Wikipedia:Peer review/Northrop Grumman/archive1

Northrop Grumman

This is the third largest arms manufacturer in the world, so it's pretty important. It has way too much influence on our government, so I think it ought to have a good article. I've done a lot, but what does it need to be better? (This is my first time putting an article here, so please be nice!) Sarah crane 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not bad as it is, but standards for our "good" and "featured" articles are pretty high right now. There's a few major issues you ought to touch on before anything else.

1. Sources. You need to concentrate on citing your sources. Wikipedia sets the threshold for inclusion of information in an article based on verifiability, not absolute truth. As a result, to help with verifying sources, you will need to add in a references section with inline citations. You can find a guide to the recommended way of doing so at meta:cite. See any recent featured article for examples on how to go about doing so.
2. Neutral point of view. The controversies section is, well, controversial. However, if you cite all of your claims, and you are comprehensive in covering all sides of the issue, you should never have a problem with neutrality.
3. Comprehensiveness. This article seems to very barely touch many related topics. We want articles to be comprehensive. Can you, for example, give more information about the various "sectors," go more in-depth in regards to those "scandals," and give us just a better idea of how the company goes about in the production of their products and services? Can you give us more information on possible business competitors and its impact on this industry? And so on.
4. Brilliant prose. Another featured article criteria is that "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." This article contains too many single sentences and lists. You should try to convert the list of products into prose and, at the same time, discuss those more extensively if necessary. The single sentences, in addition, often only scratch the surface of a potentially major topic; if they are fleshed out, the content will be too.

Hope this helps. Best of luck! Let me know if you need someone to take another look in the future. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rebel. All my sources are from the internet, and I have links to those sites. Is that good enough? I've looked through CITE, but it's horribly complicated. I tried to be neutral, but, well, it's hard. Calling them a "defense contractor" is seems deceptive, since most of what they sell is for offense, not defense. Calling them "war merchants" would be more accurate, but I guess Wikipedia can't say that. I'm not sure how to be more neutral. Could you help with it? And I want to be more comprehensive, but I only found a couple of web sites that go into any detail about the company. I guess I could add more about their so-called competitors. (They've merged with most of them, and tried to merge with another, and are working with their only remaining real competitor on a huge project started last year.) But details of how the business is run is very secretive, for obvious reasons. Oh dear. Brilliant prose. Well I only got a 580 on my verbal SATs, so I don't know about brilliant. :) I'll try. Sarah crane 13:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some images of their products would be nice. Defense contractor is ok, I think. The last two sentences of the intro need sources. Maybe talk a bit about their successful products and their impact. Also, if there is any pertinent news about the company, then it should be added. I can help changing the external links to proper citations (just remind me :)). Side question: Do you work for the corporation? Gflores^Talk 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yuck! I'd rather be homeless! No, I'm not employed right now at all. Thanks for saying you'd put citations in! I'll look for pictures. Thanks for the feedback. Sarah crane 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is an online encyclopedia, not a place for your personal views. You say "It has way too much influence on our government, so I think it ought to have a good article." By what standard to you say that Northrop Grumman has too much of an influence on our government? What criteria are you using? This is your own personal belief and, while you're welcome to it, not everyone will share that belief. Your prejudices should not color the article. You also say "Calling them a "defense contractor" is seems deceptive, since most of what they sell is for offense, not defense." "Defense contractor" is the official, accepted term for someone who supplies for the Department of Defense, and your own personal views on that matter are immaterial. This is not the place for you to preach your views on the US's foreign policy. It's not that Wikipedia -can't- use your snide little "war merchant" comment, but rather that Wikipedia would desroy its credibility by doing so, and it would go against the very basis of NPOV. You also say "But details of how the business is run is very secretive, for obvious reasons." Can you back that up? What information do you want that would be available on other companies? Anyways, welcome to Wikipedia. Please, though, remember there are those of us who disagree with you. Stating your opinions as if they were fact is not likely to go unnoticed. (oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I used to work for NGNN before I decided to leave the defense sector and go back to college). Izuko 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I want the article to be NPOV. But that doesn't mean I have to pretend I don't have any opinions. I do have my own personal beliefs, and thank you for welcoming me to them. :P You're giving your opinions here, just the same as I was, and I don't appreciate being chastised for voicing my opinions. If I said that sort of thing in the article, that would be inappropriate. But should I have to censor myself on this page? I don't think so.

You may have as many opinions as you wish. However, the article is not the place for them. If you want to make your stand against defense industries, get a blog. Also, I did not welcome you to your beliefs, I welcomed you to Wikipedia. Don't misrepresent what I say.

Quote: "This is your own personal belief and, while you're welcome to it, not everyone will share that belief." Silly person. Sarah crane 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I give my opinions here, because this is the talk page. My criticizing you is not based on your opinions, but rather that you used your opinions to justify your edits. That is unacceptable. If wikipedia supported editors makeing changes based on their opinions, this site would be practically useless. So, no, you're not being chastised for voicing your opinion, you're being asked not to continue allowing your opinion to influence the article. So drop the false "oh poor me" act, it's not fooling anyone, and you're not going to get any sympathy from me. Izuko

I don't think my opinion influenced the article undully. Like I said, I didn't call NG a death-merchant in the article - I called them that here. And yes, you chastised me for it. Please don't be a jerk. Sarah crane 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not chastise you, however, I did challenge you. If you're going to stay around wikipedians for long, you should learn the difference. Being challenged on your views is not censorship, it is not chastisement, and it is not rude. I chastised you on letting your views affect how you edited the document, and even your most recent changes still show that same level of one-sidedness. Izuko 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced, and grossly POV "contraversies" section. If someone wants to ressurect it, please add in sources and possibly responses on behalf of the company. This is not a place to take your political activism. Also, is ologopolywatch a significant source, or are they partisan? Izuko 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?!?! That's awful! You just remove material you disagree with? How can you do that? It wasn't unsourced, as you know, because you deleted the sources too! What the hell? Sarah crane 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I suck for taking out unsourced NPOV material and bringing the article back to some semblence of acceptability. I'll go commit seppuku right now.

I don't think your sarcasm is helping. Do you? Sarah crane 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How can I do that? Actually, it's fairly easy. See, there's this edit tab at the top. Lets you do wonderfull things. I imagine you're already acquainted with it. And, yes, your rant against NGC was unsourced. Anyone who cares to do so can easily see that's the case, so please don't make wild accusations. Sources, by the way, are not just "this person said this." That's hearsay. Sources tell you where and when the person said that. If I said that the Pope heartily endorsed NGC, it would not be sourced, unless I could show that he actually did so.

There was a frickin' link. If you think it needs better sources, why not say so? Why delete the material? There weren't any sources in the "Business units" section either, but you didn't delete that. Why? Because you didn't disagree with that section, just the controversy section. Sarah crane 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A link to another wikipedia page that does not support your view is not a source. Yes, there was a link. No, it was not sourced. Why did I delete the material? Because it was so grossly flawed that it would be easier to re-write it than to correct it. Even now, it should be deleted. However, since you seem to insist that it stay there, I will make my arguments against it, instead of getting involved in an edit war. None the less, if you have an axe to grind with NGC or other defense contractors, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Izuko 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I did not delete the material because I disagreed with it. I removed it because it utterly failed to meet Wikistandards. As I've said, this is not a blog. If you want to try to post a real contraversies section, made of facts and sources, instead of highly POV slander, feel free. But don't complain that I got rid of your previous attack. Izuko 12:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what's better, suggesting improvements, or deleting? The section was not highly POV slander. It was not an attack. It was a list of controversies. You're being an ass. Sarah crane 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right, I am an ass. However, I'm also an ass who makes sure he's right. I'm the kind of ass you get pissed at because as much of an ass as I am, you can't say I'm wrong.

• Sorry everybody. I got a little steamed there. (Can you tell I'm a red-head?) I had a cup of hot tea, and I feel better now. A very nice person named User:Commander Keane put the controversy section at Northrop Grumman/Temp so I could work on it there. I'll put in enough sources, and then I'll put it back in the article. I hope this solves the problem. Sarah crane 14:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's back in now, expanded, and with plenty of sources. :) Sarah crane 14:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and after I posted all this, I checked the page again. Sarah, use the preview feature. Collect your thoughts and put them all in one edit. There's no excuse for a steady stream of Sarah crane edits. In a space of two days, you've practically forced all other contributions off the first page of the history section. It makes it hard to track changes, difficult to follow the history (seeing as you have to go through ten thousand minor edits to get to something signficant), and makes one wonder if your edits are off the cuff "whatever I feel like putting in" instead of well thought-out. Izuko 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say, "Please do not bite the newcomers". Sarah has only been on Wikipedia for a week, so please keep the tone appropriate. Thanks. Gflores^Talk 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been wearing kid gloves, but I don't think I've been all that brutal. Izuko 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From my long experience with USENET/WWW/etc I have developed a thick-skin as far as what is said to (and about) me on-line. When I showed up here I like many others had an advantage in that regard. You and I may not feel that you've been strictly "brutal" in a general sense from our viewpoints, but on the other hand, many newcomers may easily perceive this differently and become very upset (not to mention discouraged!) when reading talk like "So drop the false "oh poor me" act, it's not fooling anyone, and you're not going to get any sympathy from me". This is not acceptable to most here much less something we want newcomers to experience.

That isn't to say that Sarah Crane is perfect and blameless (she did apologize), it takes "two to tango" after all and she is very new here. But, disregarding the article content dispute in question, as people who have more experience as far as "how things are done" on Wikipedia and considering the fact that Sarah Crane has shown in her short time here that she wants to be a productive editor, we need to consider that kid gloves may well be appropriate. Otherwise, in light of what has happened in many other newcomer situations, we risk losing a good editor altogether.

I, as well as others, will work with Sarah Crane to help get her up to speed on the many aspects of being a contributor including advice about avoiding personal disputes. For your part, I do hope that you'll consider my view regarding being more careful about how we treat new (or even old) editors who sincerely want to contribute to Wikipedia.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-05 21:35Z

Well, since you're an admin, I do believe I lose automatically. None the less, I strongly disagree with your position. Being new to wiki can be an excuse for a great many things. However, not playing the type of games Sarah is playing is not exactly wiki-specific. The reason I told her to drop the "oh poor me" act was because she was playing the victim. You'll even notice how she ran off to your page to cast me as the Big Bad Wolf. Maybe I should even change my name to "some ex-employee from Northrop Grumman," since that's evidently how she sees me, and how she reports me.

None the less, I'll try to be a little less blunt. I don't believe in candy-coating my words, but it seems I'll have to here. However, I still don't intend to give her edits free pass, which also seems to offend her, judging from her comments on your page. Izuko 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As Sarah said, you can cut down on the sarcasm, it isn't helping. Regardless if you believe Sarah is playing the victim, your tone was (and continues to be) inappropriate. Sarah has apologized on several occassions and you have not done the same in any way. Doing so would relieve tension on both sides. I also suggest you re-read WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Etiquette, as they serve to make communication amongst Wikipedians more civil. Gflores^Talk 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid an apology is unlikely to be forthcoming from me. However, I will be less blunt in the future. Izuko 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Izuko, first of all, I am not an admin. Second, I have specifically encouraged her by mentioning several times that she is very welcome to ask for help and advice on my talk page. Third, her not "naming names" is not unusual, to be frowned upon, or an indication of bad character. I would prefer that people not name names in many situations and instead just briefly mention the issue so that I can look at it without specifically looking at comments by person X first.

I'd like to add that it is not helpful to characterize her as having "run off" to my talk page. This is not by a long-shot the truth of the matter and it is extremely uncivil to put it that way. She stated her view of the situation (with an apology!) and asked for me to look at it as well as possibly add some input (CITE). Notice that I was not called in as an attack dog. She sincerely asked for input which is what people should do when part of a personal conflict that doesn't seem to appear to be abating.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 00:02Z

Now, now, don't be so rash to accuse me on incivility, shouldn't you Assume Good Faith? Anyways, it's regrettable that you choose to see my viewing her as having run off to your page to "rally the troops" as being uncivil. I guess we just won't see eye-to-eye here. Izuko 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contraversies Section

To say that the contraversies section needs help would be a gross understatement.

1) The first sentence states that 85% of NGC's income comes from the government. This, of course, is not exactly unusual for a defense contractor. Nor is it exactly a problem or contraversy. It's there to support the second sentence, which accuses NGC of "influence peddling." This is a weasle-word type of accusation. What are the criteria for influence peddling? Any company that lobbies congress could be accused of influence peddling. Also, Sarah has failed to show how the income and heavy lobbying imply influence peddling. For this reason, the comment should be removed.

2) The quote supposedly from the World Policy Institute is unsourced. The next citation leads to a site called Foreign Policy in Focus. Does this group represent a significant and qualified viewpoint, or is it a partisan site? Nor does it explain why having three major defense contractors is a bad thing, especially considering that many of them operate as effective monopsonies. Certianly, it does not qualifiy as a contraversy. Maaaaybe a criticism, but it would have to be beefed up to support that. Also, the cited page notes that the merger put NGC on part with Lockheed Martin. If anything, this increased the number of players at the top of the field from two to three. Also, the comment about the "merger mania" was about the industry, not NGC in specific. At the very least, this seciton should be sourced to FPiF, not the WPI, and moved elsewhere.

3) The final commment in the first paragraph notes the monies given by NGC and TRW, as well as their lobbying efforts. Why is this under contraversies? How does it support accusations of influence peddling? Does it exceed what other similarly sized and functioned organizations have done? Can a connection be made between the contributions and lobbying, and actual influence peddling?

4) Sarah then notes that many politicos have pushed for buying more items that NGC sells. But isn't this part of a push to enhance the military as a whole? Is this inconsistant with what they would normally do? Has NGC been specifically targeted for purchases to the excusion of Boeing or LM? Where's the citation for this statement?

5) Again, the subject of the same type of normal campaign contributions come up in an effort to support the idea of influence peddling. But is there anything to actually connect those two ideas? How does Studeman's connections to the Clinton-era CIA figure into things? Does the CIA buy aircraft carriers and missles? What other corperations have connections to high ranking government "insiders"? The same goes with incidents of name dropping.

Frankly, that entire subsection is nothing but original research on the part of Sarah. She used blogs and activists (including one associated with "Scooter" Libby) to back up her own original view. Nothing in this section should be included unless it's attached to signficant sources, and the conclusions are drawn by those sources, not by the editor.

6) War profiteering: Again, we're dealing with opinions and POV. Who is CorpWatch, and why are they given significance? Again, activists and bloggers are the evidence of the day in this one. And the link to "Why We Fight" doesn't even mention NGC. One would expect a citation on NGC to actually mention them. One would also expect the citation to be more than just an editorial.

7) Scandals: The first and second sentences are acceptable.

8) Again, the source for the defective drones goes, not to a news article, but to an activist site, where the only information noted is just a general description. Nothing about the specifics of the issue, or where the case is going. No reliable source available.

9) The issue over overcharges: Well, at least we have a reliable source for it, but the Washington Post article can't actually be read. Kind of makes verification difficult. And, of course, back to CorpWatch, for the partisan view.

Basically, other than the Saudi Oil scandal, the entire contraversies section is unfit to go into the article. It is nothing but hints and allegations to try to support Sarah's POV. Additionally, no attempt was made to cover both sides. She simply gave the complaints that the partisans have, and let them be the last word. "Contraversy" implies two sides.

Now, the question is, why should the section not be dumped overboard again? Can anyone here see anything salvageable in it? Izuko 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Just a general statement: I don't think a "Controversy" section in itself needs to be absolutely neutral (but it must be verifiable). The controversy section is to report on what others have found fault with the company on. Representing a significant minority standpoint there is acceptable. Articles on other companies, such as ExxonMobil, Altria Group and Nike have sections reporting on people critical to the company. The defense industry certainly has some very vocal critics, and I think they should be included. That said, the controversies section could certainly be improved and cleaned up, but I don't think a wholesale deletion of it is the way to go. Henrik 11:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is the number one rule of Wikipedia, and is never optional. That's from the head of the entire WP project (if you need me to, I can find the reference again, I forgot to save the url to it, so I could take a little). The question is whether the minority is significant. Also, presenting activist and bloggers as sources gives the false impression of signficance and leads to the mistaken belief that more people hold that opinion than really do. Reporitng criticism is one thing, but I wouldn't report Michelle Malkin's views on Clinton on his entry. If you dig deep enough, you can find a minority that believe anything. The question is whether or not their beliefs are really pertainant to the subect being discussed. Now, I figure, maaaaybe, I could fix the entry, but it would require an entire re-write of what Sarah wrote. Izuko 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Izuko, I'm sorry you don't like the controversies section (it's spelled controversy, by the way), but Wikipedia can't just remove the controversy section from articles every time a former employee objects. As to your specific points, I have added references to every statement you complained was unsourced. None of it is "original research". I'd love to improve it, though, and all constructive criticism is welcome. Sarah crane 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, noes! I've been criticized for my speeling! I guess it's true what they say about those of attack spelling having run out of anything else valid to say. As for your references, most of them are unreliable sources. Or maybe I should quote Little Green Footballs to respond to them. To say that you've provided references is not the same as saying they're sourced. I could reference the Westboro Baptist Church for "evidence" that gays are going to destroy America, but that would probably be rightfully deleted as vandalism on any page that was not specfically about that conflict. Sources have to be credible and reliable. Also, as for your belief that it's not original research, let me ask you this. Where is your source for the thesis statement of that section, "This, along with heavy lobbying, has led to perennial charges of improper lobbying and influence peddling."? That's your opinion and conclusion. If you want to espouse your opinions and conclusions, get a blog. Oh, and I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I was a former NGC employee. I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it. Izuko 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't criticize you for it. I just pointed it out, so you would know. It wasn't an attack on you. Please calm down.

About your point: the homosexuality article does link to conservative sources that claim homosexuality is harmful. It doesn't say "homosexuality is sinful", but it does say "Many. . . interpret their sacred texts as holding homosexuality to be unnatural or sinful". It doesn't claim that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law", but it does say that the Catholic Church believe this. In the same way, the NG article should not say "NG are merchants of death", but it is entirely appropriate for the article to quote someone else as saying that. Sarah crane 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on homosexuality cites credible sources, academic journals (ie, peer reviewed, instead of just blogs and activists), and -major- institutions (one would be hard put to consider the Catholic Church to be insignificant or minor, especially in the field of morality). Hence, the entire point of my comments. Your references are not adequate for use as sources. Nor do they actually support the point you want to make (they are, effectively, weasle arguments - full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing). To frame them as signficant contraversies is to give them undue weight. Now, if you want to outline the pacifist response to NGC and present it as such, those references would gain a bit of signficance, within that very narrow venue. Izuko

Lack of Neutrality

Sarah crane has admitted herself that she believes that Northrop Grumman are "War Merchants" as she states. She isn't being neutral in this. But rather being extremely biased and against this corporation. They are a defense corporation, nothing more. It is no different from World War II where Howard Hughes, Pan Am, Boeing, Ford, etc were sucessful in World War II.

Like for example, you talk about the presence of Northrop Grumman in Colombia and the first thing you do about their action is that they help spray fields in Colombia. But Google Searches can show me plenty of other reasons why Northrop Grumman would be in Colombia. But they're not relevant? I'm sorry, but wikipedia is not your soap box to push your views about Northrop Grumman

Also, I watched the movie "Why We Fight" personally myself and this movie does not talk about Northrop Grumman that much except with the small mention of being the manufacturer of the B-2 Spirit. But the source for "simply selling death" part quotes "Why We Fight", a movie, which never talks about them except by small mention. Relevant? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViriiK (talk • contribs)

I do have my own opinions, and I don't apologize for them. However I work very hard to be NPOV in the articles I write. I may be biased, but the article should not be. Please judge by edits based on what I say, not on who you think I am. As for Why We Fight, I replaced that source with others that would be more appropriate. Sarah crane 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ViriiK's changing the links from ologopolywatch to GlobalSecurity.org is appropriate, in as much as they are well respected as defense analysts, as opposed to partisan activists. I still believe that the entire government influence section needs to be removed, in as much as there is nothing of substance in it, nor is there ever likely to be anything of substance. The scandals portion needs to be beefed up with 1) real citations, 2) a better explaination of the what is really going on, and 3) NGC's responses to the allegations (remember that the lawsuit is still a matter of allegation, and not a settled case). If those can be done, then the scandals subsection should be made a section on its own. Izuko 11:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with the change to GlobalSecurity.org, that was a definite improvement. As for the government influence section, it widely believed (at least in some circles) that there is undue influence.. it is fairly well referenced now, but the prose needs work. NGC responses should definitely have some room, it is completely non-existant now. But the controversies section is only a day or so old now, it should be given a bit of time to mature. Henrik 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are those circles signficant, or are we to list every complaint held by anyone against the company, down to the shipyard worker who got fired for violating a tag-out? Until the criticism leaves the partisan activist stage, I'd say there's no room for it here. Plus, the supporting evidence, here, is used to support what amounts to original research on Sarah's part. She brings in a bunch of facts and figures and tries to make them support her own POV, instead of dealing with reputable sources whose arguments and conclusions are supported. For this reason, I think it should be scrapped. Oh, and please don't edit my posts. It was not my intention to post the above in response to ViriiK's post, and it should not have been indented as a response. Not a big change in meaning, but still... Izuko 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree on that the question really boils down to "Is the NGC-is-an-evil-industrial-complex view significant enough to warrant mentioning in the article?" There are a number of sources for this view, so it isn't *just* Sarahs POV, she has sources to back them up. The second question is then "Are the sources quoted reputable?". My current view is a "probably" on the first and "undecided, but leaning towards it" on the second. They certainly promote a POV, but that is not a capital punishment. Henrik 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How big of a view do they represent? And do groups that oppose anything they view as miltary-industrial complex really warrent being mentioned on each company's page? And that still deosn't address the fact that her arguments don't support her conclusions.Izuko 23:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OligopolyWatch is not a partisan activist site, by the way. They're pretty neutral. CorpWatch, on the other hand, is not at all neutral -- but I don't understand why people want to remove all oligopolywatch links. The article, if you read it, is more pro-NG than anti-NG. As I said on the talk page, there is info in the OW article that I can't find anywhere else, so it should still be a source. Sarah crane 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Because we're not interested in pro-NGC vs. anti-NGC. We're worried about having an article with reputable sources, as well as having one where the sources back up the conclusions stated. If I am not given reason to do otherwise, I'm going to kill the war profiteering section, as well as the government influence. I'll move the scandals section to a main heading, as opposed to a subsection. You've introduced this mess. We believe it has no merit, by the standards of wikipedia. Please, clean it up. And that includes giving -both- sides of the story. "Mend it don't end it" doesn't apply here, because I see nothing substantial that can be mended, save the scandals subsection. Izuko 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that it's significant, and it's sourced. The section has many more reputable sources than any other section, and more than most other articles. Please don't unilaterally remove content. Sarah crane 16:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The section has very little in the way of reputable sources. Please don't unilaterally vandilize articles with your POV. Izuko 16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

(I have removed a chunk of comments from here and pasted them onto the talk page of this Peer review. They were rather off-topic. This peer review is about this particular article. If I have removed something you said about the article that was on topic, please feel free to add it back in - concisely--Commander Keane 15:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Comment Great work - I was expecting loads of POV but it's just dandy. 1 point, "Products" could do with converting into prose, rather than a list --PopUpPirate 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Sarah crane 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done that now. Better? Sarah crane 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just the ticket --PopUpPirate 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, would you mind witholding any more edits for the time being? I plan on doing a re-write/reorganization of the article that I think may be satisfactory to both sides. If the rewrite is accepted, it would be easier to change that within the new framework than to go back and try to rework it in. Izuko 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to put your reorganization at Northrop Grumman/Temp until its accepted. Sarah crane 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. That would reduce the need to bold/revert/discuss.Izuko 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)