Talk:Fort Moore

message: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: ::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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Good job on the Phenix City incedent

message: The following is invalid 
Dilane 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link suppressed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fort Benning editing Fort Benning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed dialog from movie 

message: 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)
thread_title: Victory pond

message: 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)
thread_title: Location

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.    --dashiellx (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mail adress

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  555th 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed WWII subsection under History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Power projection platform? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name of fort in history section 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name disarray 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  UNDUE WEIGHT