Talk:Textron/Archives/2015

Untitled

Textron are listed as manufacturers of cluster bombs at the end of the article on cluster bombs. Can anyone confirm whether they do or don't? Their website contains a reference to a 'product' that has self destruct features built in ' leaving battlefields clean of unexploded warheads that endanger the lives of innocent civilians..' Is this just a cluster bomb with a feature no-one uses? and are they still making cluster bombs without this feature but just not saying so?

M*A*S*H* hellicopters. Bell did infact make the helicopter seen in M*A*S*H but this is not the UH-1 Huey. I really don't think that there is a Huey in M*A*S*H nor was the huey even around at this time. Another movie like Apocolypse Now, or Full Metal Jacket would be more appropriate.

Bcamp83 05:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)bcamp83

Fair use rationale for Image:Textron logo.png

Image:Textron logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement that "he [Royal Little] knew who killed JFK" probably needs removal- or at least citation. Unless, I suppose, the author simply meant he knew that Oswald was the assassin... In that case I guess he knew who won the 67 world series too...

Weapons production record

This article fails to mention weapons production as one of the revenue streams of Textron. Its production of cluster munitions plays into an international controversy and I fail to see how the below text is POV. Following the guidelines in NPOV it's an attributable statement, it's balanced in that it does not say "violates international law" which would be POV on the convention. Nor does it, far as I can see, violate WP:NOR or WP:UNDUE. It was stated by an editor as an argument agains the text that it was "included for political reasons". Judging a text by guessing the intention of the contributor is a very weak test on quality. As a thought experiment: How would these facts have been presented, had they been submitted by a contributor with no political intention? EverGreg (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Government Pension Fund of Norway excluded Textron from its investments, due to Textrons' production of cluster munitions. This is in violation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions which Norway has ratified[1].

Sorry, you misunderstood my summary. Your summary stated: "If an award by a magazine (above) is neutral information, certainly the decision by a major pension fund is also an NPOV addition?" My response, " not if it is for political reasons, which this is" refers to the decision by a major pension fund. Sorry for not being more clear on that. THis is really just a news entry related to Norway, and not Textron per se, and as such violates WP:NOTNEWS. If a major pension fund droppes Textron because the stocks were performning poorly, or because of some kind of fraud committed by the company, then that would be relevant here. Defense companies produce weapons, and it's legal to produce them in the US, and so they do, for use by the US Govt. That some people dislike certain weapons, but think other types are OK (since they don't protest those other weapons), is political activism. Placing some kind of blame on Textron as if they had done something wrong is what's POV here. Pension funds have the right to choose what stocks they use, and for whatever reason, but it really isn't notable beyond the political activist reasons. List the companies on the pension fund's article, but not here. - BillCJ (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• IIRC, doesn't Norway have companies that violate whaling restriction treaties? Do we list every time a pension fund or simalr group makes some decision related to the companies that do this type of whaling? And does the Pension fund invest in such companies? WP is not a site for the promotion of atcivism, we just report whats' notable. This isn't notable TO Textron per se. - BillCJ (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. It is very important to be clear in the text that Textron has not broken US law, I'm sure we can find a better way to emphasize that. When it comes to "political activism", The Government Pension Fund of Norway is not your average student activist group. Textron has been the victim if you like, of a foreign government. While the stocks sold only amounted to ca 40 million USD, Textron suffered a public relations loss and came, unwillingly, on stage in international politics. That some people dislike certain weapons, but think other types are OK has been a major topic in international politics since world war one, with controversial conventions banning everything from mustard gas and dumdum bullets to nuclear weapons. It's a bad case of geographic WP:systemic bias if something becomes non-notable because the US government (including the current one) approves it.

As for an additional direct relevance to the article, this talk page documents that people have found the Textron article lacking in information on its cluster muntion production since 2006 and there's still not a word on it. If we're worried about neutrality, we should be able to track down the statement alluded to here: [2] where Textron states that their munition fulfill many but not all requirements set by the convention. EverGreg (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re whaling: Yes absolutely! If norwegian company X is vilified internationally for e.g. whaling, it would be a glaring omission if the article didn't mention it. Both me and my government support whaling, but that dosn't make me suppress international reporting and actions taken against the company. EverGreg (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A report released by Cluster Munition Coalition in April 2010 mentions Textron as a producer of cluster munition:

The most recent US Air Force contract with Textron we found on SFW deliveries is a "US$92,938,707 firm-fixed-price contract modification" dated 31 January 2007 and "provides for 291 Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW) Full Rate Production, Lot 12 option exercise." This same contract was modified in February 2009 for an additional US$9,527,490 of SFWs.[3]

More than 100 countries have abolished and condemn the use of cluster bombs. Investments in companies like Textron are illegal in Belgium, Ireland, Luxemburg, New Zealand, Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, Norway and Rwanda. [4] I think this report alone warrants mentioning it in the company article.

-- Kistano (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a few words to Textron#Textron Systems pointing out that Textron Defense Systems makes weapons.

The rest of my comment will discuss the matter of mentioning cluster bombs in our article.

I see strong merit to a argument made by BilCat (formerly BillCJ). He says is that defense companies make weapons; it's legal to make cluster bombs in the US; and Textron does. He continues that it would be improper to cite a news story which implies that Textron is wrong to make them. I also see strong merit to the argument made by User:EverGreg. He says that it would be silly to omit discussion of cluster bombs from the article just because it's legal to make them in the US.

I read up a little about Textron Defense Systems. It makes a variety of surveillance systems and weapons. Two of its products are controversial: its CBU-97 and CBU-105 smart cluster bombs. Let me tell you about ordinary cluster bombs and about smart cluster bombs.

• First, let's discuss basic ("dumb") cluster bombs. All weapons are potentially dangerous to civilians; cluster bombs can be especially so. Lots of nations have signed a treaty forbidding cluster bomb production, including Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. However, many have not, including the United States, Greece, and South Korea. A CNET News article by Mark Rutherford points out that cluster bombs are very effective, and that "countries that actually fight wars, like the U.S. and Russia, are loath to give them up".[5] US law makes it completely legal for Textron Defence Systems to make cluster bombs.

• Now let's discuss Textron's line of smart cluster bombs. CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon and Cluster munition#Types provide details. Basically, the bombs include a bunch of technologically advanced features intended to prevent them from maiming or killing civilians. In the real world, how well do these features work? Effectively, so-so, or miserably? I haven't a clue.

In practice, I'm not sure whether or not it's sensible to discuss ordinary cluster bombs in the same sentence as smart cluster bombs like Textron's.

Also, I'm not sure how much we can talk about smart cluster bombs in a 12,000-byte article without violating WP:BALASPS. Maybe we can include a whole paragraph about them. Maybe we can include a link to CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon in the article's text. Maybe we can only include a link in the navbox at the bottom of the article. I don't know how much material would be okay to include.

Right now, there's only a link to CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon in the navbox at the bottom of the article. Anyone who feels they can write about both sides of the smart-cluster-bomb story, and can also meet WP:BALASPS, is welcome to try and add more discussion of smart cluster bombs to the article.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

LBT says it's headed for a breakup

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/textron-strategic-review-could-spell-trouble-for-pentagon?a=1&c=1171

I suspect that he's attempting to lower the price so that one of his big two clients (Boring Aircraft or LockMart) can snap up the defense division at a discount, but do we include it anyway? Hcobb (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How to keep this article free of PR speak

On 20 November 2013, at User talk:The_Bushranger, BilCat asked how to keep this article free of PR speak. As a proud talk-page stalker, I offer my advice.

• The first and most important step is to request semi-protection if warranted. Is it warranted? Probably. You know the article's history better than I. If it's warranted, simply enable Wikipedia's Twinkle gadget, and in the "TW" menu, click "RPP". In the ensuing dialog box, write something like "The vast majority of edits by unconfirmed users in the past three months were by users who added PR speak to the article", then click OK to submit your request.

• A second tip: Never fear to roll back all the edits by an editor who added PR speak. Yes, this may roll back good edits along with the bad, but desperate times call for desperate measures, so IAR in this case.

• A third tip: The article so long and boring that Wikipedians probably won't want to monitor it. Trim it down as much as possible. First of all, remove unsourced and self-serving WP:SELFSOURCEd text next. (Hint: It's easy to argue, for any bit of self-sourced text, that it may be self-serving.) Be merciless. Try to trim the article until 75% of the words remaining in the article are sourced. I have done some of this trimming, but more is needed. The article could probably safely be trimmed down to 5,000 bytes or less. This is okay. See, for example, this edit, in which I removed 85% of the text of the Tom Szaky article.

• A fourth tip: The first time a user silently removes a maintenance template like {{notability}}, ignore it. The second and subsequent times, use the "uw-tdel" warning template series. It's uncommon that you'll have to get to uw-tdel4: users tend to cease and desist earlier. Click "TW" > "Warn". After warning level 4, report them to WP:AIV and request a block.

• A fifth tip: Watch for suspected socks. Editors sometimes create socks to effectively reset their warning level down to zero. You can report them by clicking "TW" > "ARV". Inside the ensuing dialog box, choose "SPI" from the drop-down menu.

• A sixth tip: If a small company's article is hit too often with COI editing, get it deleted. Unfortunately, Textron is such a big corporation that its article cannot get deleted.

Please let me know below how it goes. I probably won't watch this page, so please do ping me with a {{talkback}} template.

Good luck! —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

FYI: I requested semi-protection of this article today.

Mark Arsten replied,[6] "I'm holding off on protection since it looks like the worst recent offenders have been blocked. Let me know if problems continue."

If problems continue, simply drop him a note on his talk page.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)