Talk:Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune

United States: North Carolina / Superfund Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Superfund (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Satellite Facilities

I was looking for input on the best way to integrate the Camp Geiger and Stone Bay articles into this article and adding some more material on Courthouse Bay, Camp Johnson and Sandy Run. I was simply going to merge over the intro paragraph from Geiger and the entire stub from Stone Bay. Any input on the first two and sources and info on the last three would be great. NeoFreak 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Status

Is this base even open anymore? I tried to call some of their offices, but was unable to find a working number. Chris53516 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still open. Their web address is http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/mcb/index.asp Ben 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Buildings on MCB Camp Lejeune

I have removed the reference to the base containing 6,946 buildings. I am still looking for a reference and will replace it when I find it. Building are going up there all the time and as such this number is likely wrong. If anyone can provide a citation for this I will be glad to update the page! Rob110178 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That number is close, but it depends on your definition of building. There are probably closer to 8,000 buildings and structures combined. I know of no online reference.--Arcraven (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the USO of North Carolina

Jsrawlinson (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)I am the administrator of the USO of North Carolina page and have a link from our page to this one. Would you consider including a link from our page to this one?Jsrawlinson (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The Pronunciation has been changed since the introduction of yankees to the area. Ever since the 1950's when we were there it has been pronounced Camp Le/June. Unil the early 2000's when northerners started pronouncing it lejern..... Just a lil fact everyone seems to be missing out on..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.131.237 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense, and not noteworthy about the article. 97.89.232.84 (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's "damned yankees" down here in NC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.223.213 (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2022, and the pronunciation in this article still doesn't reflect how the camp's name is said by the people who live and work there. Visit the Latest Videos page of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune's website, and you'll find the pronunciation used is lə'ʒuːn.67.83.99.134 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)corpho[reply]

Inconsistencies, punctuation, misplaced info

This whole section under History has nothing to do with the history of Camp Lejeune:

MCB Camp Lejeune, can help to prepare warfighters for combat and humanitarian missions abroad, Camp Lejeune takes advantage of 156,000 acres, 11 miles of beach capable of supporting amphibious operations, 32 gun positions, 48 tactical landing zones, three state-of-the-art training facilities for Military Operations in Urban Terrain and 80 live fire ranges to include the Greater Sandy Run Training Area. Military forces from around the world come to Camp Lejeune on a regular basis for bilateral and NATO-sponsored exercises.

Camp Lejeune was featured in the hit CW network drama One Tree Hill in late 2006.

It also is repetitive, since some of it was mentioned in the opening line of the article. It contradicts the opening, though. The opening says 14 miles.

There should also be no comma after "MCB Camp Lejeune". 97.89.232.84 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. 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) 15:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information regarding radiological material

The source mentioning possible radiological material contamination, specifically the one from ABC news, is now a dead link. Searching for another source just ended up as second-hand, but did come across the following documents which I'm going to be pretty generous with providing relevant context for the first given it's related to what's already on the page:

Local media reported that the Base may have contaminated base drinking water with radiological material, reportedly from the former NFMRL and a known chemical warfare material (CWM) dump site (Site 69).
[…]
NFMRL operated from 1956 through 1960. Activities conducted at the lab included operation of an incinerator and use of low radioactivity medical tracer isotopes, and dogs were used as test subjects. “Beta-buttons” containing Strontium-90 were disposed of by burial near the lab and potentially at Site 69. The “beta-buttons” were reportedly not used for experimentation but were used on helmets, uniforms, and decks of Navy ships for visibility as they glow in the dark.
[…]
In December 1980, the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA) removed 493 beta buttons and 2 animal carcasses from a burial pit. In June 1981, additional sampling was performed at NFMRL and Site 69, the suspected dump sites. Radioactive waste was removed from the NFMRL area and stored in six 55-gallon drums in building PT-25.
[…]
In July 1981, a draft final report of the findings was provided to the Base. Radiological levels were within acceptable limits (similar to naturally occurring levels) in soil, rooms within the former lab, and at the incinerator ash dump site at NFMRL. Areas showing high levels of radioactivity within the incinerator were decontaminated. Radioactivity levels detected at Site 69 were also determined to be naturally occurring or fallout. Based on these results, all areas were released for unrestricted use.
[…]
In 1983, a Base-wide Initial Assessment Study (IAS) was performed by NEESA and identified the NFMRL area as IR Site 19 and the associated incinerator as IR Site 20. Based on the results of the previous activities, both sites were identified for no further action. In April 1984, US Ecology Inc. brokered Southwest Nuclear Co. to remove and dispose of the radiological material. All material was disposed at Hanford Reservation in Washington. There is a copy of the manifest with a list of materials disposed.
[…]
In July 2007, a local resident/RAB member invited the media to a RAB meeting to report possible Camp Lejeune radiological contamination and historical radiological exceedances in drinking water wells based on information from the NCDENR web site. Mr. Lowder noted that the maximum contaminant level (MCL) was reported incorrectly on the NCDENR web site (reported at 4 pCi/L and actual is 50 pCi/L for beta particles) and there were no exceedances in Base drinking water wells in 1984 (detections were 9 and 10 pCi/L).
[…]
In July 2007, Radiological Affairs Support Office (RASO) conducted a surface survey and soil and concrete samples at the NFMRL lab and Site 69. The sampling results did not indicate radioactivity detected above natural background levels. RASO concluded that there is no radiation exposure hazard for personnel in either the NFMRL or Site 69 areas.
— Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 2008

Next document is Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCB Camp Lejeune) Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting Minutes, 2021 [NOT ARCHIVED!], but it talks about—among other things—unrelated radiological contamination involving small amounts of radium-226 on page 2 so it's relevance/importance to this might be easily disputed.

Jarrodmaddy (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camp LeJeune Justice Act of 2022 & Lawyer/Victim information

Provided a new legislative history section on Camp LeJeune Justice Act of 2022, which is part of the larger burn pits legislation just passed by Congress last week. Also added more information about Mr. Straw, who was already part of the article and who advocated and lobbied for the new law, given he and his family are victims of the poisoning and he has litigated extensively in federal courts both for compensation and health coverage. His failures on both counts appear to have motivated the new law to be more inclusive. DisabledEditor (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New sections under the litigation section have rendered parts of it borderline incomprehensible. Specifically the following section

Straw has appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, failing both times. Disability activist, lawyer, columnist, and politician, Andrew U. D. Straw, also pursued claims at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, stating that the U.S. Marine Corps' UCMJ responsibilities imply a contract to protect U.S. Marine Corps family members (Straw v. United States, 1:17-cv-00560, U.S. COFC). This case was dismissed and denied on appeal. Straw has advocated for legislative reform to avoid the legal arguments of the Department of Justice

Straw is referenced before he’s introduced, and his history of litigation against Camp LeJune (and the number of failed or successful appeals) are repeated more than once, making it very difficult to parse exactly how said history actually went.

As a secondary note, I’m not an experienced editor, so I can’t speak with authority as to Wikipedia’s standards of tone, but this entire newly-added section reads in a highly prejudicial and non-academic way, making it extremely clear what the author’s position on the matter of litigation of Camp LeJune is, which contrasts sharply with the otherwise-consistent academic tone of the article. I’d like to just fix it myself, but I’m not familiar enough with the facts of the matter to be sure my attempts at improving syntax and tone wouldn’t introduce factual errors TeufortNine (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main Photo is dated

Seeing as the marines recently divested their tanks, changing the primary picture might be a good idea to avoid confusion. 100.8.104.86 (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]