Contents

Talk:Fort Sheridan, Illinois

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Landfill controversy

[edit]

Thanks for contributing the 9 paragraph POV section about the landfill to promote your lawsuit / website. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so I guess that if I look up Fort Sheridan in another encyclopedia the article will also be 1/4 about the history of the base and the remaining portion is 3/4 about a single landfill. Feel free to add more material about the history of the base, the Library of Congress HABS record has 20+ pages of documentation that could be used as source material. [1] You may want to read it since page 1 describes your guard tower as a 167 foot 90,000 gallon water tower. You could also modify your citations using the guidance at Citation tags. You should also read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The name calling in your edit summary was also not necessary. When I see 9 paragraphs of material sourced by a single website and originally contributed anonymously, I remove it. Anybody can make a website, but having a website doesn't make the information contained there true. Since you've added sources, most of the material can probably stay, but it would be nice to add some pertinent material about the base and its lengthy history and trim the 9 paragraphs down to half it's current size. --Dual Freq 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point? My site does not serve ads, does not sell t-shirts, I do ask for donations which has brought in a single contribution of $25. I have already spent $700 on my current litigation so if you think my agenda is to somehow benefit from directing people curious about the issue to my website then please say it direct. Your insinuation is that this is somehow impoper. I maintain the website and post on this issue because I want to promote a clean environment, not because I like having visitors to my site for the sake of itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.231.170 (talk • contribs).

The point is that this is an encyclopedia. Your additions are not exactly compliant with WP:NPOV and it overweights the article towards your bias. You clearly have an agenda and you are pushing it here. There is nothing wrong with promoting a clean environment on your website, however it is wrong on this website. Please re-read some of wikipedia's policies. An encyclopedia is for facts not agenda pushing, see also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have not removed it because of your previous/current intimidation tactics. --Dual Freq 11:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added POV section because it looks like only one side of the story is being told. It would be nice if this was corrected and covered the Army's POV as well, or have the opposition POV toned down. Interesting information, but it seems a bit overkill for an encyclopedia. Possibly could be improved by shortening it. Dual Freq 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did not see the Army running to Wikipedia to add this material in the first place. From what I gather, they would just assume that no one thought about the issue and just left them to make their decisions. But if they want to add in where I am wrong then fine. I tried to add factual information that was supported by independent sources. 30 years from now, this may well be the only information about the environmental legacy for Fort Sheridan. After all, this is not simply a history page, it is a living document. With the fort now closed, the only relevant ongoing issues are redevelopment and environmental restoration.

It is a complex issue that I have tried to pare down already. It starts with the simple proposition that this is a hazardous waste landfill sitting ont he edge of Lake Michigan. But the complexity comes from why this is significant; what is the erosion issue, what is the Army position, how hazardous is the waste, why does this potecitally affect the local water supply.

Its great to know that the fort was once a release center after Vietnam but is that any more relevant thatn the ongoing threat of a hazardous waste landfill? I liken this issue to the failed levees in New Orleans. What can and should be written about a plan to build levees to hold back the ocean from a major city sitting below sea level? Who is to say how many paragraphs is necessary to bring the issue into full perspective?

Steve—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.231.170 (talk • contribs).

Couldn't we get more info than simply the enviromental controversy? For instance, what divisions or armies were based at the post? What units were decomissioned when the post was closed? How many people were stationed there in the final few years? What were their duties? And there is really very little description of what Ft Sheridan was like. It was quite beautiful, for instance, and the housing for senior officers had this Victorian stuck-in-time quality that was both quaint and very out of place in the late 20th century.

anyway, it would be nice to have more content here...

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live near the Fort right now and would love for anyone who can to contirbute any ghost sightings or stories they have about the Fort. I unfortunatly have no personal experience to add, only basic knowledge. I think this would add another layer of interest to the article and would be more intriguing for the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.137.106 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pritzker Military Museum & Library has holdings relevant to helping flesh out this article. Catalog and Digital collections are online. Please feel free to use them as needed.TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]