Talk:Fort Liberty

message: Since Fort Bragg is getting a name change, shouldn't the Wikipedia article name be changed (although I'm sure that it's not until September that the base name change goes info effect). Qutlooker (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The post exchanges knew the dates for all 9 posts already.Robert Philpot (22 Mar 2023) Exchange Teams Prepare for Big Changes as 9 Army Posts Get New Names -- Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 12:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change article name? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing some hours early under WP:SNOW; the name has not changed yet, so a WP:NAMECHANGES move cannot be enacted. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fort Bragg →  – The Naming Commission has decided to change the name to Fort Liberty from it’s old name of Fort Bragg, this should mean the Article name be moved to fit the new name. Qutlooker (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 August 2022 

message: https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/fear-grips-special-ops-amidst-human-trafficking-drug-arrests
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3927016&page=1
https://eu.fayobserver.com/story/news/2022/12/06/fort-bragg-soldier-christopher-scott-looney-jailed-child-sex-crime-charges-in-cumberland-county/69705114007/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fifteen-soldiers-questioned-drug-investigation-fort-bragg-reports
The 2002 and 2021 events are mentioned, these probably should be mentioned too. 2A01:E34:EC1F:9440:EC11:F0CE:C972:ED46 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention arrest and drug investigation ? 

message: Thought this was based on facts, but evidently Wikipedia has many opnions under the guise of facts. 75.137.106.45 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A Confederate general being disgraced is common sense... but if you want sources, there are tons of them on Braxton Bragg. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And none given. Typical. 216.71.37.48 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bragg was disgraced" isn't found anywhere in the article. Now, it was there for an entire day when the IP got all dramatic, but it was reverted--so, pray tell, what exactly is your complaint? Is it based on a reading of the (current) article? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bragg was disgraced? 

message: Former events and people involved need to remain attached and recognized at Fort Bragg. Many of the notable events and people have not lived to see Fort Liberty, therefore references to such events occurring at Liberty are actually false references. Example would mirror the concept of ancient locations being referenced for events during their respective times versus the modern locality names (Babylon vs. Iraq) while more modern events utilize the current names. 2600:1004:B04C:6C0E:449C:14DF:C725:2DFD (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former events 

message: The Fort Liberty Garrison Command Sergeant Major is CSM Gregory Seymour.
https://home.army.mil/liberty/index.php/about/leadership/garrison-csm Jbornedubs (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Command Sergeant Major of the Garrison should be listed below the current commander of the Garrison. 65.191.85.133 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023 

message: This is just one example of people trying to change the name back, but it's be unsuccessful, more than likely. I got here too late. I wasn't supporting reversing the move. Just making a point.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  13:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put the ref below here.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change it back? 

message: All references to Fort Liberty in the Notable Events section need to be either changed back to Fort Bragg or references to the name of the base altogether need to be removed. No historical documents are being altered to reflect the new name on prior historic events, therefore, references made to past events by people that are no longer alive and never on "Fort Liberty",  creates a case of a false narrative. For all practical purposes, the only notable event that has occurred at Fort Liberty is the name transition ceremony. If unwilling to change, then please delete the Notable Events section, since the references to Fort Liberty in events attended by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan are factually incorrect. This is not a case of someone not being able to accept the name change... it is simply about the facts being accurately displayed. 2600:1004:B094:C954:159B:FCB1:3A3E:BCC9 (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Also read through #Requested move 3 June 2023. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we had a similar problem when  was renamed. A user changed every instance of the previous name, "Chancellorsville", to the new name, (eg: In May 1992, Robert Smalls engaged in Exercise Random Name.) This was not only factually incorrect, it looked bizarre. After several editors protested, the changes were reverted. The ship is now only referred to by the new name for events that took place after the name change (fyi). As for this article, all the changes, similar to above, appeared to have been made here. They should be undone to factually reflect both the historical record and attached sourcing. (imho) - wolf 07:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be too much angst here. When the same issue came up about Fort Benning/Fort Moore, an established editor just reverted the over-enthusiastic changes without, I think, using a bot.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk  22:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I reset the post name to "Bragg" for pre-change events and references. A second set of eyeballs would help.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk  21:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023 

message: For instance, this article makes several references to Fort Bragg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn It was named Fort Bragg while the former general attended, but the article itself may become less useful as a educational resource as time goes on and the reference ages. PseudoNova (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should references be updated?