Talk:Fort Moore

Requested move

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.

Link suppressed

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)

• I think we can remove "As a power projection platform, "--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:48, 12 May 2023 (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)

• Using the base's name at the time in the History section is appriopate, especially with pre-2023 dates clearly stated (and name change clearly stated later). Using the currernt base name for events when it was named Fort Benning is revisionist history and inapprioate. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Agreed, we should match names and eras.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Names and eras should match.Intothatdarkness 22:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have changed the name in the history section back to Benning, thanks for the feedback --rogerd (talk) 15:12, 13 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)