Talk:Joint Base Lewis–McChord

message: This article seems factual and no promotional to me. I removed one superlative. What else needs to be done? Neutraliano (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I removed both tags. Whoever posted them didn't bother to explain the rationale. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement?

message: After reading the article - the first paragraph saying: 
Fort Lewis is a census-designated place and U.S. Army post located in Pierce County, Washington, United States. As of the 2000 census, the base had a total population of 19,089. The principal Fort Lewis maneuver units are U.S. I Corps, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, and the the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division; all of which are constituted as Stryker brigades.
"2nd Infantry Division" is mentioned three times in one sentence and "the" is typed twice before "5th Brigade" 
ODNation (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Infantry Division? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I think the two 16 year olds found on the base are a absolutely valid topic of discussion. Why wouldn't it be?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.75.58 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncited material shouldn't be included, period - please see WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Teen Girl 

message: I am trying to add a photo of the camp during WWI construction. If anyone can help it would be appreciated. The file is File:Camp-Lewis-Birds-Eye-View-WWI.jpg. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpinbean (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not test on live articles. See WP:SANDBOX Srobak (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: history section

message: "A deeply troubled base" according to US News and World Report, citing Stars and Stripes, in the wake of Iraq war veteran Benjamin Colton Barnes murders. Not a whiff in this article.--Wetman (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *And why should it? This is a good example of WP:RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, including it would be a good example of WP:NPOV. Incidentally I just read an article in a Danish newspaper about the problems at the base, given that the perpetrator of the Panjwai massacre also came from this base. Including this is not recentism - it is providing information that people are likely to be looking for. Not including it is a breach of NPOV.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: *How is it violating NPOV to not include it? Much of this centers around an isolated event. In the long history of this base, this whole topic is a short period of time. This is recentism and some WP:UNDUE. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More like four "isolated" events, the Maywand District murderers were from this base, so was the Panjwai massacre killer, so was Benjamin Colton Barnes, + 12 suicides in 2011... plus massive media coverage internationally. I'd say there'd have to be a very good reason not to include this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *You say four events. 12 suicides in a year.....connected to one of the largest cities in the area. I'm sorry, but in a state that has a historically high suicide rate, 12 in a single year doesn't seem like a notable part of the nealry 100 year history of the base. What you call "massive media covverage" is often just repeating the same thing. If AP does a story and 15 papers carry it, that doesn't make the "problem" bigger. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems seem big enough I would say (and the 12 suicides is a drastic increase from the previous year and is not connected to the city). And in any case it is not the size of the problem that determines whether to include it but the size of the coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, a number of outlets repeating the same story or two doesn't make the problem bigger. If there is a bus crash on I-5 and 3 people die, undoubtably dozens and dozens of news outlets will report on it. That doesn't mean it was more than a crash with 3 fatalities and it wouldn't warrant mention in the article on I-5. A year later, when the crash gets mentioned because of another bus crash or in an article about bus safety, that still won't make the original crash more notable. And you totally didn't understand what I said.......JBLM IS the city I was referring to. It is one of the larger cities in Western Washington and a CDP. Clearly it IS connected to the city of which I spoke. 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

text: you better put it back!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.68.52 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for producing sources. Some of this material might belong in its own section within the article but the lead section isn't the proper place as it is undue weight. I've moved this from my talk page so that other editors here may comment or make use of the sources. I do think that a Controversy section may be warranted.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicides etc at "a deeply troubled base" 

message: Moved from Berean Hunter's talk page
thanx for writing, you!
here are the places where the info was taken out of.
could you put it back as they were first, please, after you've checked?
also, you may place it where you see fit.
can you please send me thru here what me wrote first?
these are the sources yet you shall have to look to see they where they were taken off of, as in read.
*http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/afghanistan-suspects-base-2010-killing-case-15899650
*http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/03/12/base-lewis-mcchord
*http://ibtimes.com/articles/312989/20120312/afghanistan-shooting-timeline-joint-base-lewis-mcchord.htm
*http://pressherald.com/news/most-troubled-base-in-the-military-_2012-03-12.html
*http://huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/afghan-massacre-survivor_n_548360.html
*http://nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html
*http://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/afganos-piden-retiro-fuerzas-eeuu-tras-muerte-16-105644388.html
*http://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/soldado-dispar%C3%B3-civiles-afganos-pertenece-problem%C3%A1tica-base-militar-174400669.html
*http://elnuevodiario.com.ni/internacionales/244696-soldado-que-disparo-a-civiles-afganos-pertenece-a-problematica-base-militar
*http://universityplace.patch.com/articles/report-soldier-believed-to-have-killed-16-afghan-civilians-from-joint-base-lewis-mcchord
*http://king5.com/home/Afghan-president-US-soldier-kills-16-civilians-142244955.html
*http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120311/NEWS/120319993/joint-base-lewis-mcchord-soldier-accused-of-killing-16-afghan
*http://democracynow.org/2004/5/20/afghan_massacre_eyewitnesses_testify_that_us
*http://commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/12/afghan-massacre-and-u-s-mission/
was actually trying to look for how to put the lil upper corner numbers for that.
if you'd read any news you'd have known that at least it was not far from the actual reportings.
please reply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.68.52 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: you better put it back!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.68.52 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for producing sources. Some of this material might belong in its own section within the article but the lead section isn't the proper place as it is undue weight. I've moved this from my talk page so that other editors here may comment or make use of the sources. I do think that a Controversy section may be warranted.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More trouble at base

message: During the Vietnam War, Fort Lewis was a replacement depot.  Fort Lewis served as a processing center.  Troops were trasported from McChod AFB in chartered airlines.  The processing center reminded me of a stock yard, as it seemed that we were herded from one process station to another, then finally herded to the ramp where we boarded a Delta 7-0-7.  Upon return, we were once again herded through shot lines, paperwork lines then sent home.DPatrickMulg (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement Depot During Vietnam War 

message: Non-controversial my ass.  What in the hell are you guys doing???  Why was the original page whacked?  Why was the original talk page whacked?  It is not Fort Lewis - it is not McChord - it is JBLM.  At best the histories of the two other articles need to be merged into the JBLM article. It is complete redundant to have 3 different articles for the same facility.  
As an aside - regarding the teen girl and the suicides warranting "discussion" - this is not a discussion forum.  See  WP:NOTFORUM. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The move was requested by User:Ktr101. And please watch your language. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was there a discussion regarding the move and/or request anywhere public (ie: not on a user page), or notification of the discussion to any of the article pages impacted?  Cause I sure didn't see any - and there certainly should have been some. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We didn't "whack" the original page. The issue here was that the articles were merged, but they could also create a situation where if they were expanded properly, the pages would be extremely huge, and would include information on both pages. Originally, they were kept separate so that they could be separately expanded for the histories prior to their merger, but it would also allow for flexibility in what could be placed on the joint base pages. Because of this, there were six articles that needed this issue addressed, while six others were as they are now. In terms of bases where three units were merged, this would create an extremely confusing page, as well as a very long article. In terms of this article, Fort Lewis and McChord Field are good being separated because they allow for the expansion of the articles over time, as they are far from complete. If you are interested, a brief discussion occurred here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

text: As OhanaUnited wrote, the move was requested by User:Ktr101 (Kevin Rutherford), who has explained himself above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I smell a sockpuppet running around. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

text: It was fine the way it was since "Fort Lewis" ceased to exist officially as a separate post when it was officially merged with McChord AFB. In addition the parts of the post "Lewis Main" and "Lewis North" are also treated as relateively equally-sized and named regions as much as "McChord Field" is. That being said, a separate history page for the Joint Base was appropriate to alleviate growth, although it remained untouched since it (History of Joint Base Lewis-McChord) was spun off. Any real input into how this page's information should be manipulated should be brought up in the talk page, especially since those of us who watch it were dumbfounded when it all got shuffled recently. Rebel shadow 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Is there a way to restore the articles back to how they were? Tried doing a cut-and-paste move, my bad; but spinning off a "Fort Lewis" article is counterintuitive to reorganizing all the information from the previous articles. Any JBLM page should include all the previous history of the Fort Lewis article.
Rebel shadow 03:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-controversial move? 

message: * :Fort Lewis → 
* :Joint Base Lewis-McChord → 
– "Fort Lewis" is no longer used IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY since the BRAC consolidation and activation of JBLM in 1 October 2010 Rebel shadow 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Please define what this means in the introduction: "... the only Army power-projection base west of the Rocky Mountains." (Italics added.) What is a "power-projection base" and what exactly does this base do that others don't? The military euphemism is not clear to me. Thanks for the explanation. Charvex (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Define term

message: The demographics section needs to be updated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.132.89 (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: I wonder if we should add mention of the monuments/memorials/sculpture:
* :File:Fort Lewis 3.jpg (Sergeant John Ordway)
* :File:Fort Lewis 2.jpg (Captain Meriwether Lewis and dog)
* :File:Fort Lewis Military Museum War Memorial.jpg (Military Museum War Memorial)
* 91st Division Monument
* etc.
---Another Believer (Talk) 04:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  monuments/memorials/sculpture 

message: The subject line above is the first line of the disclaimer on the site, but there it's in all caps: 
JOINTBASELEWISMCCHORD.COM IS NOT AN OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT SITE NOR IS IT AFFILIATED WITH JBLM OR ENDORSED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR ANY MILITARY BASE. 
I previously deleted a link that incorrectly identified it as the main site for JBLM. There are still at least four links to www.jointbaselewismcchord.com remaining within this article. Since nothing on that site is authoritative, I question whether any links to it should be provided. Plain Text (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  JOINTBASELEWISMCCHORD.COM is not an official U.S. Government site nor is it affiliated with JBLM or endorsed by the U.S. Government or any military base