Talk:Lockheed Martin

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

Remove Controversy section survey[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's over a month and the consensus is clear to remove this section. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs)

Survey comments[edit]

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)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin plagued by network security problems[edit]

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)

How many employees?[edit]

I am an employee of LM and I was just looking to see how many other employees there are. This article says both 140,000 (in body) and 126,000 (in sidebar). Which is it? I don't see references for either. Based on my later searches, I'd say the smaller number is likely more accurate, but I prefer to let an unbiased person make the update. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.42 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It was 140,000 a few years ago; lockheed's workforce has been shrinking and is down to around 125k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.147.66 (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2015 Annual Report states 126 thousand (page 10), I have added a reference on that. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Management section[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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. Twobellst@lk 11:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Industrial Defender[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lockheed Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

redirect has been placed on page[edit]

the lockheed_martin page source which appears to have been sabotaged by a page redirect specified in line 494 of the page source: Gelegnite (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been resolved elsewhere. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
why you think that?, however now is all ok.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)