Jump to content

Talk:Fort Benning/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move

not Ft Moore. Ft Benning ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.214.48.68 (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Fort Benning, Georgia → Fort Benning — It's not a municipality, its a military base, therefore it is not apropos to have the state attached. It used to be that way, but somehow it got moved to Fort Benning, Texas (which needs to be deleted entirely because there is no such place).   –radiojon 05:52, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Can someone explain the argument a bit more, because at the moment it seems to be split between the two methods of naming See List of United States military bases#Forts and Category:Bases of the U.S. Army. For example are those places listed with state because they are disambiguation page like the two Fort Braggs --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, I've performed this move. - UtherSRG 11:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Located in *3* counties

Somebody changed my edit that mentioned Ft. Benning taking up three counties, one in Alabama and two in Georgia.

They are Muscogee, Chattahoochee, and Russell County.

Phenix City incident

The story erroneously mentioned in the article states that the story about Phenix City started in the 1980s. The first time I heard that story was in the 1960s. The most commonly heard version is that it occured in 1941 and George Patton was the general involved. I personally talked to a military historian at Fort Benning in the 1980s, and he said that the incident was partially true. The general involved was the one who took Patton's place after Patton left. However, the "march" never took place and over the years Patton became the general who made the threats in the local folklore.

With all this said, I hesitated to change the article as I don't have a specific book or website to cite.

Change

Since my discussion engendered no thoughts, I have changed the article in reference to Phenix City.

Good job on the Phenix City incedent

I haven't been here in a while.Your input is good,as it is factual,and puts in info that I didn't know about.Thanks for your input.Saltforkgunman 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to include the Phenix City incident.The story was first told to me during inprocessing on Main Post in 1986.See above comment about talking to a military historian at Benning.

The following is invalid [1] Dilane 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fort Benning editing Fort Benning

According to Wired's article about Wikiscanner, somebody from the Fort Benning made this small change to this article. Quite old, but nobody found it legitimate to revert it. I will. Tazmaniacs 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite consistent amounts of vandalism from a Benning IP account. Hal06 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed dialog from movie

I removed the funny dialog from a movie because it was too rich for an encyclopedia. The movie locations were enjoyable to reminisce. Timhowardriley 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Victory pond

I was in the ribbon bridge company that provided safety boats for the Bradley amphibious training at Victoria Pond in 1986-1987 and I am telling you that the name of the pond is not 'victory'.The military, tactical map of Ft Benning reads 'Victoria Pond'.The reason we all erroneously called it victory pond is most likely due to the name of the main thoroughfare coming out of Benning into Columbus,Victory Drive.Just a small point, but the article needs to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltforkgunman (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm at Ft. Benning now. The name on my range control map as well as in numerous articles, and signs on base is VICTORY pond.

For example.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_School and https://www.infantry.army.mil/Hunting/Reg%20200-3.pdf

Additionally, the US Army does not do amphibious operations with its Bradleys. I just graduated Mech Leaders Course and as we were told "Bradleys do not float." Your info is a little outdated, so is the article. Hal06 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Location

It may be a minor point, but anyone who looks at a map can see that Main Post is directly south of downtown Columbus, and the whole of Fort Benning lies mainly to the southeast of greater Columbus. No part seems to lie to the southwest, as the article states. Johnskeller (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of picture of Luis Posada Carriles

  • I removed an image of Luis Posada Carriles on the grounds that he was not sufficiently important to the history of Fort Benning to merit a photograph of him on this page. He has his own page, where that photograph exists, and users interested in him can follow the link to that page from the single mention of him in this article. This picture was placed by Desyman44 on December 17, 2008. Desyman44 objected to that removal ("image is relevant,since the person is quoted [sic] and well known.Btw,better img than text only") and undid my edit. So let's have a little thought experiment: if images are better than text only, and being cited is sufficient for including a picture, then why shouldn't we have pictures of Manuel Noriega and Hugo Banzer on the Fort Benning page? After all, they too were pupils at the base, and they're probably much better-known than Posada. I'm notifying Desyman44 of this discussion, and await his argument in favour of retaining this image. TheFeds 05:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry if my english is not perfect, but I'm not mothertongue. Concerning the pic, I think it is worth keeping it, since it is relevant, because the text talks about him. It is pertinent and does not ruin the layout of the page. If there is an image, and it's enriching and complementing the text, why should it not be shown? I must reject your argument about Manuel Noriega and Hugo Banzer, whose picture would not be as pertinent as this one. In fact, there is a big diference that makes this picture pertinent to the article while the others don't: the picture we have of Posada Carriles is taken IN the fort, DURING his training. There is another picture of him, but it is after the arrest and it is of course not that pertinent. If this latter were the picture added in the article, then I would agree with you, it would be non that much pertinent and could be removed, as well as the pictures of Noriega and Banzer depicting these people in a NON "Fort Benning-related" context. But this Posada's one IS "Fort Benning-related": that's why I think it would be counter-productive to delete it.
Anyway, thanks for opening the discussion before reverting.--Desyman44 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't specifically talking about the pictures of Banzer and Noriega that are found on their Wikipedia pages—sure, those were taken in other contexts. I'm talking about the rationale of including a picture of a person (as that person appeared during their time at the Fort) who did not make a major contribution to Fort Benning, despite their notoriety in another context. While I agree that the layout of the page is not especially harmed, I don't think it adds anything to the article to include a yearbook picture of one of hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were stationed at Fort Benning. Also, apart from the caption text on the image's information page (which gives the date and place the photograph was taken), there's nothing in the image in question that adds information about Fort Benning. If it had been, for example, a picture of Carriles on a training range at the Fort, then it would serve the dual purpose of showing Carriles and demonstrating something about the Fort. Right now, it adds no useful information about Fort Benning that isn't already in the article (i.e. that Carriles was trained there). This image is perfect for Carriles' own page, but on the Fort Benning page, I don't think it serves a useful purpose. TheFeds 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I see your point. But since, as I said, even if not giving such a relevant "additional value", it is still suitable to the circumstance, because in fact there have been hundred of thousands "students" in the school, but there has been only one Posada and this is the only picture of "notorious graduates" we have taken in a Fort Benning context. So I think if it does not harm, it's just something additional, and I personally think it's preferable more picture documentation than less. Maybe we can wait for some other users to give their opinion on the topic.--Desyman44 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It does seem odd that this man's picture is here. I went to a college that had several individuals involved in the WTC attacks. Their pics don't appear on that college's homepage, and I think there would be a minor wiki-riot if they did. Why the double standards here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.11 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail adress

Fort Benning is located at 31905 Georgia http://georgia.hometownlocator.com/zip-codes/data,zipcode,31905.cfm Phone book of Fort Benning divisions: https://www.infantry.army.mil/fbhome/sites/about/Fort%20Benning%20Phone%20Book.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.212.207 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

armor school

evedently there done moving furnature so this should up dated. Brian in denver (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

555th

Why is there so much coverage of the 555th, a unit that never deployed or fought, yet no mention of the Airborne units that actually went to war?

PC-ism at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.233.232 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed WWII subsection under History

The subsection had only two paragraphs about WWII then launches forward into the 50s. If other dates do not have sub-sections then why does WWII have one? It needs to be better organized, I guess, but until then the WWII subsection was misleading since it contained information well past WWII into the Vietnam era. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy"

As part of a general cleanup I removed the "Controversy" section. It contained three unrelated items. The one about the School of the Americas I moved to the "History" section, with some reliable sources added. The other two items were about some persons getting training at Fort Benning who later turned out to commit crimes and/or terrorist attacks (in a way the US government disapproves of). Timothy McVeigh's crimes are totally unrelated to Fort Benning, and I don't see the relevance to this article. Regarding Luis Posada Carriles, the relevant factoid about Fort Benning is that the CIA also conducted training there, but I don't think this example of inter-agency cooperation is particularly controversial. There is no indication that Carriles wouldn't have committed terrorist acts if he had received his CIA training at some other location instead of at Fort Benning, and nobody has criticized Fort Benning for hosting CIA training of that kind (at least not according to the cited sources). Huon (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Power projection platform?

This phrase, in the second or third line of the article, reads like a bit of administrative jargon that doesn't have any meaning for the average reader. I think it belongs later in the article, and should be defined for the reader. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodicompton (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Name of fort in history section

When referring to the history of the post, is it appropriate to refer to the name that has only been in place since 2023? The caption of one of the photos is now "The crew of a 37mm. anti-tank gun, in training at Fort Moore, Georgia, April 1942". It is absolutely appropriate to refer to the post by Fort Moore when referring to current topics, but in 1942, it was called Fort Benning. As an aside, I am not a person who opposed the work of The Naming Commission, in fact, I personally felt it was entirely appropriate to rid US bases of of names of people who fought in a rebellion against the US. But to be historically accurate, perhaps that caption, for instance, should be: "The crew of a 37mm. anti-tank gun, in training at the former Fort Benning, Georgia, April 1942" or, "The crew of a 37mm. anti-tank gun, in training at Fort Benning (now Fort Moore), Georgia, April 1942". Or maybe just leave it Fort Benning in the history section when referring to pre-2023 topics. rogerd (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

List of commenders

I'm trying to figure out why the list of commanders is hidden. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is valid, it is a long list and under most conditions easy to show, but under some browsers depending on the settings, the photo of the "37mm. anti-tank gun" will keep the "show" link from appearing. rogerd (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, for whatever reason (I was and still am still in Microsoft Edge), the show "button" is now visible. 'Tis a mystery. :) --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Name disarray

The name change is a done deal. It is not "Fort Moore Formerly Known As Fort Benning" - it's Fort Moore. About 90% of the "Benning" mentions in the article are not here for any good reason (of course they're here for a reason, just not a good one...) and need to be cut. The article does need to say it was formerly Fort Benning - but it needs to say it once, in one single place, and that's it. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and you're significantly mischaracterizing the article's status. Literally every single usage of "Benning" in the article is in the historical context, when that was the actual name of the installation. There are four usages in the lede -- one in the initial name, and three referring to the change from Camp Benning to Ft. Benning to ft. Moore. Literally every single other usage in this article is either in the History section, or in the section about the redesignation and name change. So no, exactly 0% of the mentions are "not here for any good reason and need to be cut." It is factually incorrect to say that the name was "Fort Moore" at a time when it was not actually Fort Moore. Additionally this topic has already been discussed to death, most recently just two sections above this. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT

This topic is way UNDUE WEIGHT:

"On 23 March 1941, Private Albert King, a Black serviceman, was killed by Sergeant Robert Lummus, who was White, following an altercation on a bus. After a night of drinking, King, Pfc. Lawrence Hoover, and their girlfriends, were riding on a bus around 3:30 am, back to their barracks. King was shouting and "cussing", according to the driver and other Black passengers. The driver stopped the bus near the Fort's gates and Sergeant Lummus, a Military Police motorcycle officer, boarded the bus. When Lummus tried to take King and Hoover off the bus, King ran out the front door, and Lummus hit Hoover with a blackjack.

After taking Hoover into custody, Lummus later found a Black soldier walking back toward the main post. Lummus approached King and threatened to arrest him. When King claimed that Lummus could not do so, Lummus shot King five times, killing him. During the trial, later that day, it was claimed that King had drawn a pocket knife when approached by Lummus, though Hoover denied that King had a pocket knife with him. Lummus was found not guilty of murder and transferred the next day to Fort Knox."

In the great scheme of things it's a somewhat minor incident that has two whole paragraphs in the history section.70.161.8.90 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

then there's SIX paragraphs of this: "During World War II Fort Benning had 197,159 acres (79,787 ha) with billeting space for 3,970 officers and 94,873 enlisted persons. Among many other units, Fort Benning was the home of the 555th Parachute Infantry Company, whose training began in December 1943. The unit's formation was an important milestone for black Americans, as was explored in the first narrative history of the installation, Home of the Infantry.[16][17] The battalion, later expanded to become the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion and nicknamed the Triple Nickels, was trained at Fort Benning but did not deploy overseas and never saw combat during World War II.[18][19][20][21]

During this period, the specialized duties of the Triple Nickels were primarily in a firefighting role, with over one thousand parachute jumps as smoke jumpers. The 555th was deployed to the Pacific Northwest of the United States in response to the concern that forest fires were being set by the Japanese military using long-range incendiary balloons. The 82nd Armored Reconnaissance Battalion was activated 15 July 1940, and trained at the Fort.[18][19][20][21] The 17th Armored Engineer Battalion became active and started training 15 July 1940.[22]

On 28 March 1941, the body of Private Felix "Poss" Hall was found hanged in a shallow ravine near what is now Logan Avenue.[23] Born 1 January 1922, in Millbrook, Alabama, he enlisted in the Army in August 1940. He was assigned to serve in the 24th Infantry Regiment at Fort Benning, an all-Black segregated unit formed after the Civil War. Two cousins and his best friend from Millbrook were also stationed at Fort Benning and bunked near him. Hall was known for being friendly and popular, and worked at the base sawmill. On 12 February he told his friends that he was headed to the post exchange for Black servicemen after his work shift. He was last seen alive around 4:00 p.m. in Block W, an all-white neighborhood between the mill and post exchange. He did not appear at bugle call the next morning, and was declared a deserter nearly a month after his disappearance.[24]

His body was found by soldiers on 28 March 1941, hanging against the edge of a ravine in a wooded area. His death was officially declared a homicide, although military officials speculated he had committed suicide.[25] A Fort Benning physician examined his body on 8 April and ruled it a homicide.[23] A 0.25-inch (6.4 mm) noose tied to a sapling was wrapped around his neck, his feet had been bound by baling wire and attached with a rope to other saplings, and his hands were tied behind him. The position of his feet indicated that he had attempted to pile dirt beneath his feet to help alleviate the pressure on his neck.[24]

His murder became widely reported in Black newspapers throughout the country, and the only known publicly available photograph of Felix was published in The Pittsburgh Courier.[25] The FBI conducted a 17-month long investigation, but ultimately no one was charged for the murder of Hall.[23] On 3 August 2021, the Army unveiled a marker in memory of Felix Hall at the site where he was last seen alive.[26] A memorial event was also held during the unveiling of his marker.[27] His name is inscribed at the National Memorial for Peace and Justice.[28]

On 23 March 1941, Private Albert King, a Black serviceman, was killed by Sergeant Robert Lummus, who was White, following an altercation on a bus. After a night of drinking, King, Pfc. Lawrence Hoover, and their girlfriends, were riding on a bus around 3:30 am, back to their barracks. King was shouting and "cussing", according to the driver and other Black passengers. The driver stopped the bus near the Fort's gates and Sergeant Lummus, a Military Police motorcycle officer, boarded the bus. When Lummus tried to take King and Hoover off the bus, King ran out the front door, and Lummus hit Hoover with a blackjack.[29]"

Anyone notice a common thread here? 1/3 of the paragraphs in the history section of an article on a huge historic base are devoted to this one topic.70.161.8.90 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the detail is appropriate to pages about the victims and their deaths need only be mentioned in this article.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

SECDEF renamed it to Fort Benning

I am closing this discussion as it is quickly becoming unproductive. I will start a requested move discussion. Editors participating in that discussion should familiarize themselves with relevant policies, particularly WP:AT and WP:NAMECHANGES. Editors also must be civil and should not bludgeon the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As of 3 Mar 2025, SECDEF Hegseth just renamed Fort Moore to Fort Benning, but this time after CPL Fred Benning, a WWI soldier. 2A02:A020:382:5CBB:313C:650E:8F60:1DFA (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just as in the case of with Ft. Liberty, this is just the order to rename the base, not the actual renaming. In the case of Ft. Liberty/Bragg, that took place a few days later. It is the latter event that will prompt us to change the name of the article and in our entries. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The US Army now displays the name and logo of Fort Benning on the US Army website. They also refer to the base as Fort Benning in correspondence. The switch is now official. In the military, signed orders make changes official. Not ceremonies. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
See March 3, 2025 US Army press release for more info. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
And no signed order executing the name change has been issued yet. On Wikipedia "some websites displayed it" does not make things official. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- we report what reliable sources confirm, not speculate about things that have not happened yet. I've reverted your premature changes. Please do not change the installation name until you can point to reliable sources stating that the change has been completed, as was done on the Fort Bragg (Ft. Liberty) page during the same process on that article. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
this isn't some website. It's the official US Army website. Furthermore, all social media accounts display Fort Benning. All correspondence, logos, and names now display Fort Benning. How is this consistent with anything else military? Did WW1 end when all countries signed the armistace? Or after some arbitrary ceremony? The Army press release mentions immediate action to change any mention of the name. There won't be any ceremony where everything changes at once. The only ceremony will be to redo the base logo outside the main gate. How is Fort Benning referring to itself as Fort Benning not good enough? JazzBandDrummer (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
The "official US Army website" does not have authority to rename an installation either, and the installation website remains moore.army.mil as of last time I checked earlier today (and is down). Again, I will once again point you to the example we had just this past month with Fort Liberty, in which the execution of the renaming took place on the 14th of February, four days after Hegseth's order. We are not beholden to the Army's policies here. Our policies and guidelines on Wikipedia require verifiability to reliable sources that the name change has taken effect, not just an order directing the name change to occur. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
How is a SECDEF order not good enough to change the article? Where is the arbitrary criteria coming from? 70.107.192.191 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
SECDEF does not have the authority to execute that change, and because an order to change the name is not the same thing as actually changing the name. We do not report events as happening until they've actually happened. It's not "arbitrary criteria" -- it's literally how the process has occurred with every such name change in history. SEe, e.g. [2].⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
When the Army officially refers to the base as Fort Benning and has rebranded as such, it's time to acknowledge the de facto change. Talmage (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
We've acknowledged the order to rename it. The implementation of that order from the Secretary of the Army through to BG Kiniery has not yet occurred, something the Army has acknowledged in the official press release ("The Secretary of the Army will take immediate action to implement this decision.") When the Army makes an official announcement, as they did for Ft. Bragg, there will have been an actual change to acknowledge. A sloppy find/replace job on the website that's still quite literally *moore* in the URL, and whose content still largely reflects the name "Moore" in dozens of places, does not suffice.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Fort Benning itself has already said the name change is "effective immediately". The name has changed; the article should reflect that. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
"The renaming process will include updating all official documentation, signage, and digital platforms in a deliberate and phased manner." As of today, that process is not yet completed, per the garrison commander. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
The name has changed. That's from Fort Benning itself, as reported by a RS. There is nothing contentious about renaming the article to reflect reality. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
This is reaching tendentious levels of WP:IDHT. ⇒SWAT<spanstyle="color:goldenrod">Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is - on your part. The name of the post has changed. Why are you refusing to let Wikipedia reflect that reality? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Fort Moore is named after an actual person. The army may well refuse to rename the fort for a traitor and toss a famed general's name into the mud. 74.76.189.192 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
There is no Fort Moore. It's Fort Benning. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That is both historically and currently incorrect, and this is absolutely not the place to bring in culture warring, as this is a designated contentious topic area. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
No. It is not. I gave you an RS, but you appear to have focused on the technical details of the process and missed the words "effective immediately". There is no US Army facility called Fort Moore. The former Fort Moore is now called Fort Benning, according to itself. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
And you seem to have ignored the date of the source you're looking at, and are ignoring the immediately following words that state that it is not in fact effective immediately. There is, currently, a U.S. Army facility called Fort Moore. There is no facility currently called Fort Benning. There will be, but there is not at this moment and repeating assertions without a policy basis will get you nowhere in a move discussion. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 09:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring the immediately following words that state that it's not in fact effective immediately; I can't see them, because they do not appear to be there. Please quote the words that say the change of name is not effective immediately.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
“The renaming process will include updating all official documentation, signage, and digital platforms in a deliberate and phased manner,” the news release says. “We look forward to inviting the community to attend an official ceremony at a date to be determined in the very near future.” Future tense. But you knew that. I've quoted it several times already; it seems you're either simply just not listening or not approaching this discussion in good faith. Either way, as I've already pointed out in the below section there is *no* policy basis for the change. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 09:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That's talking about technical details of changing the lettering on signs. The statement is very clear about when the name of the post actually changed - "effective immediately".Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
There's nothing to suggest that's actually the case, and fortunately, your personal choice of interpretation of an out-of-context excerpt without the original source document is irrelevant here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't need anything to suggest that's the case; he stated it explicitly. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It's named after Corporal (CPL) Fred G. Benning, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his extraordinary heroism in action during World War I with the U.S. Army in France in 1918. 70.107.192.191 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2025

Fort Moore's name was changed on March 4th 2025. It is reflected on thier website as well as at the gates. Please correct this information as it is not correct. HoosierKid95 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  •  Not done -- see above discussion, from which there is no substantive change. What happened on March 4th was not a change of name, it was an order from the Secretary of Defense (who does not possess the authority to change the name himself) directing the change to occur. An order directing a change of name is not the same thing as actually changing the name. As recently as yesterday, Col. Jerel Evans, the garrison commander, the person responsible for actually implementing the name change, described the status currently as "rapidly working through the renaming process of updating our systems, facilities, and infrastructure in a deliberate and phased manner." So no, this remains premature. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
    You mean "Col Jerel Evans, Fort Benning garrison commander"? Because that's what the article you linked calls him. You know, the same source that quotes Col Evans talking about all the things the "Fort Benning Garrison team" is doing to "update assets across Fort Benning"? Honestly, I don't think that article does a great job of supporting the argument that the post's name hasn't changed yet.
    Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That's what I've also been saying! JazzBandDrummer (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I've reverted the pagemove as lacking consensus -- undiscussed controversial moves should not be made out-of-process. There is no indication that the renaming has actually taken effect. Per reliable sources: “The renaming process will include updating all official documentation, signage, and digital platforms in a deliberate and phased manner,” the news release says. “We look forward to inviting the community to attend an official ceremony at a date to be determined in the very near future.”. I've seen local news references to a press release purportedly from the Fort Moore PAO's office -- the fact that it's the Fort Moore PAO's office should be telling here -- stating that the renaming will have "immediate effect", but none provide any link to an actual statement to this on a DOD website, and they go on to expressly contradict that there is "immediate effect" by talking about a "deliberate and phased manner." Given that the date is listed as March 3rd, this is almost certainly once again referring simply to Hegseth's initial order and not a statement of operative effect (which PAO's can't do anyway). So given that there is no reliable source consensus for an official name change, Wikipedia policy states that we use the WP:COMMON name, which remains "Ft. Moore". ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
The statement clearly says "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". That means it's now called Fort Benning. It is not called Fort Moore.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
And as I've already addressed above, that is clearly a reference to Hegseth's order based on the date (March 3rd), and the statement -- which is merely an excerpt from an unattributed press release not actually found on the Army PAO or Moore websites, and thus failing WP:V -- immediately goes on to explain how it's not actually effective immediately, but a phased rollout plan that has not yet completed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers.. Per our policies, when reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well. Reliable sources written after the name change order was announced still use the name Ft. Moore. The point being that there is no clearcut consensus that the name is "Fort Benning", nor do a majority of reliable sources indicate that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed. The name of the article will eventually be changed once the name change takes effect and reliable sources catch up, but it is premature and not in compliance with our article naming and page move policies to change it at this time. Extraordinary changes require multiple, high-quality sources per policy -- you're going to need more than an unverifiable excerpt from a WP:SPS press release that's taken out of context and then immediately contradicted, to back up the assertion that one of the largest military bases in the world has actually changed names.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 09:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
"immediately goes on to explain how it's not actually effective immediately" - No. It doesn't.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
OK, when the post's website changes to say Fort Benning, will you accept that the name has changed? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That's not what our page move and article name policy say is the requirement here as I've repeatedly told you, and the website still has "Moore" plastered all over it, so no. And you need to stop making disruptive undiscussed page moves without consensus -- I've once again reverted your out-of-process move. Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. You've done no such thing. You have not achieved consensus for this move; you have not provided the necessary evidence of multiple, high-quality reliable sources written after the name change is announced that unambiguously support the change; you have provided no evidence of a change to the WP:COMMONNAME. You've simple refused to listen while repeatedly presenting the same out-of-context single line quote that has no original source attribution and cannot be found anywhere on an official Army publication. Stop it. Nobody is saying the page won't eventually move, but it is simply premature to push that now. We are not the media; we do not have to break news. We follow the lead of the body of reliable sources, not Pete Hegseth's schedule or whims. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
You're drifting well over the line into POV here, and your reading of sources - including ones you provide yourself - seems selective. I've already pointed out how you cited the garrison commander, but missed out the bits where he repeatedly called the post Fort Benning. Now, on what grounds can you sensibly argue that the name has not changed, when the US Army has gone to the trouble of moving the post's website from army.mil/moore to army.mil/benning? The name has changed. The only one who seems to oppose moving the page to reflect that reality is you. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Is the Fort Benning website at army.mil an official US Army publication? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
The Fort Benning website that says "Fort Moore" all over it? That's not the route you want to go down. We're done with this conversation if you're just going to keep repeating the same, already debunked talking points; that's not a pathway to achieving consensus. If you refuse to discuss this in the context of our actual page move policies, which require unambiguous multiple high-quality reliable sources written AFTER a name change all indicating that a change has taken place to the common name of the subject -- something you've not and have never provided -- there's simply nothing to discuss. I'm not going to engage with disruptive behavior. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
As the Army went to the trouble of moving it from army.mil/moore to army.mil/benning, and making a new MCoE logo that says Fort Benning on it rather that Fort Moore, it's clear the Army has changed the name of the post. The post's website was written after the name change, by the way. The date - March 6 - is right there on the homepage. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
You know what else is right there on the home page? "FORT MOORE, Ga. — The U.S. Army Infantry School Commandant and Chief of Infantry pinned on his second star May 16, 2024, during a promotion ceremony in front of the Follow Me Statue at McGinnis-Wickam Hall on Fort Moore, Georgia." "Fort Moore Ride-Share Policy" There are numerous other examples on practically every page of the website, because it quite obviously has not completed the renaming process. Once again, and I don't know how many times I need to say this, we are not beholden to what the Army chooses to call itself. That is not how our article naming policies work. A single self-published source that is not consistent with itself is not and has never been sufficient evidence of a change to the common name of an article. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It has obviously not completed the technical process of tracking down every web page, sheet of paper and stencil on a piece of equipment that says Fort Moore, and changing it to say Fort Benning. However, the name has changed. That was a discrete event. It's not like the post was 73% Fort Moore yesterday and will be 68% Fort Moore tomorrow. It is Fort Benning, because the Fort Benning press office said on March 5 that the name was changing from Fort Moore to Fort Benning effective immediately. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting that the renaming is not actually completed. However the rest of your statement is the same debunked, unsupported argument you've been making previously with no evidence to support it. As already mentioned, the "effective immediately" claim does not appear to actually originate from a US Army source with authority to make that claim; we cannot use an out-of-context excerpt referring to Hegseth's order directing the name change, as evidence for the name change itself. The quote quite clearly is not referring to the rename as evidenced by the immediately following sentences that talk about how the renaming will be a phased, ongoing process and conclude with an official ceremony. But you know this, you're simply tendentiously arguing at this point. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
FFS. If your criteria for the renaming being completed is that every last maintenance tag with "Fort Moore" printed on it has been replaced with one that says "Fort Benning", the name never changed from Fort Benning in the first place because that level of replacement was never achieved. The actual name of the installation changed from Fort Moore to Fort Benning when the Army announced that the name had changed effective immediately. The post can only have one name. It was Fort Moore. It is Fort Benning. And that change happened when the Army announced it. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I've addressed all of those points previously, including what the criteria are. I'm not going to argue with someone who isn't listening and isn't interested in following policy. You've been told what you need to provide. Either do it or don't, but that's your burden to provide, not mine. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the criteria is multiple reliable sources published after the name change. Such as this Ledger-Enquirer article which quotes the Army as saying "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". Or this GBP article describing an officer as the Fort Benning Garrison commander, and quoting him as he refers to what his team is currently doing at Fort Benning. I assume you agree these are both reliable sources, seeing as you gave me them? And of course there's Fort Benning's own website. The one they put up yesterday when they took down the old Fort Moore one. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Here's another RS, reporting that local politicians are asking "Why did (note past tense) the renaming take effect immediately?" And another, which states "Fort Moore is once again named Fort Benning" and confirms that "the change is effective immediately". How many sources do you need before you're satisfied that the name has changed? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Here's another RS, this time the Columbus, GA CBS affiliate, with a story about how "the post is now named for a World War I corporal". Is that enough sources for you yet, or would you like to put a number on how many it would take to persuade you the name's changed? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


Is it time to move this yet?

We now have a reliable source describing Col Jerel Evans as the Fort Benning Garrison commander, and citing Col Evans talking about the "Fort Benning Garrison" team working to "update assets across Fort Benning". The US Army has taken the former post home page at army.mil/moore offline, and there's now a page at army.mil/benning which features a new MCoE logo that says Fort Benning on it, and welcomes visitors to Fort Benning. The name of the post has changed. I can't honestly see any reason to put the move off any longer. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you don't. You have a single reliable source that states the renaming is an ongoing, phased, deliberate process. It is irrelevant that the Col Evans is calling himself the "Fort Benning" garrison commander. On Wikipedia, we follow our internal conventions and processes for article naming, we are not beholden to the Army's process. I've explained this to you over and over, and you simply refuse to listen.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting that source, which clearly and unambiguously states that the name change to Fort Benning was effective immediately. I've explained this to you over and over, and you simply refuse to listen. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Hilarious how people are trying to deny this. No doubt attempting to "Hold the line" against some great wrong being made. I'll be sure to archive this discussion as an example how much of a trash heap Wikipedia is. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I know. It's ludicrous. When the people who own and run the post say it's called Fort Benning, it takes a special kind of mind to insist that no, it isn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Fortunately, Wikipedia does not determine article titles and page moves by the criteria of what "the people who own and run the post say", as you've been repeatedly told and simply refuse to listen. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Will this satisfy you? If not, why not? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Is that page multiple examples of high-quality reliable sources written after the name change unambiguously reflecting a change of status to the common name? No? It's a single self-published source, whose home page still repeatedly references Fort Moore? {"FORT MOORE, Ga. — The U.S. Army Infantry School Commandant and Chief of Infantry pinned on his second star May 16, 2024, during a promotion ceremony in front of the Follow Me Statue at McGinnis-Wickam Hall on Fort Moore, Georgia."; "Fort Moore Ride-Share Policy") Well I guess there's your answer. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Even if you feel inclined to categorize the Fort Benning website as a "self-published source" - I wouldn't, personally - Wikipedia policy is clear that SPS can be used as sources of information about themselves. So Fort Benning calling itself Fort Benning in a SPS works as evidence that Fort Benning is called Fort Benning. If you check the date on the "Fort Moore" reference you provided you'll note that it's from last May, when the post was indeed called Fort Moore. So, now we have the post's own website calling it Fort Benning. We have a RS describing Col Evans as the Fort Benning garrison commander, and quoting him making multiple, present-tense references to Fort Benning. We have a separate RS quoting the Army saying the name change to Fort Benning is "effective immediately". That looks like multiple examples of high-quality reliable sources to me. Now where are your reliable sources stating that the post is still called Fort Moore? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It is definitionally a self-published-source, and the policy is clear that SPS can only be used as sources of information about themselves if five criteria are met, including: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; and There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;, neither of which are met here. Furthermore, as you're well aware, the requirement for an article title change is *multiple* *high-quality* reliable sources; not a single SPS of questionably reliability that self-contradicts. The burden is on you, not me, to provide sufficient sourcing to achieve consensus. You've failed repeatedly to do so. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh FFS. Why is it an "exceptional claim" that the Army has carried out the directions of SecDef? And are you saying there is reasonable doubt about the authenticity of army.mil/benning? This is getting ridiculous now. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It's an exceptional claim to suggest that the name of one of the largest military bases in the U.S. has changed; and it requires a commensurate degree of evidence that the Army has actually completed carrying out said direction. So far you've provided no DOD/US Army source that unambiguously and clearly states that this is completed; only some that show that it is currently in progress which is not in dispute but also not the question. The only claim that you've provided in support of that is the un-authenticated excerpt allegedly from US Army Public Affairs -- with no link to an original source, that immediately goes on to describe how the rename is not yet completed. So yes, that raises a reasonable question about the authenticity of that claim. I'm not referring to the authenticity of the Ft. Benning website itself as it's clearly still self-contradictory. Once again, I will repeat -- the thing you need here to achieve consensus that the name changed is multiple independent, high-quality, reliable sources directly supporting that claim that the renaming is officially completed and that the common name per reliable sources has shifted back to Fort Benning. Period. Until you provide this, there's nothing to talk about. The only thing "ridiculous" is your incessant pressure to change the article name prematurely because you think that you're right and I'm wrong. That's not how we do things here. You need to follow policy, and make policy-based arguments here and you're not doing so. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
How is the Fort Benning website "self-contradictory"? They moved it to a new subdomain. They changed the heading to "Fort Benning" and the homepage to "Welcome to Fort Benning and the MCoE". They made a new logo that says Fort Benning on it. But you're confused because they didn't change the text of a news article from last May? Please, be serious. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Right, we're done here. If you're unable to engage on substance without resorting to personal attacks and tendentious behavior, there's nothing further to discuss. You've been told repeatedly what you need to gain consensus. Either provide it or don't, but stop wasting our time. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Five users have said the page should be moved to Fort Benning. One disagrees. That isn't a lack of consensus. That's one editor blocking an improvement to the encyclopedia. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
No. Two users are actively supporting the move in this discussion, making non-policy based arguments. One user is opposing it, making policy based arguments. Other users have given me thanks using the thanks system for these edits, but not provided input. That math doesn't math. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
My argument is that multiple reliable sources are referring to the post as Fort Benning, as is the post's own website. At this point I don't think there's any doubt that the former Fort Moore is now called Fort Benning, and I think Wikipedia should describe the world as it is, not as we may wish it was. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this. SwatJester is the only one apposed to this while everyone else agrees we need to switch to Benning. Is SwatJester a member of the Moore family? I see no point in being the only one "holding the line." It's going to keep getting changed back and forth. And if they never have an arbitrary ceremony? Years after the name change where everything is Benning, SwatJester will continue to change it to Moore. If Fort Benning calling itself Fort Benning isn't good enough, then maybe SJ should switch Elliot Page's wiki back to Ellen. Its ridiculous at this point. All official websites, social media, base gate, leadership, and official correspondence refer to Fort Benning as Fort Benning. None of the above mentioned still refer to Benning as Moore. Fuethurmore, when Liberty was changed to Bragg, the release did not say "effective immediately" like it does for Benning. This means SJ can't apply the same delayed change as the Liberty to Bragg change. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Transphobic personal attacks aren't going to get you what you want. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I am only applying the same logic you are using to show how ridiculous refusing the change is. It is not transphobic as Elliot is Elliot, not Ellen. As Benning is now Benning JazzBandDrummer (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
No, seriously. If Fort Benning chooses to identify as a Fort Benning, shouldn't we respect that? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
You're the one that's refusing to listen. RS - including one cited by you - are referring to the post as Fort Benning. They're quoting the garrison commander calling it Fort Benning. The post's official website calls it Fort Benning. So on what grounds are you claiming it's still called Fort Moore? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
So far, the alleged consensus for changing the title is based simply on a majority of participants on this talk page, not Wikipedia policy. This, in itself, seems to be an example of not understanding the relevant Wikipedia policies. As far as I can see, the only user on this talk page (in this current thread and in the two previous threads above, "SECDEF renamed it to Fort Benning" and "Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2025") actually citing Wikipedia policy throughout has been User:Swatjester, who has also laid out the need for following the procedure for "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves". Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, most other users have simply resorted to making disrespectful comments and misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. To sum up, I cite Swatjester's own words: "Nobody is saying the page won't eventually move, but it is simply premature to push that now. We are not the media; we do not have to break news. We follow the lead of the body of reliable sources..."--Technopat (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
So what reliable sources, written after the Army announced the name change "effective immediately" on March 5, are saying it's still called Fort Moore? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
We keep hearing "Wikipedia Policy," which specific policy? Please provide us a quote as maybe this will clear up confusion. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
The one that keeps coming up seems to be about controversial moves, but I don't see what's controversial about this. Wikipedia doesn't get involved in whether the renaming was a good thing or not; our sole concern as an encyclopedia is whether or not it's happened, and it clearly has. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That is my understanding too. It has clearly happened. Nothing controversial about it. The fact that Fort Benning referring itself to Fort Benning is not enough is crazy. It is legally Fort Benning as official Army correspondence day to day says Fort Benning. I don't know why "effective immediately" is not understood. We need someone higher to step in. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
And this should put the debate to rest -- new posting from Defense.gov today *explicitly* stating that the renaming is not yet effective. The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty. This is why we don't immediately jump to conclusions based on inadequate sourcing. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
But it doesn't explicitly state that, does it? Stop misrepresenting the sources. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I've had enough of this crap. I have given you multiple sources that say the post has been renamed. The post clearly has been renamed. It's moved its website to a new subdomain, army.mil/benning. It's put up a new seal. Its garrison commander is calling the post "Fort Benning". The name has changed. In return I get a frankly dishonest claim about a DoD post. No, that doesn't "explicitly state" that the renaming is not yet effective. If you don't understand that, google what "explicitly" means. In 24 hours I am moving this article back to Fort Benning, unless someone comes up with a RS that says the post is still called Fort Moore. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
If you're threatening to disrupt Wikipedia with an out-of-process move in 24 hours, I can promise you that this is going to end in you losing your editing privileges. You know better. Do this at your own peril. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Case:, @Voorts: -- can we get some intervention here? This is rapidly becoming a disruptive problem. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Benning/Archive_1&oldid=1294972765"