Talk:Booz Allen Hamilton

Proposed revision to Political Contributions due to WP:NPOV violation

I work for Booz Allen's marketing and communications team. I would like to propose revisions to the Political Contributions section on the grounds that it currently violates WP:NPOV.

Current text

Political contributions

In 2013 David Sirota of Salon said that Booz Allen and parent company The Carlyle Group make significant political contributions to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as well as individual politicians, including Barack Obama and John McCain.[52] According to Maplight, a company that tracked campaign donations, Booz Allen gave a total of just over $87,000 to U.S. lawmakers from 2007 to June 2013.[53] Sirota concluded that "many of the politicians now publicly defending the surveillance state and slamming whistleblowers like Snowden have taken huge sums of money from these two firms", referring to Booz Allen and Carlyle, and that the political parties are "bankrolled by these firms".[52]

According to CNBC, these contributions resulted in a steady stream of government contracts, which puts Booz Allen in privileged position. Due to the company's important government services, “the government is unlikely to let the company go out of business. It's too connected to fail”.[54] Furthermore, the influence Booz Allen carries in Washington isn't restricted to donations, but to a large network of lobbyists and political insiders. According to government watchdog OpenSecrets, “4 out of 6 Booz Allen Hamilton lobbyists in 2015-2016 have previously held government jobs”.

How it violates NPOV

Both sources are biased, presenting the same argument that Booz Allen is buying influence through significant lobbying and political contributions. As a result, it puts undue weight on their opinions about the role lobbying and political contributions have on Booz Allen's business.

However, if you research the resource used by CNBC, OpenSecrets—a database on lobbying and political contributions made by companies—you will find that Booz Allen does not spend very much money on these activities relative to not only competitors, but also top companies in other industries.

Between 2014 and 2018, here is a summary of political contributions and lobbying expenditures across competitors and top companies in other industries:

Booz Allen: $1.23M (lobbying) and $0.46M (contributions)

IBM: $22.88M (lobbying) and $2,16M (contributions)

Accenture: $15.99M (lobbying) and $3.38M (contributions)

Deloitte LLP: $9.47M (lobbying) and $11.97M (contributions)

SAIC: $6.13M (lobbying) and $1.35M (contributions)

Leidos: $4.13M (lobbying) and $1.73M (contributions)

Lockheed Martin: $66.84M (lobbying) and $13.51M (contributions)

Northrop Grumman: $59.32M (lobbying) and $13.50M (contributions)

Walmart: $32.15M (lobbying) and $7.07M (contributions)

Exxon Mobil: $55.92M (lobbying) and $5.79M (contributions)

Berkshire Hathaway: $32.86M (lobbying) and $12.50M (contributions)

Apple: $25.53M (lobbying) and $4.02M (contributions)

I will also cite the following article which compares Booz Allen's investments in lobbying and political contributions to those of other federal contractors: http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/big-lobbying-and-pac-spending-brought-federal-contractors-16-trillion-last-decade-160509?news=858786

Proposed revision Political contributions

According to OpenSecrets, a company that tracks political donations and lobbying expenditures, Booz Allen gave a total of just nearly $458,000 to U.S. lawmakers and spent $1.23M on lobbying activities from 2014 to June 2018. Four out of six Booz Allen Hamilton lobbyists in 2015-2016 have previously held government jobs.

Kemples (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec:, given your past interest in editing the Booz Allen page, I was wondering whether you might look at my proposed revision here and give me your thoughts? I work for Booz Allen, so I need an impartial editor to consider my suggestion. Kemples (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 24-JAN-2019

  Discussion required  

• This issue requires the input of local editors who may do so below this post.

Regards,  Spintendo  21:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new editor and I'm much more comfortable with adding citations or making text easier to read than with arbitrating this sort of controversies, but I will try to give my input: It is perhaps a bit unfair that 3/4 of the page deal with controversies and leaks, but that information is there (especially that about lobbying) because of the company's very area of expertise. The moment when your company shifts its interests towards the kind of government contracts that Booz Allen is used to receiving you open yourself to this sort of scrutiny. And I don't see how the fact Lockheed Martin payed much more in lobbying funds than Booz Allen did makes the information "biased".

Hopefully I was able to help. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec:, thank you for taking the time to review and for your candor. It's good to have an outside perspective. I guess my concern is that the comments from both sources suggest that Booz Allen is getting contracts by buying influence.

"According to CNBC, these contributions resulted in a steady stream of government contracts, which puts Booz Allen in privileged position."

"...and that the political parties are bankrolled by these firms."

Yet, the article and the financial data that I provided shows that Booz Allen does not make major investments in lobbying or political activities, not only within its own industry but across other industries as well (hence the comparison to Lockheed Martin expenditures). The comments do not feel like a neutral representation of Booz Allen. That's why I recommended a rewrite that focuses on facts rather than opinions, disclosing how much was spent and how many of the lobbyists were former government employees.

With regards to the Controversies and Leaks section being 3/4 of the page, I think that—with the exception of Political Contributions—the overall section is a fair representation of situations from our history and have no objection. They appear to be accurately reported and substantiated in an unbiased way.

Again thanks for your time with this. Kemples (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stesmo:, @Froid:, @Stephenbharrison:, @Bender235:, @Tagus:, as editors who have recently contributed to this page, I would like to get your thoughts on this discussion. Would you please review this thread and provide your perspective? I work for Booz Allen, so I need someone without a conflict of interest to weigh in. I appreciate your time and consideration. Kemples (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

While the controversy section is large, it is relatively balanced, in that three out of the 5 subsections offer views from both sides of their discussions. I think that integrating the entire controversy section into the main history section would be the best outcome, as this would present a relatively balanced History section overall without the stigma of having the information segregated in a separate section. This would also be in concordance with WP:CSECTION. The entire History section could then be subdivided and labeled by decade, instead of using the subheadings now used in the Controversy section.  Spintendo  17:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Address missing information in History/Post-War Era section

I work for Booz Allen's marketing and communications team. I would like to propose an update to the History/Post-War Era section to address an outstanding question:

Current text Post-War Era

Edwin G. Booz died in 1951. The company received its first international contract,[when?] helping reorganize land-ownership records for the newly established Philippine government.

Proposed update

Edwin G. Booz died in 1951. The company received its first international contract in 1953 helping reorganize land-ownership records for the newly established Philippine government.

Kemples (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 25-JAN-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Research and Publications

I work for Booz Allen's marketing and communications team. I would like to propose a new paragraph to the Research and Publications section:

Proposed new paragraph to follow first paragraph

In 2015, Booz Allen and Kaggle launched the annual Data Science Bowl competition, where the data science community competes to solve complex societal problems. According the Data Science Bowl website, in past contests data scientists have used AI and machine learning techniques and algorithms to find new ways to predict ocean health, assess heart function, improve lung cancer screening, and identify nuclei for disease research.

Kemples (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 30-JAN-2019

  Edit request declined  

• Per WP:OFFTOPIC.

Regards,  Spintendo  16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Miles Copeland Jr never worked for Office of Strategic Services

This article incorrectly states that Miles Copeland Jr. was one of the founding members of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) under William Donovan. In fact, Copeland never worked for the OSS.

After the outbreak of World War II, Copeland was introduced to William J. Donovan during a meeting arranged by Rep. John Sparkman of Alabama. Although the two developed a good rapport, Copeland was not recruited by Donovan's OSS. Instead, he joined the Corps of Intelligence Police in Europe during World War II, which became the Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) in January 1942.

Copeland was recruited by the Strategic Services Unit (SSU) shortly after its creation on October 1, 1945. The SSU was later absorbed into the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) in January 1946, providing it with operational and analytical capabilities. The CIG became the nucleus of the new CIA following its creation by the National Security Act of 1947.

For sources and additional details, see the Wikipedia article on Miles Copeland Jr. 0gravitytampabay (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)