Talk:Mitre Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Content[edit]

This article could be expanded, does anybody have any ideas? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We should add information about the locations -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something about the size of the organization (6500 people) and selected high-profile projects (from public web site)? Robomanx 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be some material on the controversey surrounding MITRE and its use of sole source contracts. The professional services organization has lodged protests with Congress, DoD, and GAO regarding MITRE. (GAO reports and Congressional resarch reports) Also, other independent not-for-profit research organizations have filed formal complaints with the Air Force regarding non-competitive practices. (FOIA request from Air Force Electronic Systems Center)170.94.197.54 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the hoax that MITRE orchestrated the 9/11 attackes.--Pndfam05 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

MITRE itself published an official history during the time I worked there, about 1980, which provides many details, although it glosses over any hint of controversy and avoids any mention of its classified work. Ronenfield (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Mitre?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be titled "Mitre"? According to MOS:TM, trademarks always use normal capitalization. Unless anyone can explain why it shouldn't be "Mitre" I'm going to change it in a week. -- RationalIce (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Since the SourceWatch article indicates that the name Mitre is taken from the word "mitre" and no one has offered any reason to keep the all-caps, I've moved the article to Mitre Corporation. -- RationalIce (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The company MITRE is always referred to by all caps. See http://www.mitre.org for examples of how the company refers to itself. I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deccles (talkcontribs) 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Which is nice, but has nothing to do with how it should appear in the Wikipedia. Lego always refers to themself in all-caps too, but Wikipedia uses just Lego regardless. So please explain why it should be all-caps in the Wikipedia. The only reason I can come up with based on MOS:TM would be if each letter were spoken individually (em-eye-tea-are-ee) - which, according to the SourceWatch article, it isn't, it's taken straight from the word "miter" using a British spelling for whatever reason. -- RationalIce (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I disagree with you. The SourceWatch article is incorrect, the name MITRE is not taken straight from the word "miter". There are a number of mistaken stories regarding the origin of the name. The intent of MITRE's name is to be in the form of an acronym (we've just never admitted what the acronym stands for). See companies like SAIC, it's not written "Saic" in the Wikipedia page. Doesn't Saic look wrong? It's the same with MITRE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deccles (talkcontribs) 04:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Anyway, I double checked and you selectively quoted the SourceWatch article. It says: "The name MITRE was chosen by one of the original incorporators for its neutrality and positive feel. Some have suggested the choice was based on one meaning of mitre, 'the fitting together of surfaces.' Others have suggested that the first three letters also helped to honor MIT and the original MITRE staff. Perhaps both factors came into play.

So according to SourceWatch it could be from either the word, or from the MIT acronym, it's all speculation. Given that no one can prove which is right, I think we should err on the side of correctness, as opposed to filling the MITRE page with the wrong capitalization and misleading everyone who visits the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deccles (talkcontribs) 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to link to this one more time. Please actually read it this time: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Even if Mitre is an acronym, it should still be Mitre. The only exception are names where each letter is pronounced, like IBM. Given that Mitre is pronounced as "miter" (unless you have a source that says it isn't) it should still be Mitre. Just as with Lego, a much larger and more well-known company, no one cares what they say the capitalization should be. Wikipedia uses standard English rules, with the exceptions listed in the manual of style. -- RationalIce (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did read it, I'm just having trouble understanding nonsense. You win, you're right, Wikipedia should have it wrong because of a rule that frankly makes no sense. Don't blame me if people come away from this site badmouthing Wikipedia for having things wrong, as they do for so many other things. Wikipedia now has the honor of being the only place on the internet that has MITRE in the wrong caps.

Just out of curiosity, should RAND be Rand? Robomanx (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

if you want the unofficial acronym its: Many Individuals Trying to Retire Early. But seriously, the MITRE Corporation is only referred to as "MITRE" never Mitre. It creates a confusion with the Mitre corporation which is a sporting goods company if spelled lowercase. Even though the guidelines says you should always only capitalize the first letter it also says: except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Barbscorgi (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct spelling of MITRE not Mitre. Why do you spell WIKIPEDIA in your opening page and not Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.83.31.1 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

At least when I search MITRE using all caps, it redirects to the correct page. I likewise agree that the main article should be named MITRE, but don't want to take the flame bait on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.177.200 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am changing it to MITRE. If you want to change it back explain why RAND should be in all caps and not MITRE or be consistent and change RAND to Rand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.65.71.50 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and replaced Mitre with MITRE. This wasn't to be belligerent but merely an attempt to make the article look more internally consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.65.71.50 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A cursory look through Wikipedia indicates that this style guide entry isn't really enforced. Counterexamples include CENTCOM, NATO, RAND, PepsiCo, ALPO, and FedEx. To me, that implies that "MITRE" should be ok. Robomanx (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is MIT research establishment IIRC... Who the heck wants it to be a Mitre when this is outright wrong? 212.188.109.218 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, this is stupid. Yes, Rand should be in title-caps, but I have a limited amount of time to edit the Wikipedia and don't really feel like going to try and correct every single WP:MOS error I see, especially when fixing them would require going through hundreds of pages. RationalIce (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumors =[edit]

There is currently a section that claims that MITRE is named in some rumors related to 9/11. First, the source is unreliable, so it is totally inappropriate to cite it. It might be OK if the link were to an analysis of 9/11 rumors, but this is not the case. Second, given the size of this article, even if MITRE were the number one focal point of 9/11 conspiracy theories (which, as far as I can tell, it is not), this fact would not warrant inclusion on this page (see Wikipedia's undue weight policy). Mitre's relation to 9/11 conspiracy theories is at best trivia and at worst slander. 66.117.135.137 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that MITRE was indeed partially behind 9/11. Unless anyone can prove me wrong, I am going to update the article accordingly in a week. 148.129.71.52 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How can anyone "prove" whether 148.129.71.52 is right or wrong without the basis for his assertion? Robomanx (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article will be updated to reflect MITRE's 9/11 involvement in six days. 148.129.71.52 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do most conspiracy theorists hide in anonymity? Robomanx (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this edit. MITRE was indeed involved in 9/11. I look forward to five days from now when this article is completed. 72.83.110.121 (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Four days now. 148.129.71.52, can you give us a preview of what information you will place in this article about MITRE's involvement in 9/11? 72.83.110.121 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I will update the article in three days. 72.83.110.121, I will provide more information tomorrow, as well as a brief preview the day after. 148.129.71.52 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In 48 hours (2 days) I will update this article. At noon on April 1st, EST the article will be updated with the conspiracy information. Check back tomorrow for a brief preview of what I will be placing in the article. 148.129.71.52 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The following is an excerpt from my update for the article:

"MITRE's Beford headquarters' close proximity to Boston's Logan Airport has also fueled speculation about MITRE's involvement in the September 11th attacks. Indira Singh, an IT consultant who previously worked on a Defense Advanced Research Project, and who was employed by J.P. Morgan on September 11th, 2001, in risk management, pointed to MITRE's role at the FAA during the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings in New York City."

The article will be updated tomorrow at 12:00 pm EST. 148.129.71.52 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been updated. 148.129.71.52 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

MITRE stands for MIT Research and Engineering. RAND stands for Research And Development. Both should be all caps. 76.76.220.34 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

This article has come under recent vandalism - entire sections of the article have been deleted. In particular, the section detailing MITRE's possible involvement in 9/11 is continuously removed, possibly by a user with a conflicting interest in MITRE. The information in that section is merely speculative but they are rumors that must be made known. Any user who disagrees likely has some level of personal interest in MITRE or is simply anti-American. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I will endeavour to contact an authority figure about the problems this article has had in recent months. I will refrain from editing the article for now, but I guarantee that this article will be cleaned up and the relevant information made available. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so certain editors of the article don't get confused, the above two users are the same person, engaging in the worst form of WP:SOCK -- acting as if their view has more support than it does. The source they keep adding is unreliable: it's published in a public forum or on the authority of a lone conspiracy theorist at best. Further, the Bollyn source doesn't back up the text: he doesn't accuse MITRE of anything, just notes that MITRE might have been in a position to do these things. Even if this source did pass the bare minimum standards, the section is inappropriate if this is the only source - it's one thing to cover a legitimate controversy, it's another to give a platform to every lone voice with a point of view. If this is a legitimate controversy, it needs MUCH more sourcing than this. Mangojuicetalk 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding any conspiracy theories, if reliable sources indicate that MITRE was specifically involved in defense operations on 9/11, is it not worth noting? I can think of no reason why it wouldn't be. Certainly this would be more notable than an award the corporation received. 74.78.179.2 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)