Talk:Fort Benning

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

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)