Talk:Joint Security Station Falcon

Military history: Fortifications / Middle East / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

No casualties?

[1] Is this true? There are two photos, along with a large list of names. If this is actually real, then it was a major disaster, I mean, 300 dead... :o --Planetary 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. One comment I've read about the supposed list of names is the lack of female names, which is unrepresentative of US forces currently in Iraq. Some links and discussion on Wonkette. -- Infrogmation 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a credited source, but I can say as a soldier currently at Falcon, who was there on that crazy night, that not one person died from this. Most if not all people at Falcon were inside a reinforced structure right after the mortars started landing, so by the time the major explosions started, everyone was inside. The explosions were loud and big, but were not especially close to most people living on the base. The reason for the explosions being so loud and big was because of all the amreican made artillary blowing up at the same time.--217.26.84.76 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even entertaining this garbage. Of course the enemy will come out with claimed kills. This is what some may say is PROPOGANDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patlpp (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, tbrnews.org is not a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Gregory_Douglas_and_TBRNews.org. Location (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOB Falcon

It's not a "camp" Falcon is a FOB. No one calls it "Camp Falcon". Camps are much bigger. How do we change it?

Matt Sanchez 23:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC) If you would do me a favor and read it again it has been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojita (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I am sady saleh wady work in fob falcon as a (cfig) and I have proof that because I have book sign Mr edgard Rodriguez CPT, QM BDOC please help me becuse I want to go with my family by iom Saadi saleh (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

439th Battalion

The last few sentences of the second paragraph seem to be off-topic. They describe the activities of the 439th Battalion ("finished repairing a compound", "worked with many Iraqi contractors and vendors", "water and irrigation systems continued to improve") rather than provide information about FOB Falcon. I suggest removing these sentences in the absence of something that links the information to the subject of FOB Falcon. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anecdotal information that was probably added by someone with personal experience at the camp.Yeago (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I also discovered that the text was copied verbatim from a GlobalSecurity.org article... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jihad propaganda

i deleted the entire bullshit conspiracy theory section on the grounds that it was blatant propaganda,provided no proof or refrences of its statements,and didnt belong at all. hopefully some nutjob wont put it back up.68.206.123.207 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am certainly not a notjob, nor did I add that section due to any reasons of propaganda. There were many conspiracy theories about that event, this was documented, and you are incorrect in saying there were 'no references'. Are these theories correct? Not necessarily (and probably not at all).Yeago (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Yeago on this. There is absolutely no credibility behind Jihadspun's claim (I would suggest that even calling the claim a "conspiracy theory" is being too generous), but the fact that the website made the claim is verifiable and documented. The article does not present the claim as fact and so does not advance the website's propaganda. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if i sounded a little rough back there people. i just think the conspiracy theory section looked pretty sloppy and it was hard to tell if it was a prop section or a honest attempt at a section gone sloppy(ive seen both) . i just think the whole article needs cleanup.68.206.123.207 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions for improving the section would be appreciated. I have made a couple of edits to the article, but they mostly addressed sourcing, formatting, and copyright issues outside of the "Conspiracy theories" section, so they may not address your concerns. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]