Talk:Fort Knox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

High School[edit]

Recommend citation for the part about there only being high schools located on Fort Knox and Fort Benning. Fort Meade has a high school on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.177.81.3 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security reputation, gold, etc[edit]

Isnt Fort Knox the place where all gold is stored? Isnt Fort Knox very well known for being high-security and well guarded or something?

Fort Knox Bullion Depository - it's already covered. ---J.Smith 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, did not think of going to the Fort Knox Bullion Depository to find more about the high-security. I originally came in search of it, and would have left empty-handed if I had not come to the talk page. Perhaps a small note regarding the influence of the name "Fort Knox", and another link to the Fort Knox Bullion Depository? Kareeser|Talk! 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current full name for the installation is United States Army Armor Center & Fort Knox, and United States Army Armor School.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as a third, I came here to find more about the high-security gold hoarding room. I would have left empty handed also, had I not came to the discussion page. I'm sure there are others too. Is there a way to get wikipedia users the information they want without offending the admins? Sentriclecub (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (and without having to check the discussion page)[reply]
As of this writing, I think the disambiguation is handled properly. David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Depository has a wider field of fire (kill zone) than nuclear weapons (more expensive) or intelligence information (some would argue more valuable) storage or prisons. If you go to the Patton Museum, the gift store sells 2 different sized mini models of gold bars. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more on the origin of the popular usage of the term "Fort Knox" to refer to either the gold repository or to an impregnable fortress, would be appropriate. The term was in common parlance among school children in the 1950's I believe (possibly from television cartoons) prior to the publication of Ian Flemings Goldfinger in which it figured prominently. I would posit the existence of some other mainstream literary work which served to propagate this usage, though it is possible that the term circulated merely through the generation of Americans who lived through the depression and witnessed the New Deal and the creation of the repository first hand. David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy cut and paste jobs[edit]

I'm not allowing lazy cut and paste jobs into this article. Period. Do your own writing! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping a bunch of unwikified text here and expecting others to clean it up is unacceptable, no matter the source. Also, even if public domain text is usable, it must be *factored* into the existing article, something that was not done. Also, the existing content (that many people had worked on) was removed in the process. I don't see a serious effort here to create a good article, and until it becomes serious, I'm fighting it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article appears to contain several articles from the fort knox website pretty much word for word. I'll see what I can do to shape this one up. Just maybe I'll include some references. Jahnx 04:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error?[edit]

The page notes a seal on a door in the gold vault being broken for the first time in over 30 years. I just watched a documentary showing this event and it said that the seal was placed there in 1968...making it six years before it was opened again in 1974. Only reason I don't change it is I'm not sure if it's referring to another seal. It can be changed without being incorrect however. I'm not sure the correct way to provide a source but it was the History Channel documentary "Fort Knox: Secrets Revealed" So if someone wants to do this...I just wanted to provide the info - 72.24.86.95 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge tag[edit]

I've added a merge tag because the census designated place and the post are the exact same thing. Maintaining two seperate articles is, to be blunt, idiotic. If someone adds "Kentucky" to a link, the link points to the CDP, and if they don't, it links to the military fort article. Consequently, you have articles about military units linking to an article about the demographics of the place. As it is first and foremost an army post, I suggest merging into the Fort Knox article, as this has been the general consensus of the Military History Wikiproject.-- Nobunaga24 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

This section should be deleted. This section can be summed up in the main body in one sentense without going into detail. -Jahnx (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up does not provide adequate info on popular culture appearances. Unless there are so many as to be unweildy (sp?), this section is useful, at least to me. 2603:7000:6A00:32DA:7984:6073:5B6A:4E5D (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trivia[edit]

Hi all, I bit the bullet so to speak, and merged the trivia into the introductory paragraphs. I also redirected users to the Bullion Depository article to help clear some confusion. Cheers. Greglo (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced?[edit]

I know the coordinates should point to tha army base, not the bullion repository, but thay point to an interchange(?) --Manscher (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

this page needs at least one image of the FORT. not just tanks and army stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingbat 77 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you ever been to Fort Knox? Like most American Army bases, there's no real "fort" there -- meaning a fortified structure designed to provide protection. It's surrounded by chain link fence and there aren't that many readily identifiable structures -- maybe some of the training buildings or post HQ, but they are pretty generic (at least the last time I was stationed there). If you are talking about the gold vault, there's already a separate Wiki article (with photo). The photo used with the article is pretty much the type of photo you would find in an Army brochure. BostonRed (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the film Stripes in the opening[edit]

I think it bears mentioning that Stripes (film) was filmed in and around Fort Knox, but not in the into paragraphs. However, it bears no relationship to the Fort's image and popular perception as a place of high security, because the film makes no mention of Fort Knox or the gold vault. If you weren't familiar with the Fort Knox area and hadn't read anything that was written about the making of the film or the closing credits, you would have no idea that the film was made there. --rogerd (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Base or Fort?[edit]

The US Army clearly defines it as a fort, but the article uses the terms fort and base interchangeably. Maybe just a minor systematic point. Guess the question is how does the US Army define a fort/base? They seem to be constant at least.

Civil War dates[edit]

Is there any reason the Civil War is listed as going until 1903? And why is it listed as contested until then? I assume this is an error or vandalism, but I don't know the correct dates to replace it with. Oreo Priest talk 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Gold?[edit]

What is the "famous 'No Gold' myth" of which I've never heard, and why is there only one off-handed mention of it in the article with no links to further mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.85.63 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake gold bars?[edit]

"In October of 2009 the Chinese received a shipment of gold bars. Gold is regularly exchanges between countries to pay debts and to settle the so-called balance of trade. Most gold is exchanged and stored in vaults under the supervision of a special organization based in London, the London Bullion Market Association (or LBMA). When the shipment was received, the Chinese government asked that special tests be performed to guarantee the purity and weight of the gold bars. In this test, four small holed are drilled into the gold bars and the metal is then analyzed.

Officials were shocked to learn that the bars were fake. They contained cores of tungsten with only a outer coating of real gold. What's more, these gold bars, containing serial numbers for tracking, originated in the US and had been stored in Fort Knox for years. There were reportedly between 5,600 to 5,700 bars, weighing 400 oz. each, in the shipment." http://www.viewzone.com/fakegold.html --109.41.74.140 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of viewzone.com. A quick glance at it's home page, it looks like a site that perpetrates rumors and conspiracy theories. Before I can come close to believing the "fake gold" claim or supporting adding it to the article, I need proof of reputability for viewzone.com. I'm sure Wikipedia would feel the same way. 96.236.129.103 (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fort Knox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?[edit]

It is interesting that the "Built" date is 1918 and the first "In-Use" date is from the Civil War.

Is there a link to "Time Machines" in any future edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.200.14 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fort Knox. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fort Knox/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Wikiproject Louisville Assesment==

Fort Knox was rated for the following reasons.

  • Class was rated start downgraded from B because of the lack of referencing, the materials being repeated, The materials appear to be word for word from various other websites for some content.
  • Importance rating level did not change and remained at High
Assesment by Jahnx 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Knox. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Knox. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital photo featuring mannequin labeled as photo from the 1940s[edit]

Hello wikipedians, I have found out that a digital photo showing a mannequin in a tank labeled as it being taken in the 1940s. Note the unusally high quality. I personally think that it was a photo showing what was described, but it was not able to be used under creative commons liscensces. Please change, Thank you for your time. 98.181.69.7 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, federal government images can be used in articles as much as CC-licensed ones, as they are considered public domain. Also, high-quality color photographs could be made in the 1940s, although it was expensive and the process was slow. As you may well know, the U.S. military easily had the resources to have photos like this made. On top of that, I don't see any images in this article with a mannequin, unless you are mistaking a human being for one. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Knox&oldid=1212719759"