Jump to content

Talk:DynCorp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:DynCorp International)

Why is this company so hard to research...

[edit]

Hmm. Judging from this article, one could easily guess that DynCorp was the personification of evil and its employees all servants of Satan. The truth? Like most huge corporations, DynCorp has many branches, many of which are involved in perfectly upstanding activities, and many of its employees honestly believe that their work helps to serve the public good. In an organization this large, there is little guarantee that the right thumb knows what the right pinkie is doing, much less what the left hand is doing. Certainly, when I worked for FMAS, we knew that it had recently been bought by a defense contractor, but that didn't change my team's focus from ensuring that people who needed it got the best healthcare possible for the least amount of taxpaper money. If the article is going to be this long, it should also be much more balanced. I don't have the time to research and revise it, though, and as a former employee, however briefly, I'm probably not the best person to do so anyway. --Bedawyn 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to edit it. Kingturtle 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry. Even if I had the time this month, which I don't, I still wouldn't -- I just don't care about DynCorp enough to spend my precious time on it. ;-) There are far too many topics I care about more to occupy my energy. --Bedawyn 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
obviously you do care about it or you wouldn't be here and make an edit, but since you say that you have nothing to add you seem as if you shouldn't be here so why did you go ahead and make an edit anyway? Bah!
DynCorp have a reputation among other PSCs, governments, NGOs and locals as being an aggressive and, for want of a better word, nasty company. They're not a member of the IPOA, I assume because of their poor reputation. There are many many PSCs out there, people aren't forced to chose DynCorp, they could easily chose another company with a much better reputation.
According to IPOA's website they are a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakaroo (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they apparently joined in April 2007, 9 months after the start of this thread. Thundermaker (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced

[edit]

I reverted all of the unsourced claims and POV as per WP:V and WP:NPOV.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the word "mercenary" in the opening paragraph? Dictionary.com has mercenary defined as: "working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal." These guys are in war zones keeping our officials safe from attack, not launching offensive strikes. Their playing defense...hardly mercenaries...

Well, because DynCorp is a mercenary; it provides security services for money. According to Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, UN special rapporteur on the question of the use of mercenaries:

“In recent conflicts unfolding in Africa, Asia and Latin America, there has been recourse to the recruiting and hiring of mercenaries, owing to their military experience and combat efficiency. In many cases, such persons could not be qualified as mercenaries if the requirements established by article 47 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were applied cumulatively and concomitantly. The Special Rapporteur nonetheless considers them mercenaries, despite the fact that the existing legal definitions are vitiated by gaps and juridical shortcomings and fail to take into account situations and activities that are mercenary in nature. [...].

It is the Special Rapporteur’s belief - and this view is generally shared by the first meeting of experts - that one of the new forms of mercenary activity is that which takes place through private security companies that hire out military services, using mercenaries for that purpose. The fact that international legal texts do not refer to this modality has facilitated its rapid expansion.”

(Paragraphs 63 and 72 from the Report on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, presented by the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights. 56th Session, Item 130 of the provisional program, A/56/224, July 27, 2001, http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/documentation/genassembly/a-56-224.htm.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas mccacnce (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Bosnia controversies

[edit]

I first heard about DynCorp in connection with the behavior of some of its employees working in the former Yugoslavia. These individuals have been accused of trafficking in women and children for purposes of sexual slavery, but they have not been prosecuted under either local or U.S. law. I'm surprised to find no mention of this scandal in the DynCorp article. 24.188.142.123 (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Max Clarke[reply]


I'm also surprised to see there is no mention to this here. It's widely know worldwide that Dyncorp is somehow involved in the "sales" of more than 200.000 (yes! two hundred thousand!) women and children as slaves - either to work and/or sexual pets. The extension of the involvement is unknown, as no one seems to want to investigate it.

If I had any HTML skills to edit the page - or if my English was any good - I would surely correct this. Hope someone does. More info about this all over the Internet - just google it.

And here a link showing how American government try to justify it: http://thetruthproject.us/2007/05/24/dyncorp-haliburton-sex-slave-trade-scandal/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariz nobrega (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyncorp threats to radio host Alex Jones?

[edit]

In the first 3 minutes of an interview clip with Dean Haglund, Alex Jones mentioned being threatened by Dyncorp. Anyone heard of any details of this claim? ( see http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=dbbe325cb5e8a69110da4140b0b58f66.723835 ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.214.27.173 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Born2flie: There is no need to assume that this article is really about DynCorp. Instead it is about the controversies that exist regarding the company. This is my first article I've come across on the Wiki that clearly is not NPOV. --15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shitty article. A very lazily put together article. The criticisms should be rolled up into the history section. And there should be more real content other than controversies. But maybe this company is just filthy too? lots of issues | leave me a message 17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Holbroke Quotes

[edit]

Recent quotes from former Ambassador Richard Holbroke from Yahoo (AP sourced): "The U.S. training program (for the police) under DynCorp is an appalling joke ... a complete shambles," he said. He referred to Falls Church, Va.-based DynCorp International Inc. a major provider of security and defense services in Afghanistan, Iraq and other troublespots. Yahoo News, April 28th, 2007. [1]

Perhaps this should add to the sourced material in the Afghanistan section.


Neutrality Disputed

[edit]

This article is not perfect - but if people are going to dispute its neutrality I think they should at least make concrete complaints here. How can I make the article more neutral if I do not know the complaints of the people who are disputing its neutrality? 74.210.52.51 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume it to be fair to remove the neutrality sticker --Jabbi 01:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing the NPOV on the grounds that the "controversies" surrounding DynCorp get more coverage and finding background and factual information about the company is not easy. Therefore the article isn't biased but there's simply more written on controversial missions/incidents than about what exactly DynCorp is/has been. --Jabbi 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the neutrality of the allegations against Dyncorp regarding the sex slavery is simply not there. There is no proof that the employee's actions were in any way condoned or irresponsibly ignored by Dyncorp, therefore it is unfair to make such a reference without citing the other side. This could be read as slander... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.198.35 (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Neutrality tag. There are No points of view or examples discussed here that would reflect the need for it.--May 1, 2008


June 2008 - Neutrality Tag Added

[edit]

I have added a neutrality disputed tag to this article, the reasons follow below:

-Under controversies, the Colombia section contains several un-cited statements and figures that seem to be POV, specifically: "Indeed, the DynCorp personnel have a local reputation for being both arrogant and far too willing to get ‘wet,' going out on frequent combat missions and engaging in firefights." DynCorp has not responded to the allegation.[citation needed]" As the above exerpt is taken from a book with a definite POV, I believe that it violates the POV policy of wikipedia.

Additionally: In addition to Human rights abuses, it is common for Dyncorp employees to frequent known houses of prostitution.[citation needed] Is clearly an uncited POV statement, as it implies that A) Humand rights abuses are common practice from Dyncorp employees, and B) It is common for Dyncorp employees to hire prostitutes

The Iraq section of the article also contains some POV statements, most notably the quote from Brigadier General Karl Horst - (since when do active duty generals have anything good to say about contractors?) --Bg10117 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008 - Neutrality Tag Re-Added

[edit]

User: Jrhamp has removed the neutrality tag, however the statements in violation of wikipedias NPOV policy are still in place. I am re-adding the tag. I would edit the article myself if I had time, unfortunately I do not.

I am willing to discuss the tag, if you disagree with it being tagged lets discuss the issues here. --Bg10117 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable that this article manages to dredge up every complaint ever made about the company, yet omits that provided security for voter registration and elections involving eight million Afghans in 2004. This is no secret and is on the public record. Enough said about its purported "neutrality." (----)

US Patent of H1N1 Production from Monkey Kidneys ?

[edit]

The U.S. Patent No. 5911998 belongs to the National Institute of Health and DynCorp. It protects the Production of different Rotaviruses from Kidnes of the African Green Monkey. Please Read

this for interesting facts about the Patent. There is also Information about the H1N1 included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.85.169 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That patent is about producing vaccines for a number of viruses, including several variants of Influenza A & B viruses (including A-H1N1 and A-H3N2) from a culture of green monkey kidney cells. It's not a particularly unusual form of vaccine production, using cell cultures of various animals as growth medium for the viruses. It has nothing to do with the recent H1N1 pandemic or virus, which I presume is the association that is trying to be made. H1N1 is the generic description of all Influenza A viruses which have a particular type of hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins in the virus coating. See H1n1 article in this same wikipedia. H1N1 is a common combination for swine flus in general. I'll admit being puzzled as to why DynCorp owns part of the patent, but the patent as such is unremarkable. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that weird actually, they are owned by Cereberus, which invests heavily in pharmaceutical companies. So it was probably a business decision to register the patent to them rather than another Cereberus subsidiary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:41C:9D2C:D095:E254:DEF8 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcpcall

[edit]

This article is absurd characterization of a great American company.The men and women who work for it are true patriots and the clear bias of the editorial content diminishes the value and legitimacy of Wikipedia.

The old saying "the fish rots from the head" means that corruption begins at the top. A business can have many, many employees of complete integrity and still behave in an unethical or illegal manner because of one or more greedy executives. The best chance of improving this situation is to expose it, not to delete verified information from public view. Thundermaker (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dcpcall, you clearly have a major conflict of interest here. Perhaps you should refrain from making biased edits to the article and indeed censoring and blanking sections critical of the company. Wikipedia isn't censored, and we deal in referenced, sourced facts. The legitimacy of Wikipedia would be completely destroyed were its editors to pander your version of patriotism, and blindly venerate any person or company with ties to the US government. Please stop edit-warring, as your edits are clearly in violation of WP:CENSOR, among other tenets. KaySL (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph which seems to have triggered this tempest is clearly not neutral in tone, nor does it reflect the complexities listed in the Forbes article. The Forbes article describes two sides of a conflict, the paragraph reverted places the blame squarely on one side of the equation. This entire Wikipedia entire article has this problem, I don't see what was particularly beneficial about re-inserting what could be viewed as slanted interpretation of the article. If I re-word it to be somewhat less slanted, will it be allowed to stick? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true, and if it's rewritten then that would be great, but blanking the sections outright or replacing parts with even more NPOV sounding stuff as did happen is a bit much. KaySL (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag time?

[edit]

The edits today by Thomascomryn seem to have pulled out all stops on POV. Time to re-add the neutrality tag? Even for a complete outsider like myself, this seems to have shifted the article from biased to hatchet job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last Revision

[edit]

I've read through the POV guidelines and I don't see how the most-recent changes make this article any less valuable than it was before. I aimed at making the article more coherent, intelligible, and better-sourced. I also did quite a bit of cleanup on the grammar, punctuation, taxonomy, and relevance.

All-told, I spent four hours on markup and proofing on this article; plus another two hours on research the subject. Is that qualification for a "hatchet job?"

Tom (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think your edits improved the article - particuarly changing it from being a massive list of "controversies" which is obviously POV, to a more neutral format. It would be great if there was more information available about the company in general, but similar to Trafigura, they probably only receive press coverage for negative information. A NPOV is to report in a balanced way on what RS have said about something, and I think the article is reasonable as it is. This came out yesterday, and should maybe be included in the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Boys = Sexual Slavery?

[edit]

This article suggests that "dancing" might be an overly conservative bowdlerization of the Bacha bazi practice, which apparently also can include sexual slavery. Perhaps the last section of the article should be modified to include the possibility of this rather more serious bombshell.--76.94.203.163 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(removed libelous comment by above IP)

You have a reference for that? Do note that just because it's a talk page doesn't mean that unsubstantiated statements are allowed to stand. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the passage "'In 2009, DynCorp contractors paid a 17-year-old Afghan Bacha Bazi performer to entertain them in Kunduz. Several Afghans were later arrested and investigated.[114][115][116] A Wikileaks cable released after the incident stated that the Afghan interior minister at the time, Hanif Atmar, asked the assistant US ambassador to try to "quash" both the story and release of video from the incident.[114][117][118][119] In response to the incident, DynCorp fired four senior managers and established a chief compliance officer position, which focused on ethics, business conduct, related investigations, and regulatory compliance.[115] As of 2014, no DynCorp employee has faced criminal charges.'" doesn't sufficiently depict that the performance was of a sexual or even illegal nature despite a commonality of homoerotic pederasty. it could just have easily been contracted for the purpose of proving the existence of the behaviour among the afghan security forces. we dont know, it's not shown. if dyncorp was tasked with destroying poppi fields up till 2009 and heroin production and honey trapped bacha bazis have both steadily increased since then, there's reason to suspect machinations and misrepresentations of dyncorps involvement. purchasing a performance from afghan security forces and being criticized by afghan security forces for the purchase, is exceedingly suspicious of machinations. 107.77.208.56 (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bacha bazis and bacha baz are illegal in afghanistan and always have been. however, the afghan security forces themselves are the ones who perpetrate this behaviour. 107.77.208.56 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HQ location

[edit]

The mailing address as stated on the Dyncorp website is Falls Church, VA 22042. According to USPS, the city name for that ZIP is Falls Church. It is outside the incorporated city of [Falls Church, Virginia]], but only the US Census Bureau considers it Annandale. It is adjacent to Falls Church High School, which is in the West Falls Church, Virginia CDP but also uses Falls Church as the city in its address.

Commuters using the Washington Beltway to go to the HQ would take the Arlington Boulevard exit, which is north of all Annandale exits.

Are CDPs important? I suggest we drop Annandale. Thundermaker (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems anti-DynCorp

[edit]

Is it just me or does this entire article seem to be HEAVILY biased against the company? Sure, there have been some recent issues, but WP:RECENTISM seems to apply in spades here. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the Controversies section seems to be exceptionally long, and the rest of the page is pretty sparse on details (particularly the History and Services section). I'm going to go through the article in the next few days and perform some cleanup. MountainMan11 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common problem across this class of companies - some people feel a need to add such items, accuracy, relevancy or anything else being held as irrelevant. E.g., an item from today's Academi (nee Blackwater) talk: Academi#Too_Much_Left_Out . I lack the direct knowledge (and energy) to shovel out the sea, have merely attempted to filter the factually inaccurate items as they get added. Glad you're willing to do the spadework on the backlog. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I was dismayed to find that little criticism. In the public view, dyncorp is only known for it's continuing scandals, so WP:dueweight calls for MORE on these scandals. By all means, add published success stories enabled by Dyncorp - there are none. It is for a reason that the positive parts of the article do not go into more detail than "we supply and support". DynCorp does the shady (and if it was done right, also the very difficult) business not even the military can do or wants to. Whereever money is to be made, DynCorp sends its thugs the military no longer wants. The criminal behaviour of at least some is enabled by the silence and looking away of the rest - and management. "DynCorp International provides aviation support to reduce the flow of illicit drugs" sounds great but equals spraying poisonous pesticides on civilians in a way not even Monsanto would get away with. How competent Dyncorp is in their field is the next success story: Look at the mess the Dyncorp-trained police forces of Iraq and Afghanistan are! Come forward, dyncorp police trainer, tell us about your qualifications, your pay, tell us why you fail! --92.202.111.11 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsdyncorp-wins-kaf-ah-64d-apaches-support-contract
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed

[edit]

The paragraphs on the scandals this company was involved in are all euphemistically headlined "incidents" so that from the summary no one can see what it is really about. Why are the services called by their names of aviation or training but scandals like child sex abuse or drug trafficking are not? Furthermore, why is the sexual abuse of underage boys and subsequent coverup hidden under a link that few people will understand? English speakers usually won't know what Bacha Bazi means, so let's call the link child sex abuse here. Murrerer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of the various sources, that terminology isn't justified.... the source cited doesn't 'say that'. Perhaps they were being euphemistic, perhaps what you suggest did occur, perhaps not. It's not our place to make inferences, even if they 'seem' obvious, and the interested reader can follow the link. The sources I can find (the cited one, and the one you linked on @Sfan00 IMG:'s talk page simply say they hired a 17 year old boy to perform a 'tribal dance'....to be honest, even referring to him as a Bacha Bazi is a bit questionable, since the sources don't specifically seem to say that he was. (Yes, I am intentionally discounting The Young Turks, as they are self-admitttedly 'commentary', not hard news, and only on YouTube) At the same time, the link does seem important for context. Reventtalk 11:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add, that I reverted based on off-wiki advice given in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help where I'd asked for a second opinion. The revert is based on what was thought to be Wikipedia policy, It's not based on my own personal views. As Revent has said, the sources don't make strong claims. This was partly why I'd asked (my talk page) if there'd been formal charges /investigation as judical proceedings/reports have 'qualified privilege' and can generally be considered reliable sources to back stronger claims. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Afghans were tried for ""purchasing a service from a child", which the cable said was against both sharia law and the civil code." Yah, "tribal dance", sure. It is explicitly mentioned that the Washington Post fell for that expression and that Wikileaks reveraled the attempt of a coverup. As I explained on your talk page, US soldiers and private contractors are exempt from Afghan law and can thus not be tried there, and the US refuses to try these people. Murrerer (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"To meet the sexual needs of the Afghan police officers, in December 2010, as Wiki Leak Cable reported DynCorp purchased young boys for Afghan policemen. The boys were to be used in Bacha bazi." Murrerer (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Aside) Don't be timid in adding multiple citations for claims :) (you removed one because you reckoned it was duplicate.) More than one source for a claim, increases the verifibility of what's being claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sourcing and context "1999 Bosnia incident" should possibly be "1999 Bosnian trafficking allegations." which whilst remaining reasonable, is clearer for the reader? (asking for a second opinion from uninvolved editor on this). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The keys are WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. We can't infer what happened. We can only reference what was specifically reported. The article above from scoop.co.nz doesn't qualify (IMHO) as a reliable source, because it's not a news report about an incident, it simply mentions an incident obliquely as part of an opinion piece - and it's not entirely clear whether the author synthesized the incident or actually has a direct report from a verifiable source. Wikileaks in general is *not* a reliable source, it is a collection of stuff, much of which may have been stolen from government files, but we have no way of verifying the actual source of any given article or how seriously it may be been written. In addition, without a direct reference to whatever article in Wikileaks was being used, we can't judge it.
In many ways, the scoop article would qualify (if in Wikipedia) as WP:COATRACK, an article written to get in a dig at something else. We have to be careful we don't simply add allegations here where editors believe the company is evil so everything evil said about them must be true. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will offer the specific opinion that what's in there right now: ...paid Afghan boys for Bacha Bazi, dancing in female dresses that usually ends with the boys getting raped. is flat wrong. Neither the Guardian nor the Washington Post references say that. The description was that a teenage boy wearing jeans and a t-shirt danced and was video-taped. It implies a sexual connotation but doesn't say he was raped (or any actual sexual contact), it doesn't say he was wearing female clothes. That needs to be cleaned up. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I kept all the various sources about the incident (the new Houston Press one justifies the description of him as a Bacha Bazi, but reverted the actual text to just say "In 2009, DynCorp contractors paid a 17 year-old Afghan Bacha Bazi performer to entertain them in Kunduz. Several Afghans were later arrested and investigated." which is what the sources actually say. This article isn't the right place for 'editorializing' about what Bacha Bazi is, there is a linked article about it. We can only say 'here' what the sources actually say. Also, the bit about WikiLeaks in the removed text was redendant, as it's later in the paragraph in more detail. Reventtalk 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done all. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on DynCorp. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dated information, overwritten infobox

[edit]

Article's revenue and other business information is over a half decade old, as are most sources appearing in the article. The infobox information on products is far too long, and from company-published sources only. (Infoboxes should summarise sourced content in the article, and not introduce more detailed information.) In general, the article misses the point, in large part for old over-detailed information, no capture of recent trajectory of the sector and business, and poor summary of all of it. Perhaps title should be changed to "History of…", and all material since in this half decade, since 2012 (a paragraph at best), should become a new article. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism from obituary being dealt with

[edit]

Because of the time required, plagiarism found in the article, taken from the NYT obituary—sentences from the obit inserted wholesale here, without alteration—is being dealt with by placing the cribbed material into quotes. If someone wants to take the resulting quote-laden text and do a hard paraphrase, they can do so. Until then, it will be closer to honest.

Meanwhile, finding whole sentences plagiarised from a high profile article such as the NYT obit casts a shadow over earlier editor's understanding, here, of proper practice with regard to use of source material in this article. Editors need to approach the rest of the article's text and sources, as of this date stamp, with suspicion; it needs a further top-to-bottom review of text and sources for plagiarism (and more generally, the proper representation of source content). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mining in Afghanistan

[edit]

Trump Finds Reason for the U.S. to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals https://nyti.ms/2tI5ozD

Article needs updating Wikipietime (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on DynCorp. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on DynCorp. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump administration lobbying"

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Trump_administration_lobbying What value does this section add? They attempted to lobby to be petty about a contract? This section should be updated with current post-Trump resolution if the lobbying was at all received, and what the controversy even is about the lobbying. As someone not well-learned about corporate politics and assuming all companies do this, this seems unnoteworthy. --Horizons_1 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging User:Snooganssnoogans on this matter, given they appear to be the only editor to contribute to this section. The editor's user page may potentially indicate that bias against the Trump administration was involved in the decision to include this section. --Horizons_1 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like relevant history of the company that it lobbied the administration to undo the actions of the previous administration and to harm competitors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Move info on Bannister

[edit]

I was just adding references in History § DynCorp and expansion (1987–2003) and noticed that the opening paragraph includes the first mention and seemingly out-of-place information on then-president/CEO Daniel R. Bannister:

In 1987 Dynalectron changed its name to DynCorp.[28] In 1988 DynCorp went private to avoid a hostile takeover by Miami financier Victor Posner, via an employee initiative led by Daniel R. Bannister.[29] Bannister, as T. Rees Shapiro wrote in his 2011 obituary, "was paid $1.65 an hour when he joined DynCorp as an electronics technician in 1953," rising to serve as its president and CEO (1985 to 1997).[30]

To the extent other editors believe Bannister should be extensively noted in this article, what do you all think of moving the information in the last sentence above ("Bannister, as T. Rees Shapiro...") to the previous subsection, Dynalectron (1962–1987), as part of a paragraph specific to his becoming CEO? – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DynCorp&oldid=1205719461"