This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph of the new Fort Moore entrance signs be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state) may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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)
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.
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.
Since my discussion engendered no thoughts, I have changed the article in reference to Phenix City.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. -- dashiellx ( talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
evedently there done moving furnature so this should up dated. Brian in denver ( talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm trying to figure out why the list of commanders is hidden. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
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)