Talk:KBR (company)

message: 129.252.142.30, can you provide some links to back up the KB - Lyndon Johnson link? Also, if Coke was so popular (Stevenson that is ;) you might wanna start writing an article about him. Oh, and for communication purposes it would be cool if you logged in... Guaka 13:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Brown & Root was derided as 'Burn & Loot'", that's pretty funny. But shouldn't you Loot & then Burn? Why would anyone loot something burned? Just my two cents. And who's Kellogg? I didn't hear a word about him. - Jerryseinfeld 20:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Burn & Loot" 

message: Reputable sources have been cited, so I took off the NPOV tag. Andrewbadr 19:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: If the company is now known as KBR, and is no longer Kellogg, Brown and Root, should the article be moved to KBR (company)? --Scott Davis Talk 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Maghnus 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title (proposed move) 

message: Is "fired with effect" the UK version of what is called "fired for cause" (violation of contract/policy, or something along those lines) in the US? If so, let's find a compromise term which is meaningful on both sides of the ocean.
"fired with effect from 31st March 2005" simply means that the employees lost their jobs on that date 82.41.15.121 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional slang? 

message: I won't be back on here for a while so here's just a suggestion: With all the mentions of controversy, we could possibly take all of that out, (except for link and comment), and put it under a LOGCAP entry all it's own. It detracts from the operations around the world that the company does and focuses the attention on one location and its financial issues rather than what the company actually does. I could easily do it and come up with a lot of verifiable references but I'd rather toss that out here first for your review.
Lightertack 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: IP address 64.154.26.251 used the  and  tags to strike out a paragraph from the article. Text prior to my removing said paragraph was:
:On October 9th 2006 it was reported "Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants."" including US citizens since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 empowers Bush to declare not just aliens which means anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. It claims that Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables.
The above text and reference provided are unverifiable.
Striking out text like that doesn't seem to be the correct way of doing things; the talk page should be used to discuss controversial sections from the article. Carre 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: I don't see it mentioned:
"An official investigation concluded that the infections had been concentrated in the wards where the Bulgarian nurses had been assigned. Dozens of Bulgarian medical workers were arrested, and a videotaped search of one nurse’s apartment turned up vials of H.I.V.-tainted blood.
According to a Libyan intelligence report submitted to the court, the nurse, Kristiyana Vulcheva, later confessed that the vials were given to her by a British friend who was working for the KBR subsidiary of Halliburton at the time. The nurse was quoted in the report as saying that she and her colleagues used the vials to infect the children." —Omegatron 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libyan HIV case 

message: Please add citations to this passage, which reads as in-house gossip, and has been cite tagged for several months, or it needs to be removed. Alvis 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to conditions of employment imposed on UK staff

message: Added M.W.Kellogg history to complete the background on KBR. Kellogg's heritage as a leader in the development of chemical engineering processes as well as the ability to successfully complete world class engineering and construction projects in the US and abroad are a major factor in making KBR the successful company it is today. --Cpuzer 16:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: M W Kellogg History

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.218.212 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KBR Water Makes US Troops in Iraq Sick 

message: This entire section needs to be largely rewritten. It currently reads like a PR piece defending the company and is highly non-NPOV. Evouga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political connections and controversy section 

message: Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.74.90 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any relationship at all to kellogs corn flakes? (UK breakfast cereal) 

message: I am not the right person to complete this, but I added the news snippet about the soldier's death today by electrocution due to KBR's lack of contracting standards. Their contract was to fix "only after it broke" which cost a soldier his life because the grounding DID break. KBR also inspected the area 11 months before hand and knew of the problem but nothing was done due to their specific contract. Front page CNN right now. -Moocats (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put all of information about soldier electrocution together into the Iraq section where I'd mentioned the New York Times piece earlier, taking the CNN stuff out of the employee safety section--The Iraq section seemed the appropriate place for all of it since it's soldiers in Iraq that are being electrocuted, not KBR employees. I still think the wording is a bit awkward for that piece--It certainly could be tweaked. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I added that the Army investigator is now calling the death a homocide rather than an accident.—Red XIV (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of a soldier 

message: The article says "KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root)" but gives no information on when the change occurred, and I can find none elsewhere. The date should be added to the article if it can be verified. Languagehat (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: This really missed the heart and history of what KBR has achieved in its history. I know its politically fashionable to attack KBR because of the time Cheney was associated with us, but this article reads as almost hate mail.
:Do you seriously mean to claim that taking a criminal organization to task for its crimes is merely a matter of being "politically fashionable"? KBR has litigated for years to try to thwart employees' demands for criminal proceedings against their attackers. Shame on you for trying to trivialize those efforts.
The company has engineered and constructed so many of the modern world's marvels. To limit this to a hack piece about LOGCAP makes your otherwise friendly service seem very "small". There are published histories that could provide a better and balanced background.
:...and Hitler built the autobahn. What's your point?
161.51.3.235 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a 20 year KBR employee.... 

message: This information pertains firstly to KBR, so I have moved it here from Halliburton. Use as you see fit, responsibly:
 Skomorokh  21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from the [[Halliburton]] article 

message: There info on the alleged gang rape of MS. Jones appears both in the section on "Activities in Iraq" and the controversies sections. It should go one place or the other but not both. I not sure which section it should be removed from though.
--Cab88 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of Jamie Lee Jones alleged gang rape controversy info 

message: This time at the UK embassy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6917842.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.226.6 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More sexual harassment

message: To help the article a fraction less gentle on poor little Haliburton i've changed a few words, so please resist your automatic response to revert them. Acknowledging that something is illegal is not quite the same as admitting it. Likewise, you don't "agree" to go to prison for 7 years, you are just sent there. I'm sure I could go through the entire article and find many more but i really can't be bothered. But maybe you editors could be a little less sensitive to the poor little dears. --Genesis (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick changes

message: * "KBR plans HQ campus." Houston Business Journal. Sunday April 6, 2008.
** About the proposed west Houston campus that never happened
** Mentions that KBR has 4,500 employees in Greater Houston (a chronicle article using the article as a source messed that up and said that there were 4,500 employees at KBR Tower, when that wasn't the case)
** Mentions that, in Houston, KBR had employees in leased space at the KBR Tower and 500 Jefferson, company owned space on Clinton Drive, and leased space in Park Ten
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The article has no mention of the recent surge in KBR's contracts in Britain. Apparently they are coordinating building aircraft carriers (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2374afee-7925-11d9-89c5-00000e2511c8.html), OSC contract from the MoD (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/kbr-wins-uk-government-operational-202700594.html), and privatizing part of British police force (http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18067143/us-military-industrial-giant-kbr-in-bidding-to-privatize-british-police-forces).
That's all from the two minute google search I had time to do.
Interesting.
Would edit the article, but I cannot into wiki-writing (barely know how to post this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.52.49 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  British contracts 

message: Brown & Root attempted to build a nuclear power plant in Texas and were relieved of this contract.
(The article on the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station does not say much about the details, either. It should.)
Some details of this are at http://texasvox.org/2009/07/10/south-texas-nuclear-project-the-early-years/
Inferior concrete and problems with rebar and also welding inspection seem to plague the industry and such allegations (and some proven allegations) surfaced during the time the events occurred there as well. If I am not mistaken, certain alleged events in reality involving B&R formed part of the script of the fictional film "The China Syndrome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear plant construction 

message: Full disclosure, I have a conflict of interest as an employee (Engineer, non-management) and therefore shall not be editing this article myself.
This article does not seem to be heading in the correct direction to becoming a better class of article. 
I suggest other low importance pages company pages are used as a template of how to divide the sections of this page. Low-Class quality=B
Whilst I would not remove any well sourced material, the format in which the controversy is displayed overwhelms the content of the article (approx. 1800 words out of 3400). 
I believe this article would read far better if other sections were bulked out, or the controversy consolidated to be of the same scale. I do not wish to imply that any facts about past wrong doing should be hidden or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.6.213 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewite needed 

message: has proposed that the Brown & Root section should be moved into its own article and has created a draft at Draft:Brown & Root Industrial Services which I have declined for inclusion for the moment until there is some consensus here. This discussion follows on from what was started on Stafford Kendall's talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of Brown & Root section into its own article 

message: A number of updates are needed to this page to reflect the current information about the company. 
Updates are needed in the following areas: 
At the end of the first paragraph, add, "Recently, KBR acquired several technical services firms,--  including Wyle Laboratories https://www.wsj.com/articles/kbr-acquires-engineering-company-wyle-1467750761, Honeywell Technology Solutions Inc. (HTSI)https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/KBR+%28KBR%29+to+Acquire+Honeywells+%28HON%29+HTSI+Unit+in+%24300M+Deal/11932784.html, and  Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies (SGT) https://spacenews.com/kbr-to-acquire-nasa-contractor-stg/ -- which expanded the company’s professional services support to public sector clients."
:Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article so this is not the place to put such a sentence. Also we do not use "recently" as when a reader comes to read the article in a few years time "recently"will be inaccurate. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the unsourced and out of date list of offices. I have not introduced a new list as (i) per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article and (ii) such a list should be independent sourced per WP:CITE. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Sentence on Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies added. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text: The lead already says which industry it operates in. The infobox already says the number of employees (which is 20,000 according to page 11 of the SEC filing). Sentence on the Sadara Chemical Facility added. Sentence on KBRwyle's activities also added. Dormskirk (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Update Content with Current Company Information

message: , please elaborate on your concerns regarding the controversy section to explain why you tagged it for undue weight. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be a case of WP:Drive by. If DonaldMSpencer believes that the section can be improved he should do so. In the absence of any attempt to improve the article or any discussion on the talk page, I would support removing the tag per WP:DETAG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, it's a lot of "six degress of Kevin Bacon" by the nature of the business but "Late payment", "Shell companies..", "Political connections...", name a contractor that works with the goverment that doesn't have political connections. The other 2 are common place. Most seem to be 2009 range so perhaps the anti-Bush/Cheney era, I get it, but is that what this is for?--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of generic hand-waving. Please state specific edits that you think need to be made. Is there information that is unsourced or poorly sourced? If there's specific information that you don't think meets Wikipedia policies for inclusion in the article, what is it? Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fair, let me research the guidelines to get more specific.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the tag for now pending detailed proposals for improvement. Dormskirk (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. With the Political connections section it has multiple primary sources which means original research was performed. This violates the WP:ORIGINAL policy. Which lends to whole section having the righting great wrongs prose. The Criticism policy even states avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. To fall back on reliable sources doesn't address material that way over-emphasizes it per the neutrality and verifiability policy. Interested in your thoughts.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you too.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok with me. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight in controversy section 

message: This another section that section that should not be there. It is allegations and the source is a press release. Both of which are not in line with the guidelines. DonaldMSpencer (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly every newspaper in the country covered Waxman's concerns about the contracts for Iraq. I've added another source to the section. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waxman allegations