Talk:Fort McClellan - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

To-do list for Fort McClellan: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-02-21

A listing of problems with this article as of 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

To-do

  • Citations, despite the PD, it still needs them to meet verifiablity.
  • Expansion, I reorganized the whole thing, every single section needs expansion.
  • Sources, we need more than one source here, something besides web sites, maybe some magazine articles or something else that we could access online.
  • POV, a is this article is highly, highly biased. Just one sentence about environmental concerns at Mountain Long Leaf, the fort is riddled with problems, we need to get at the heart of what they are. It may even, eventually require a separate article as the history section may as well.
  • Since this fort is closed some more hard numbers and statistics might be available. How many trained there? Died in training? Lived there? Totals? Average? On and on and on.
  • Missions, section needs to be reworked according to summary style.
  • Intro, expand and cite
  • Externals, could be a couple other noteworthy links that might be included
  • Images, definitely needs images, historic and current. Begin search for free-use. If you are in or around Anniston, maybe you could take some pics and upload them to Commons?
  • Command, there is nothing on any of the CGs at this post.
  • Today, will definitely need a section outlining current use, the refuge is a good start but it's not the whole post.
  • I know there has to be some history of chemical weapons manufacture/storage or something at McClellan. I remember it well. Let's find out.
  • As always, copy edit the crap out of it.

This is just a brief overview. Anything else that comes up can be discussed here or just fixed. Happy editing. A mcmurray 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of this text was adapted from http://www.mcclellan.army.mil/Info.asp, a website owned and operated by the US Army. As such, it is not subject to copyright. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PD#Governmental_works for more information. ClarkBHM 07:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the Training Brigade was deactivated in April 1970, why was it still there until the 1999 when it was moved to Ft Leonard Wood? Particularly since I went through Basic there in 1981. Just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccarlson (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

See this section of the Chemical Corps article.
"An ad hoc committee, designed to study possibilities recommended that the Chemical Corps' smoke and flame mission be integrated into the Engineer Corps and the chemical operations be integrated into the Ordnance Corps. The groups recommendations were accepted in December 1972 and the United States Army Chemical Corps was officially disbanded, but not formally disestablished, by the Army on January 11, 1973 . . . the U.S. Congress had to approve the move, because it had officially established the Chemical Corps in 1946. Congress chose to table action on the fate of the Chemical Corps, leaving it in limbo for several years.[18] Recruitment and career advancement was halted and the Chemical School at Fort McClellan was shut down and moved to Aberdeen Proving Grounds . . . Secretary of the Army Martin R. Hoffmann rescinded the 1972 recommendations and in 1976 Army Chief of Staff General Bernard W. Rogers ordered the resumption of Chemical Corps officer commissioning. However, the U.S. Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama did not reopen until 1980. (emphasis mine)
And the Chemical Corps article has actual sources to boot, unlike most of this article's text. IvoShandor (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suspect someone or some agency of editing out or deleting certain information from this article pertaining to the exposure of service members who served at the base to toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation. Monsanto? Solutia? US ARMY? 2602:63:C2A2:AF00:687C:1006:1F8B:AEC9 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's the Pentagon. The lawyer working on my VA case has a copy of a letter sent to the US Representatives office who had introduced the Fort McClellan registry act. This letter clearly states that the Pentagon does not want that registry because in, a summary of their words, it says that they couldn't afford it with the number of claims that would come in. The current camp was June thing is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the military and chemical exposures of troops 71.29.23.172 (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was at McClellan in '84, ended up medically discharged. The funny thing is, i can't seem to locate any records that show i was OSUT there... 174.214.49.80 (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added a citation needed regarding the notorious difficulty of the officer training. This very well could be notoriously difficult training, but after a quick look for a reference, I could not find one. I will look further,and if I find one, I will add it. Anyone who can cite this fact, please do so.Horst59 (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The lede includes this statement, not referenced in the main article: Storage, use and disposal of chemical weapons and waste contaminated soil and water supply and exposed the population. This needs elaboration, and preferably a cite. Valetude (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort McClellan. 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) 07:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply