Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Political Contributions

For only being a paragraph in length, this section is highly slanted:

1) It mentions only the percentage of donations for Republican candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Shouldn't there be mention of the percentages received by Democratic and independent candidates?

2) Only Republicans are shown with their political tag after their name while all Democrats are mentioned by name alone.

That section appears as a desperate attempt to make one party look bad while doing their best to sweep the other party's actions under the rug. Hopefully someone with the missing information will be willing to update that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.40.146 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M&A

Just what is "M&A"? The entire paragraph referring to M&A has a particularly bizarre style. 192.249.47.210 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"M&A" is a standard abbreviation in the business world for mergers and acquisitions. It is already linked in a preceding paragraph; but to aid readers who need it, I linked it again in the paragraph that was mentioned. I disagree that there is anything "bizarre" about the paragraph's style; it simply states what it sets out to state. And the info that it communicates is all referenced. — ¾-10 02:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

So, I can really see no reason why the exact same company deserves two articles, as this one company does for its history before it's name change. There's no real reason, except for misunderstanding that Wikipedia articles are about concepts not words, and the single concept here is one company. Yes, it changed its name as it diversified through mergers and acquisitions, but it still retains its prior businesses. The history is moderately lengthy, but not problematical my so, especially since it really needs to be converted from the bullet point like curren form to a proper prose. But first, it needs to be consolidated in one article, as the current separated structured articles gives a false impression of being defunct, when it is still very much a going concern, and the same company.

That's the other reason; the similarly named, but completely separate, Russian-based United Aircraft Corporation is too easily confused in linking. Having the still-extant American company covered by one article with its current name (which it has had for just as long as it's former one, so no WP:RECENTISM involved) would allow the United Aircraft title to point to the United Aircraft Corporation (disambiguation) page.

The predecessor United Aircraft and Transport Corporation article should remain separate, however, as it was truly made defunct when it was broken up into the separate units that became UAC (later UTC), United Airlines, and the restored-to-independence Boeing, meaning it has multiple successor companies. Whereas UAC and UTC are the exact same company, just more diversified. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The second point is worthless as a reason for merging, as we have no control over what organizations call themselves, and that should have nothing to do with merging articles. To the first point, the 1975 name change signified more than just a name change, but signified a serious change in the direction of the company's businesses. They really are two separate companies in that sense,and thus better covered separately. Although a minor point, this also allows us to have infoboxes cater to the earlier incarnation,which is useful to readers, and difficult to convey in one box. Finally, your supposition that there was a "misunderstanding that Wikipedia articles are about concepts not words" that led to the articles being split is ludicrous and incorrect - the MOS does allow for separate articles for name changes/reorganizations on a case by case basis, and I believed it was merited in this case. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UTC convicted for fraud ? Why not in article ?

So there is this

http://articles.courant.com/2013-06-18/business/hc-united-technologies-false-claims-act-20130618_1_appeals-court-federal-court-trial-court

and this

http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,221,html?ContractorID=53&ranking=7

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a59rvdd3gLjg

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/19/jet-engine-maker-told-to-pay-us-473m.html

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0130568020080801

This lawsuit from the government has been dragging on for years and the amount demanded is quite enormous. Is this article being PR sanitized by corporate lackeys ? 72.53.96.54 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's why ("being PR sanitized by corporate lackeys?"), even though that's the potential explanation that naturally comes to mind first when you discover an instance such as this one. But this article has been on my watchlist for 3 or 4 years, and although I don't spend time reading every edit differential, I have not noticed any whitewashing going on. I think the reason is more mundane and pathetic—as with many Wikipedia articles, this one simply has no volunteer editors with enough time and interest to thoroughly develop and update it, so no one has written any coverage here, yet, of the topics discussed in those news articles. You yourself are probably the first person in the world who has both (1) come here and noticed the absence and (2) bothered to do anything about it, as strange as that may seem. I know from my own experience how odd it can seem when that happens. But Wikipedia is surprisingly thinly populated in a counterintuitive way; hundreds of millions of people from all over the world use Wikipedia every day (and in that sense it's famous and heavily trafficked, thus the natural intuitive sense that all bugs ought to be shallow), and yet any particular article on a particular topic that isn't sexy or fascinating or heart-rending may only get a few dozen or hundred hits a day (this one currently averages 500, which is a bit more than I was expecting when I went to check) and may be being actively built and updated by exactly zero substantially active Wikipedia contributors (of which there are fewer than ten thousand in the whole world of more than 7 billion people, believe it or not, based on a substantial definition of "substantial"). Loads of people read Wikipedia, and many dabble with the edit button occasionally, but almost none of them substantially build or maintain it. It's disappointing, but it is what it is, and at least Wikipedia exists, which is much better than it not existing. I have come to the conclusion that its level of volunteer participation simply reflects human reality in toto, for better and for worse (scarcity of time as a commodity with opportunity cost, variability of human nature, distribution of people's interests and talents or lack thereof, etc). Sorry for the long answer to a random question, but I rambled it off because it helped me to consciously formulate my general-case answer to the general-case question (that is, the same "underlying why" question asked about any of thousands of Wikipedia articles). Best, — ¾-10 17:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United Technologies. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Technologies. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect photo of former UTC headquarters in Farmington Connecticut

The photograph currently shown is of the building at 1 Farm Springs Rd. This was NEVER the headquarters of UTC, but was previously the North American headquarters of Otis. When UTC moved out of the Gold Building in Hartford, it moved into 10 Farm Springs Rd, which had previously been the Otis world headquarters (WHQ). The Otis WHQ was moved into the former Carrier WHQ at 1 Carrier Place (also in Farmington but not in the same Farm Springs Rd campus) a little beforehand, to allow for remodeling of 10 Farm Springs Rd. Of course, now that UTC and Raytheon merged on 3rd April 2020 to become Raython Technologies (stock symbol RTX), perhaps this is a moot point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armistej (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled 12 January 2022 Revision

The current revision of 12 January 2022 seems to have been abandoned partway through a restructuring effort. Either finish it, or roll back to the previous version. As it is, the history of the 1970s and 1980s suddenly jumps from 1985 to 2007, and continues through to 2020. Much of the history between 1985 and 2007 was moved to a new section, Acquisitions, leaving the History section in tatters. The Political Contributions section now contains the accidental sentence: "U In the 2006 election cycle." The first entry in the Former Businesses section is badly garbled, with a double bullet, and a final "sentence" that is uncapitalized, has no period, and has mismatched parentheses -- needs forensic restoration. Morenus (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Technologies