Grumman Operations Corporation. "

Besides, I inserted more information about NOC's acquisitions, and added Logicon's previous acquisitions, and the founding of NOC. And I think the US government's denial for the merger between Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin happeded in 1998, not 1997. Because in 10-K, it says "U.S. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation: On March 23, 1998, the United States, acting through the Department of Justice, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Lockheed Martin and the company requesting that the acquisition of the company by Lockheed Martin be adjudged to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act and that Lockheed Martin and the company be permanently enjoined and restrained from carrying out the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 2, 1997, or from entering into or carrying out any agreement, understanding or plan, the effect of which would be to combine the business or assets of Lockheed Martin and the company. The United States is also seeking costs of the action. " Leonxf 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Foundation date is ambiguous

In the summary box at the top the foundation date is 1927 however in the section History Northrop Corp is said to be formed in 1939. On the page Grumman the date is 1929; on the page Northrop it's 1927 from the Aviation Corporation. Isn't that all a little confusing? Shouldn't the page only mention 1994? Bexou 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the source of...

From the introduction: "world's largest radar maker (with 850+ ground-based radar installations), and number-one builder of naval vessels". Anybody has the source and a date? Bexou 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. It came from Sarah crane's source. [1] which I removed a while back since it wasn't a "NPOV" source. ViriiK 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as the guy's question is old. He just found an error. The C4 systems which "OW" claims is a part of Northrop Grumman is actually a part of General Dynamics. [2] which it says Note: In November 2003, General Dynamics Decision Systems and General Dynamics C4 Systems were integrated into a single business unit, called General Dynamics C4 Systems. "OW" doesn't cite their sources however to support that claim of "World's Largest Radar Maker." So I'm curious to know if that line is valid or not. ViriiK 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm adding a for that. Hopefully someone will clear this up. -Fnlayson 01:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the radar comment. Not only because I can't find a definite source to say it is the largest manufacturer of radar, but also because of The Associated Press State & Local Wire April 24, 2000 "Northrop Grumman needs radar work"

In 1997, Raytheon bought the defense electronics business of Texas Instruments Inc. and the aerospace division of Hughes Electronics Corp., merging three of the nation's radar manufacturers into one. Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are among the few major radar manufacturers left - with Raytheon about twice the size of its competitor.

Given that Raytheon is quite a bit smaller overall I assume the source is talking about the radar divisions. Mark83 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The IrishTimes states Northrop Grumman is the largest radar maker and #1 builder of naval vessels.[3] But most likely, that statement came from oligopoly-watch.[4] 70.104.16.217 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)