Talk:MacDill Air Force Base

MacDill closed?

Has MacDill AFB ceased operations? I only ask because all the runways are closed on Google Earth (although not on Google maps). Could someone confirm if this is the case, and also why this has happened? bjelleklang 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply: MacDill is open for sure. Also, there was NO SNOW in 2000 anywhere in Florida, certainly not in Tampa.

There was a period of time during the early 2000's that the runways were undergoing a major rehabilitation project and had to be shut down for a short while. Perhaps the Google Earth snapshots were taken during that time. All construction work on the runways have since been completed. Wslupecki 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

MacDill Lightning: High Voltage!

Spec about where this came from should start with the guy who coined it, who was at the time the wing exec but had previously worked in the 91st ARS. The 91st has used as its call sign BOLT since moving to MacDill in 1996. There's no lightning depicted on current or former squadron patches, and it's tough to imagine the squadron would have picked BOLT based on the Lightning, who sucked until quite recently, rather than picking, say, BUC or something similar (unless that was already registered). In any event, our squadron communications always refer to us collectively as "the Bolts," and I'm fairly sure Mark was coming from that direction when he came up with the slogan. Just a thought. I was laughing when I read this part of the article; I really don't think the wing slogan is particularly encyclopedic, nor the fact that many of the wing's airmen dislike the slogan (which is true enough, though it would have been true of ANY slogan, just as it was true of "World Class", which preceeded it), but what the hell, it's funny.

Rewritten

Updated the article with much more information. Kept the good stuff from the previous version. I'm looking for some SAC photos of MacDill - can't find them yet. might have to take a trip to Maxwell and spend a day there. If I find some I'll add them later...

Bwmoll3 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008

A very good article spoilt by no refs Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HQ?

I see nothing where the USSOCOM is mentioned, even though their HQ is there. Could someone help me with this? Thanks. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

Is it not a big deal that CENTCOM is based there? I don't know much about the military, but that seems like it would be pretty important. If it is, it should be in the lead and it should be given more than a passing mention in the body, as it is now. Recury (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

177th Temporal Recon Unit. 13 October 2028 – present?

What? What exactly is this temporal recon unit?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.221.203 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of section about COVID disinformation campaign?

@JArthur1984: -- Would you please explain how this content does not constitute WP:UNDUE weight, and is not a WP:COATRACK for the article? I'm a little concerned, as you've been spamming this same content across dozens of pages thus far, including going so far as to insert wholly unsupported claims into the article, and immediately accused me of "misunderstanding" a source simply because I reverted your edits. I'm going to ask you to self-revert this inclusion, discuss, and gain consensus before re-inserting. This is the article for MacDill AFB, not for COVID-19, not for US Government psychological operations, etc. The only connection that MacDill has to this particular incident is that it was the location where the operation was conducted from. MacDill has been the home of literally thousands of military operations; the overwhelming majority of which we do not include on this specific article. What in particular makes this one's connection to MacDill noteworthy enough to include? If it's nothing more than "This took place at MacDill", then we should not be including it in this article. As a reminder, undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. — ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Particularly because no other reliable sources yet seem to also be carrying the story, at best, I could see "In June 2024, Reuters claimed that a secret propaganda operation to disparage China’s vaccine in the developing world was conducted from MacDill AFB." with appropriate refs and wikilinks. Going beyond that is far exceeding the relevancy of the topic to this article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we are on the right track to working out something we can both accept.

"Claimed" is a word to watch, how about "report" or "said" or "wrote"? Also we should include "using fake social media accounts" after AFB so its clear what the MacDill personnel did. And then include a sentence to address the broader usage of MacDill for these purposes (you did not like my attempt to put the Reuters source in less colloquial language, but I am open to other versions. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, substitute whatever for "Claimed." Any of those suggestions would be fine. Same with "using fake social media accounts" -- that's a helpful clarification. It's not clear what you mean by the broader usage of MacDill though -- could you give an example for that last part? Or are you simply referring to the point that MacDill is the home of clandestine operations for the military? If the latter, I think there's better sources for that and it'd be more appropriate in a separate section of the article (probably under the "Tenant units" section, and perhaps the lede where it talks about JSOC presence) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the 'leading site'/'propaganda factory' part but your organizational point is a good one.

I'll re-reword the COVID-19 campaign part as we have discussed here. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to grab some dinner, and come back later tonight and can find a better spot for the broader propaganda part, with some wordsmithing and additional refs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

OK added here to the cyberwarfare section, though it's not been quite as easy as I first thought. The challenge is that at least overtly, MacDill *isn't* really the leading propaganda and psyops site in the DoD -- that's Ft. Liberty (formerly Ft. Bragg), where most of the USASOC units (whose headquarters are commonly at MacDill), are actually operationally located. I can't actually find a single other source that makes that claim. Much of what happens out at MacDill is classified, so it's not easy to get good sources that directly support the conclusion that units *located there* are the primary drivers for this in the DoD. Therefore, I've just quoted the Reuters line (with attribution) directly, and added in some additional supporting text and refs to tie it in as best as I can. It's not perfect, but I do think it fits the bill of indicating that more broad propaganda and psyops operations have happened out of MacDill than just the Sinovac one. Personally, I think Reuters got out a bit over their ski's with that line, but they're allowed to get away with more than we can when it comes to sourcing.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks great. Far more comprehensive and better context than my approach. Thank you. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to point me to me to what language in WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK is at issue based on the slimmed down version. I can understand a position based on the former wording which included details about the contractor, their pay, and the specific types of misinformation spread by the campaign at MacDill.

I think you should slow down a bit and read the source before engaging in discussion. You say I've "accused you of 'misunderstanding' a source" but you are demonstrating your continued misunderstanding in the same sentence when you write that a claim is "wholly unsupported." Indeed it is supported in the source: "The facility remains the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda factory." That strike me as too colloquial to say verbatim, but I invite you to suggest an alternative. We might also attribute that view to Reuters reporting more specifically. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you think I am the one who should slow down? I'm not the one who has been inserting original research into articles that have only tangential relevance to the topic. I am going to politely ask that you stop accusing me of "misunderstandings". That's twice now you've done this. Please do not let there be a third time. As such, I'll also ask you to please point to where in the article Reuters makes the claim that this is a "the leading location for Department of Defense clandestine propaganda operations"? The article makes no such claim. It simply says "The facility remains the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda factory" -- with no statement on whether it's the leading location, the only location, or how much a "factory" is. If it's "too colloquial to say verbatim", then it's too abstract to cite as a fact the way that you did; and adjusting it to say something that it does not actually say constitutes WP:SYNTH. So I certainly would look forward to an apology for your unfounded aspersion that I did not read the source closely enough, given that the claim is in fact unsupported. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's stick to the content issues as if you scroll up, I believe you will see that we are probably close to agreeing how to represent this.

I believe "the leading location for Department of Defense clandestine propaganda operations" is not SYNTH but a good way to present MacDill, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, as "The facility remains the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda factory." It doesn't have to be my particular language. You could track Reuters's characterization of MacDill more closely and attribute it to the report, for example. I don't have a disagreement with that. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)