Talk:Mitre Corporation

message: This article could be expanded, does anybody have any ideas? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should add information about the locations -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Content

message: 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)
thread_title: Shouldn't it be Mitre?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rumors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Where does the name "MITRE" comes from ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.204.90.1 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: MIT Research and Engineering.
128.29.43.2 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: Hello, my name is Jeremy and I work at MITRE. I'm here to propose updates and share sources relevant to the company's Wikipedia article, and I understand that I mustn't make edits to the page myself because of my conflict of interest. To start, I'd like to address the "Corporate governance" section, which has subsections about CEOs and trustees. Currently the section has only 3 citations, 2 of which are published by MITRE. I propose replacing the outdated and mostly unsourced lists of CEOs and trustees with the following sourced overview of the company's presidents/CEOs, other C-suite executives, and current notable trustees based on quality sources:
I propose replacing the "Chief executive officers" and "Board of Trustees" subsections with a single "Leadership" subsection. You can see how this section fits within my draft as a whole at User:JS at MITRE/Draft. Can someone please review and update the section on my behalf, assuming the proposed changes are appropriate? Happy to address questions and concerns. Thank you! JS at MITRE (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoozaz1 talk 18:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to "Corporate governance" section 

message: Thank you for reviewing the above request and updating the article on my behalf!
For my next request, I'd like to focus on the "Organization" section, which has an outdated table with content mostly supported by MITRE-published sources. Some of the information is inaccurate as there have been changes to the organization's structure, and some of the content is unsourced.
I propose removing this section and replacing with this updated and improved "Organizational structure" subsection, which provides readers with an overview of MITRE's overall structure (including MITRE Labs and Engenuity) as well as subsections about federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) and the Center for Data-Driven Policy and former Center for Technology & National Security. In the draft article, I've placed this content under the "Governance and structure" section, which is a slight change to how the article is currently structured. You'll see overlap of the topics covered:
* National Security Engineering Center (formerly C3I Federally Funded Research and Development Center); Department of Defense
* Center for Advanced Aviation System Development; FAA
* Center for Enterprise Modernization; IRS, Department of Veterans Affairs
* Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute; DHS
* CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
* National Cybersecurity FFRDC; NIST
My goal here is simply to correct and update the content using reputable sources not published by MITRE, and of course I've converted the table into prose. I'm hoping Zoozaz1 or another editor can review the proposed text and update the article. Again, happy to address questions and concerns.
Thanks! JS at MITRE (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoozaz1 talk 19:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to "Organization" section 

message: Thanks again for reviewing the above request and updating the article on my behalf. I really appreciate your timely responses!
For my next request, I'd like to focus on the "History" section, which has a few inaccuracies, some unsourced paragraphs, and content sourced by MITRE publications. Additionally, some of the information is about specific projects, which I've separated out as a new section in my proposed draft.
I propose removing this section and replacing with this updated and improved "History" section, which provides readers with an overview of MITRE's history as a whole, based on secondary sourcing. Again, you can see how the proposed section is presented within the complete draft here.
One disclaimer: When I preview what the updated article looks like with the proposed section implemented, I see the following message for Source #3 in the References section:  To fix this error, one can simply remove Source #3 from the introduction, after "stylized as The MITRE Corporation". I assume the MITRE website should not be used as a source here.
Additionally, since one of the sources in the "History" section is defined in the proposed "Overview" section, I suggest adding this as the top section as well. Below I've shared markup for the proposed "Overview" without the "Lake" reference defined, in order to avoid the message "" This section is intended to give readers an 'at a glance' summary of the organization, including headquarters locations, fields of work, and the number of employees and patents as of 2020. Please see the following:
Given the couple disclaimers, I'd like to clarify, my request is to replace the "History" section and add the proposed "Overview" section. For the latter, I've shared specific markup above, which is the same as what's presented in my full draft but without the "Lake" source defined, avoiding duplication. Zoozaz1, do you have a moment to review the proposed text and update the article? As always, I'm happy to address questions and concerns.
Thanks again! JS at MITRE (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . I've integrated the proposed history section into the current history section and put the rest of the history section dealing with specific projects in a separate section that can be dealt with later. I haven't updated the lead (or overview) section much as the number of patents seems unnecessary to the general reader, the number of employees is already in the infobox, and the Washington Post quote seems overly promotional. You might want to look over WP:LEAD for how to write the overview. Zoozaz1 talk 19:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to "History" section 

message: Thanks again for reviewing and updating the article on my behalf! I will review "WP:LEAD" for future reference.
For my next request, I'd like to focus on the "Projects" section, which is currently a subsection of "History" but has a couple issues: the first two paragraphs are unsourced and the last paragraph about the company's split in 1996 is now redundant to the last paragraph of the "History" section.
I've drafted an overview of MITRE's projects here, which has subsections for:
* National security
* Airspace, Global Positioning System (GPS), and aerospace
* Cybersecurity and election integrity
* Government innovation
* Health care (which is further subdivided to have a subsection specific to the COVID-19 pandemic)
MITRE has worked on many projects over the decades and I'd like to think these summaries give readers a better understanding of what the company has done. I've tried to be brief and neutral, using only reputable sources. I propose replacing the current "Projects" subsection with the section I've proposed in the the full draft. I know this is a lot to review, and I'm willing to go section by section, but I wonder if Zoozaz1 might be willing to take another look and update the article appropriately? Also, I see an error message in the "References" section. Here's the Sugawara citation:
* 
Thanks again! JS at MITRE (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoozaz1 talk 13:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to "Projects" section 

message: Thanks again! I appreciate your willingness to review these requests to update the article so quickly. Next, I'd like to seek addition of the proposed "Partnerships and coalitions" and "Locations" sections. The former focuses on notable partnerships and collaborations and has a subsection dedicated to well-documented challenges. The latter is a summary of MITRE's facilities around the world, with emphasis on the headquarter campuses in Bedford and McLean. With more than 60 locations, I could see editors working to expand this section further over time, but this gets the ball rolling for now. Again, editors can view the full draft to see where I've placed this content within the larger picture. Zoozaz1, are you willing to review and update the article again?
Thank you! JS at MITRE (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoozaz1 talk 17:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "Partnerships and coalitions" and "Locations" sections 

message: Thanks again for your help! Next, I'd like to propose replacing the "Awards, honors, and accomplishments" section, which is written in bullet point form in reverse chronological order, with the "Recognition" section I've proposed in my full draft. The draft version is written in prose form and presents information in chronological order. The first two paragraphs very closely resemble the current section, and the third paragraph provides a few updates since the current section does not mention anything post-2015. Zoozaz1, are you willing to review and update the article again?
Thank you! JS at MITRE (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoozaz1 talk 20:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "Recognition" section 

message: Thanks once again! I appreciate your continued help.
Zoozaz1, in a previous request you declined to implement the proposed "Overview" section and shared a link to WP:LEAD. I respect your assessment and decision not to include the Washington Post quote or the number of patents, but I'd like to make two points for your reconsideration.
* In the introduction, could  "American" be changed to "United States-based" in the opening sentence, since the organization operates outside the U.S. as well?
* Additionally, if I'm understanding Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose correctly, the infobox should summarize claims made within the article body. If that's the case, shouldn't the article body mention the total number of employees outside the infobox?
In my full draft, I have a less detailed introduction with an "Overview". Since you prefer to leave out the overview section, perhaps the sourced claim "The organization has more than 8,400 employees, as of 2020" could be moved into the introduction and "American" could be changed to "United States-based"? I think the introduction would benefit from mentioning the year of establishment and number of employees, but I will let you and other editors decide.
Thank you! JS at MITRE (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed introduction 

message: Thanks once again! I appreciate your continued help.
Zoozaz1, in a previous request you declined to implement the proposed "Overview" section and shared a link to WP:LEAD. I respect your assessment and decision not to include the Washington Post quote or the number of patents, but I'd like to make two points for your reconsideration.
* In the introduction, could  "American" be changed to "United States-based" in the opening sentence, since the organization operates outside the U.S. as well?
* Additionally, if I'm understanding Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose correctly, the infobox should summarize claims made within the article body. If that's the case, shouldn't the article body mention the total number of employees outside the infobox?
In my full draft, I have a less detailed introduction with an "Overview". Since you prefer to leave out the overview section, perhaps the sourced claim "The organization has more than 8,400 employees, as of 2020" could be moved into the introduction and "American" could be changed to "United States-based"? I think the introduction would benefit from mentioning the year of establishment and number of employees, but I will let you and other editors decide.
Thank you! JS at MITRE (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel American is a better descriptor here; it is deeply connected with the American government, and while it has overseas operations, it's still an American company (see Mcdonald's which has plenty of overseas operations and is still described as American). As for the other request, the key part is that the infobox should summarize claims within the article body; the lead (which isn't part of the body) is meant to summarize the body as well. I'd be happy to add the number of employees to a section in the body. Zoozaz1 talk 01:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed introduction 

message: Should the "Projects" section of this page be updated to include mention of the Attack Flow Project? It hasn't gotten much attention in the press but as I understand it from this article on SDX Central, the project is a collaboration between multiple companies to create a common data format for identifying cyberthreats. The most detailed resources I can find are from MITRE itself and a MITRE employee so I'm not sure if those are reliable enough resources. But I think this is significant project.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Flow Project 

message: Thanks again for your work in updating MITRE’s Wikipedia page last year! We’ve noticed that the "Leadership" section includes several members of our Board of Trustees who are no longer working with the company and have since been replaced. Zoozaz1, would you consider update the existing list with the text below, which includes URLs for third-party media references?
Current trustees include Mike Rogers (chairman), Maury W. Bradsher,
George Campbell Jr., Lance Collins, Sue Gordon, George Halvorson, Paul G. Kaminski, Yvette Meléndez, Cathy Minehan, John H. Noseworthy, Adalio T. Sanchez,  Rodney E. Slater, and Jan E. Tighe.
 
Mike Rogers as chairman
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/22/mike-rogers-2024-gop-presidential-field/
 
Yvette Meléndez and Adalio T. Sanchez join the Board of Trustees
https://washingtonexec.com/2018/11/mitre-board-of-trustees-members-elect-former-rep-mike-rogers-vice-chairman/
 
Maury Brasher joins Board of Trustees
https://executivegov.com/2022/11/maury-bradsher-appointed-to-mitres-board-of-trustees-jason-providakes-quoted/
 
Thank you! JS at MITRE (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed update to "Leadership" section 

message: If you ask google, the name is an acronym for "MIT Research and Engineering" I could not verify this, so some time ago I wrote to MITRE and got a reply from Francis McLoughlin, MITRE's head spokesman and public relations. He stated:
: The origin of the name MITRE is somewhat obscure.  When the company was incorporated in 1958, the name was apparently chosen by James McCormack, Jr., who was one of the first five members of  MITRE's Board of Trustees. He sought a word that was essentially meaningless (and therefore had no potentially restrictive or pejorative connotations) while having an attractive "feel."   Some people have suggested that the origin of the name was the British spelling of the word for joining or fitting together, while others suggested the name was an acronym made up from MIT, Rand, Engineering, or various other things.   McCormack stoutly denied all these suggestions, and he was in the best position to know.  Suffice it to say that if MITRE had no meaning in the beginning, it means a lot to many people now.
I have tried to find a non-email version of this statement on occasion since then, because I think this is a small but important detail that should be in the article. Just today I finally found such a mention in a newspaper, and I will add that to the article, but I wanted to also post the statement from McLoughlin here on the talk page as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on the name