Talk:Fort Moore

SECDEF renamed it to Fort Benning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As of 3 Mar 2025, SECDEF Hegseth just renamed Fort Moore to Fort Benning, but this time after CPL Fred Benning, a WWI soldier. 2A02:A020:382:5CBB:313C:650E:8F60:1DFA (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just as in the case of with Ft. Liberty, this is just the order to rename the base, not the actual renaming. In the case of Ft. Liberty/Bragg, that took place a few days later. It is the latter event that will prompt us to change the name of the article and in our entries. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The US Army now displays the name and logo of Fort Benning on the US Army website. They also refer to the base as Fort Benning in correspondence. The switch is now official. In the military, signed orders make changes official. Not ceremonies. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

See March 3, 2025 US Army press release for more info. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

And no signed order executing the name change has been issued yet. On Wikipedia "some websites displayed it" does not make things official. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- we report what reliable sources confirm, not speculate about things that have not happened yet. I've reverted your premature changes. Please do not change the installation name until you can point to reliable sources stating that the change has been completed, as was done on the Fort Bragg (Ft. Liberty) page during the same process on that article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

this isn't some website. It's the official US Army website. Furthermore, all social media accounts display Fort Benning. All correspondence, logos, and names now display Fort Benning. How is this consistent with anything else military? Did WW1 end when all countries signed the armistace? Or after some arbitrary ceremony? The Army press release mentions immediate action to change any mention of the name. There won't be any ceremony where everything changes at once. The only ceremony will be to redo the base logo outside the main gate. How is Fort Benning referring to itself as Fort Benning not good enough? JazzBandDrummer (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The "official US Army website" does not have authority to rename an installation either, and the installation website remains moore.army.mil as of last time I checked earlier today (and is down). Again, I will once again point you to the example we had just this past month with Fort Liberty, in which the execution of the renaming took place on the 14th of February, four days after Hegseth's order. We are not beholden to the Army's policies here. Our policies and guidelines on Wikipedia require verifiability to reliable sources that the name change has taken effect, not just an order directing the name change to occur. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

How is a SECDEF order not good enough to change the article? Where is the arbitrary criteria coming from? 70.107.192.191 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

SECDEF does not have the authority to execute that change, and because an order to change the name is not the same thing as actually changing the name. We do not report events as happening until they've actually happened. It's not "arbitrary criteria" -- it's literally how the process has occurred with every such name change in history. SEe, e.g. [1].⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

When the Army officially refers to the base as Fort Benning and has rebranded as such, it's time to acknowledge the de facto change. Talmage (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We've acknowledged the order to rename it. The implementation of that order from the Secretary of the Army through to BG Kiniery has not yet occurred, something the Army has acknowledged in the official press release ("The Secretary of the Army will take immediate action to implement this decision.") When the Army makes an official announcement, as they did for Ft. Bragg, there will have been an actual change to acknowledge. A sloppy find/replace job on the website that's still quite literally *moore* in the URL, and whose content still largely reflects the name "Moore" in dozens of places, does not suffice.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Fort Benning itself has already said the name change is "effective immediately". The name has changed; the article should reflect that. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"The renaming process will include updating all official documentation, signage, and digital platforms in a deliberate and phased manner." As of today, that process is not yet completed, per the garrison commander. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The name has changed. That's from Fort Benning itself, as reported by a RS. There is nothing contentious about renaming the article to reflect reality. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This is reaching tendentious levels of WP:IDHT. ⇒SWAT<spanstyle="color:goldenrod">Jester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is - on your part. The name of the post has changed. Why are you refusing to let Wikipedia reflect that reality? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Fort Moore is named after an actual person. The army may well refuse to rename the fort for a traitor and toss a famed general's name into the mud. 74.76.189.192 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no Fort Moore. It's Fort Benning. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That is both historically and currently incorrect, and this is absolutely not the place to bring in culture warring, as this is a designated contentious topic area. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No. It is not. I gave you an RS, but you appear to have focused on the technical details of the process and missed the words "effective immediately". There is no US Army facility called Fort Moore. The former Fort Moore is now called Fort Benning, according to itself. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And you seem to have ignored the date of the source you're looking at, and are ignoring the immediately following words that state that it is not in fact effective immediately. There is, currently, a U.S. Army facility called Fort Moore. There is no facility currently called Fort Benning. There will be, but there is not at this moment and repeating assertions without a policy basis will get you nowhere in a move discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 09:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the immediately following words that state that it's not in fact effective immediately; I can't see them, because they do not appear to be there. Please quote the words that say the change of name is not effective immediately.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

“The renaming process will include updating all official documentation, signage, and digital platforms in a deliberate and phased manner,” the news release says. “We look forward to inviting the community to attend an official ceremony at a date to be determined in the very near future.” Future tense. But you knew that. I've quoted it several times already; it seems you're either simply just not listening or not approaching this discussion in good faith. Either way, as I've already pointed out in the below section there is *no* policy basis for the change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 09:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That's talking about technical details of changing the lettering on signs. The statement is very clear about when the name of the post actually changed - "effective immediately".Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest that's actually the case, and fortunately, your personal choice of interpretation of an out-of-context excerpt without the original source document is irrelevant here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't need anything to suggest that's the case; he stated it explicitly. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It's named after Corporal (CPL) Fred G. Benning, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his extraordinary heroism in action during World War I with the U.S. Army in France in 1918. 70.107.192.191 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2025

Fort Moore's name was changed on March 4th 2025. It is reflected on thier website as well as at the gates. Please correct this information as it is not correct. HoosierKid95 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done -- see above discussion, from which there is no substantive change. What happened on March 4th was not a change of name, it was an order from the Secretary of Defense (who does not possess the authority to change the name himself) directing the change to occur. An order directing a change of name is not the same thing as actually changing the name. As recently as yesterday, Col. Jerel Evans, the garrison commander, the person responsible for actually implementing the name change, described the status currently as "rapidly working through the renaming process of updating our systems, facilities, and infrastructure in a deliberate and phased manner." So no, this remains premature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  You mean "Col Jerel Evans, Fort Benning garrison commander"? Because that's what the article you linked calls him. You know, the same source that quotes Col Evans talking about all the things the "Fort Benning Garrison team" is doing to "update assets across Fort Benning"? Honestly, I don't think that article does a great job of supporting the argument that the post's name hasn't changed yet.

  Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I've also been saying! JazzBandDrummer (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the pagemove as lacking consensus -- undiscussed controversial moves should not be made out-of-process. There is no indication that the renaming has actually taken effect. Per reliable sources: “The renaming process will include updating all official documentation, signage, and digital platforms in a deliberate and phased manner,” the news release says. “We look forward to inviting the community to attend an official ceremony at a date to be determined in the very near future.”. I've seen local news references to a press release purportedly from the Fort Moore PAO's office -- the fact that it's the Fort Moore PAO's office should be telling here -- stating that the renaming will have "immediate effect", but none provide any link to an actual statement to this on a DOD website, and they go on to expressly contradict that there is "immediate effect" by talking about a "deliberate and phased manner." Given that the date is listed as March 3rd, this is almost certainly once again referring simply to Hegseth's initial order and not a statement of operative effect (which PAO's can't do anyway). So given that there is no reliable source consensus for an official name change, Wikipedia policy states that we use the WP:COMMON name, which remains "Ft. Moore". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The statement clearly says "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". That means it's now called Fort Benning. It is not called Fort Moore.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And as I've already addressed above, that is clearly a reference to Hegseth's order based on the date (March 3rd), and the statement -- which is merely an excerpt from an unattributed press release not actually found on the Army PAO or Moore websites, and thus failing WP:V -- immediately goes on to explain how it's not actually effective immediately, but a phased rollout plan that has not yet completed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers.. Per our policies, when reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well. Reliable sources written after the name change order was announced still use the name Ft. Moore. The point being that there is no clearcut consensus that the name is "Fort Benning", nor do a majority of reliable sources indicate that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed. The name of the article will eventually be changed once the name change takes effect and reliable sources catch up, but it is premature and not in compliance with our article naming and page move policies to change it at this time. Extraordinary changes require multiple, high-quality sources per policy -- you're going to need more than an unverifiable excerpt from a WP:SPS press release that's taken out of context and then immediately contradicted, to back up the assertion that one of the largest military bases in the world has actually changed names.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 09:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"immediately goes on to explain how it's not actually effective immediately" - No. It doesn't.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, when the post's website changes to say Fort Benning, will you accept that the name has changed? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not what our page move and article name policy say is the requirement here as I've repeatedly told you, and the website still has "Moore" plastered all over it, so no. And you need to stop making disruptive undiscussed page moves without consensus -- I've once again reverted your out-of-process move. Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. You've done no such thing. You have not achieved consensus for this move; you have not provided the necessary evidence of multiple, high-quality reliable sources written after the name change is announced that unambiguously support the change; you have provided no evidence of a change to the WP:COMMONNAME. You've simple refused to listen while repeatedly presenting the same out-of-context single line quote that has no original source attribution and cannot be found anywhere on an official Army publication. Stop it. Nobody is saying the page won't eventually move, but it is simply premature to push that now. We are not the media; we do not have to break news. We follow the lead of the body of reliable sources, not Pete Hegseth's schedule or whims. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You're drifting well over the line into POV here, and your reading of sources - including ones you provide yourself - seems selective. I've already pointed out how you cited the garrison commander, but missed out the bits where he repeatedly called the post Fort Benning. Now, on what grounds can you sensibly argue that the name has not changed, when the US Army has gone to the trouble of moving the post's website from army.mil/moore to army.mil/benning? The name has changed. The only one who seems to oppose moving the page to reflect that reality is you. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Is the Fort Benning website at army.mil an official US Army publication? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The Fort Benning website that says "Fort Moore" all over it? That's not the route you want to go down. We're done with this conversation if you're just going to keep repeating the same, already debunked talking points; that's not a pathway to achieving consensus. If you refuse to discuss this in the context of our actual page move policies, which require unambiguous multiple high-quality reliable sources written AFTER a name change all indicating that a change has taken place to the common name of the subject -- something you've not and have never provided -- there's simply nothing to discuss. I'm not going to engage with disruptive behavior. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As the Army went to the trouble of moving it from army.mil/moore to army.mil/benning, and making a new MCoE logo that says Fort Benning on it rather that Fort Moore, it's clear the Army has changed the name of the post. The post's website was written after the name change, by the way. The date - March 6 - is right there on the homepage. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You know what else is right there on the home page? "FORT MOORE, Ga. — The U.S. Army Infantry School Commandant and Chief of Infantry pinned on his second star May 16, 2024, during a promotion ceremony in front of the Follow Me Statue at McGinnis-Wickam Hall on Fort Moore, Georgia." "Fort Moore Ride-Share Policy" There are numerous other examples on practically every page of the website, because it quite obviously has not completed the renaming process. Once again, and I don't know how many times I need to say this, we are not beholden to what the Army chooses to call itself. That is not how our article naming policies work. A single self-published source that is not consistent with itself is not and has never been sufficient evidence of a change to the common name of an article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It has obviously not completed the technical process of tracking down every web page, sheet of paper and stencil on a piece of equipment that says Fort Moore, and changing it to say Fort Benning. However, the name has changed. That was a discrete event. It's not like the post was 73% Fort Moore yesterday and will be 68% Fort Moore tomorrow. It is Fort Benning, because the Fort Benning press office said on March 5 that the name was changing from Fort Moore to Fort Benning effective immediately. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that the renaming is not actually completed. However the rest of your statement is the same debunked, unsupported argument you've been making previously with no evidence to support it. As already mentioned, the "effective immediately" claim does not appear to actually originate from a US Army source with authority to make that claim; we cannot use an out-of-context excerpt referring to Hegseth's order directing the name change, as evidence for the name change itself. The quote quite clearly is not referring to the rename as evidenced by the immediately following sentences that talk about how the renaming will be a phased, ongoing process and conclude with an official ceremony. But you know this, you're simply tendentiously arguing at this point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

FFS. If your criteria for the renaming being completed is that every last maintenance tag with "Fort Moore" printed on it has been replaced with one that says "Fort Benning", the name never changed from Fort Benning in the first place because that level of replacement was never achieved. The actual name of the installation changed from Fort Moore to Fort Benning when the Army announced that the name had changed effective immediately. The post can only have one name. It was Fort Moore. It is Fort Benning. And that change happened when the Army announced it. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed all of those points previously, including what the criteria are. I'm not going to argue with someone who isn't listening and isn't interested in following policy. You've been told what you need to provide. Either do it or don't, but that's your burden to provide, not mine. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria is multiple reliable sources published after the name change. Such as this Ledger-Enquirer article which quotes the Army as saying "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". Or this GBP article describing an officer as the Fort Benning Garrison commander, and quoting him as he refers to what his team is currently doing at Fort Benning. I assume you agree these are both reliable sources, seeing as you gave me them? And of course there's Fort Benning's own website. The one they put up yesterday when they took down the old Fort Moore one. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's another RS, reporting that local politicians are asking "Why did (note past tense) the renaming take effect immediately?" And another, which states "Fort Moore is once again named Fort Benning" and confirms that "the change is effective immediately". How many sources do you need before you're satisfied that the name has changed? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's another RS, this time the Columbus, GA CBS affiliate, with a story about how "the post is now named for a World War I corporal". Is that enough sources for you yet, or would you like to put a number on how many it would take to persuade you the name's changed? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it time to move this yet?

We now have a reliable source describing Col Jerel Evans as the Fort Benning Garrison commander, and citing Col Evans talking about the "Fort Benning Garrison" team working to "update assets across Fort Benning". The US Army has taken the former post home page at army.mil/moore offline, and there's now a page at army.mil/benning which features a new MCoE logo that says Fort Benning on it, and welcomes visitors to Fort Benning. The name of the post has changed. I can't honestly see any reason to put the move off any longer. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you don't. You have a single reliable source that states the renaming is an ongoing, phased, deliberate process. It is irrelevant that the Col Evans is calling himself the "Fort Benning" garrison commander. On Wikipedia, we follow our internal conventions and processes for article naming, we are not beholden to the Army's process. I've explained this to you over and over, and you simply refuse to listen.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting that source, which clearly and unambiguously states that the name change to Fort Benning was effective immediately. I've explained this to you over and over, and you simply refuse to listen. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hilarious how people are trying to deny this. No doubt attempting to "Hold the line" against some great wrong being made. I'll be sure to archive this discussion as an example how much of a trash heap Wikipedia is. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I know. It's ludicrous. When the people who own and run the post say it's called Fort Benning, it takes a special kind of mind to insist that no, it isn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not determine article titles and page moves by the criteria of what "the people who own and run the post say", as you've been repeatedly told and simply refuse to listen. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Will this satisfy you? If not, why not? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Is that page multiple examples of high-quality reliable sources written after the name change unambiguously reflecting a change of status to the common name? No? It's a single self-published source, whose home page still repeatedly references Fort Moore? {"FORT MOORE, Ga. — The U.S. Army Infantry School Commandant and Chief of Infantry pinned on his second star May 16, 2024, during a promotion ceremony in front of the Follow Me Statue at McGinnis-Wickam Hall on Fort Moore, Georgia."; "Fort Moore Ride-Share Policy") Well I guess there's your answer. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if you feel inclined to categorize the Fort Benning website as a "self-published source" - I wouldn't, personally - Wikipedia policy is clear that SPS can be used as sources of information about themselves. So Fort Benning calling itself Fort Benning in a SPS works as evidence that Fort Benning is called Fort Benning. If you check the date on the "Fort Moore" reference you provided you'll note that it's from last May, when the post was indeed called Fort Moore. So, now we have the post's own website calling it Fort Benning. We have a RS describing Col Evans as the Fort Benning garrison commander, and quoting him making multiple, present-tense references to Fort Benning. We have a separate RS quoting the Army saying the name change to Fort Benning is "effective immediately". That looks like multiple examples of high-quality reliable sources to me. Now where are your reliable sources stating that the post is still called Fort Moore? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It is definitionally a self-published-source, and the policy is clear that SPS can only be used as sources of information about themselves if five criteria are met, including: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; and There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;, neither of which are met here. Furthermore, as you're well aware, the requirement for an article title change is *multiple* *high-quality* reliable sources; not a single SPS of questionably reliability that self-contradicts. The burden is on you, not me, to provide sufficient sourcing to achieve consensus. You've failed repeatedly to do so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Why is it an "exceptional claim" that the Army has carried out the directions of SecDef? And are you saying there is reasonable doubt about the authenticity of army.mil/benning? This is getting ridiculous now. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It's an exceptional claim to suggest that the name of one of the largest military bases in the U.S. has changed; and it requires a commensurate degree of evidence that the Army has actually completed carrying out said direction. So far you've provided no DOD/US Army source that unambiguously and clearly states that this is completed; only some that show that it is currently in progress which is not in dispute but also not the question. The only claim that you've provided in support of that is the un-authenticated excerpt allegedly from US Army Public Affairs -- with no link to an original source, that immediately goes on to describe how the rename is not yet completed. So yes, that raises a reasonable question about the authenticity of that claim. I'm not referring to the authenticity of the Ft. Benning website itself as it's clearly still self-contradictory. Once again, I will repeat -- the thing you need here to achieve consensus that the name changed is multiple independent, high-quality, reliable sources directly supporting that claim that the renaming is officially completed and that the common name per reliable sources has shifted back to Fort Benning. Period. Until you provide this, there's nothing to talk about. The only thing "ridiculous" is your incessant pressure to change the article name prematurely because you think that you're right and I'm wrong. That's not how we do things here. You need to follow policy, and make policy-based arguments here and you're not doing so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

How is the Fort Benning website "self-contradictory"? They moved it to a new subdomain. They changed the heading to "Fort Benning" and the homepage to "Welcome to Fort Benning and the MCoE". They made a new logo that says Fort Benning on it. But you're confused because they didn't change the text of a news article from last May? Please, be serious. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, we're done here. If you're unable to engage on substance without resorting to personal attacks and tendentious behavior, there's nothing further to discuss. You've been told repeatedly what you need to gain consensus. Either provide it or don't, but stop wasting our time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Five users have said the page should be moved to Fort Benning. One disagrees. That isn't a lack of consensus. That's one editor blocking an improvement to the encyclopedia. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No. Two users are actively supporting the move in this discussion, making non-policy based arguments. One user is opposing it, making policy based arguments. Other users have given me thanks using the thanks system for these edits, but not provided input. That math doesn't math. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

My argument is that multiple reliable sources are referring to the post as Fort Benning, as is the post's own website. At this point I don't think there's any doubt that the former Fort Moore is now called Fort Benning, and I think Wikipedia should describe the world as it is, not as we may wish it was. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. SwatJester is the only one apposed to this while everyone else agrees we need to switch to Benning. Is SwatJester a member of the Moore family? I see no point in being the only one "holding the line." It's going to keep getting changed back and forth. And if they never have an arbitrary ceremony? Years after the name change where everything is Benning, SwatJester will continue to change it to Moore. If Fort Benning calling itself Fort Benning isn't good enough, then maybe SJ should switch Elliot Page's wiki back to Ellen. Its ridiculous at this point. All official websites, social media, base gate, leadership, and official correspondence refer to Fort Benning as Fort Benning. None of the above mentioned still refer to Benning as Moore. Fuethurmore, when Liberty was changed to Bragg, the release did not say "effective immediately" like it does for Benning. This means SJ can't apply the same delayed change as the Liberty to Bragg change. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Transphobic personal attacks aren't going to get you what you want. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I am only applying the same logic you are using to show how ridiculous refusing the change is. It is not transphobic as Elliot is Elliot, not Ellen. As Benning is now Benning JazzBandDrummer (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No, seriously. If Fort Benning chooses to identify as a Fort Benning, shouldn't we respect that? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You're the one that's refusing to listen. RS - including one cited by you - are referring to the post as Fort Benning. They're quoting the garrison commander calling it Fort Benning. The post's official website calls it Fort Benning. So on what grounds are you claiming it's still called Fort Moore? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

So far, the alleged consensus for changing the title is based simply on a majority of participants on this talk page, not Wikipedia policy. This, in itself, seems to be an example of not understanding the relevant Wikipedia policies. As far as I can see, the only user on this talk page (in this current thread and in the two previous threads above, "SECDEF renamed it to Fort Benning" and "Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2025") actually citing Wikipedia policy throughout has been User:Swatjester, who has also laid out the need for following the procedure for "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves". Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, most other users have simply resorted to making disrespectful comments and misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. To sum up, I cite Swatjester's own words: "Nobody is saying the page won't eventually move, but it is simply premature to push that now. We are not the media; we do not have to break news. We follow the lead of the body of reliable sources..."--Technopat (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

So what reliable sources, written after the Army announced the name change "effective immediately" on March 5, are saying it's still called Fort Moore? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

We keep hearing "Wikipedia Policy," which specific policy? Please provide us a quote as maybe this will clear up confusion. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The one that keeps coming up seems to be about controversial moves, but I don't see what's controversial about this. Wikipedia doesn't get involved in whether the renaming was a good thing or not; our sole concern as an encyclopedia is whether or not it's happened, and it clearly has. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That is my understanding too. It has clearly happened. Nothing controversial about it. The fact that Fort Benning referring itself to Fort Benning is not enough is crazy. It is legally Fort Benning as official Army correspondence day to day says Fort Benning. I don't know why "effective immediately" is not understood. We need someone higher to step in. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And this should put the debate to rest -- new posting from Defense.gov today *explicitly* stating that the renaming is not yet effective. The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty. This is why we don't immediately jump to conclusions based on inadequate sourcing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

But it doesn't explicitly state that, does it? Stop misrepresenting the sources. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I've had enough of this crap. I have given you multiple sources that say the post has been renamed. The post clearly has been renamed. It's moved its website to a new subdomain, army.mil/benning. It's put up a new seal. Its garrison commander is calling the post "Fort Benning". The name has changed. In return I get a frankly dishonest claim about a DoD post. No, that doesn't "explicitly state" that the renaming is not yet effective. If you don't understand that, google what "explicitly" means. In 24 hours I am moving this article back to Fort Benning, unless someone comes up with a RS that says the post is still called Fort Moore. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're threatening to disrupt Wikipedia with an out-of-process move in 24 hours, I can promise you that this is going to end in you losing your editing privileges. You know better. Do this at your own peril. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, @Voorts: -- can we get some intervention here? This is rapidly becoming a disruptive problem. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2025 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2603:3004:107:500:B02D:FF8C:1658:7E57 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources, including the post's own website, make clear that Fort Moore was renamed Fort Benning on March 5 with immediate effect. There is no reason, policy-related or otherwise, to not move this article back to Fort Benning. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not the proper format for making a controversial move request. This template is for making requests for edits to the article text, not for page moves. If you want to get the page moved, you must follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves and make a policy-based argument in accordance with Wikipedia:Article titles#Name_changes. Additionally, this is disruption to make a WP:POINT, given that you did not gain consensus in the previous request above. As I've already pointed out early, the Department of Defense has officially stated there is "no date for the name change." So the statement that "there is no reason, policy-related or otherwise, to not move this article back to Fort Benning" holds no water whatsoever, and does not appear to be a good-faith argument. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm frightfully sorry this isn't the proper format, but the post was renamed Fort Benning two days ago, so can we please just cut out the wickilawyering and move the article back to the correct name? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I can no longer AGF with you, because you're talking bollocks and we both know it. No, the DoD did not officially state there is no date for the name change. It said Hegseth didn't specify one. Correct; he didn't - Fort Benning did when it announced the name change and said it was "effective immediately". Since then it's moved its website, covered up or removed every Fort Moore sign on post and started referring to itself exclusively as Fort Benning. The name has changed. Now can you either provide a RS that says it hasn't changed, or get out of the way and stop blocking improvements to this encyclopedia? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have no substantive argument other than personal attacks and repeating the same already debunked arguments while avoiding addressing the ones that contradict your position, then you should disengage. If you're unwilling to follow our policies and think that being asked to use the correct format for your requests is "wikilawyering", and cannot refrain from disrupting Wikipedia with repeated requests when you've not established consensus on your first request, you should disengage. If you don't think you can assume good faith in a discussion where you've been extended far more leeway than most editors would have gotten, you should disengage. You've been made aware of the process for achieving what you want. Your refusal to follow that process is your own choice. You're well aware that the burden for proving your case lies with you and you've failed to meet that burden convincingly. There's really nothing more to it. Shouting into the void might be therapeutic for you, but it's exhausting and tiresome for us. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 March 2025

Fort Moore → Fort Benning – I take no position in this RM. Editors are reminded to remain civil, avoid bludgeoning, and base their arguments on the article titles policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support Of course it needs to be changed to Fort Benning. When the base itself has updated logos, social media accounts, and its government domain to reflect the change, it's clear that its common name has changed, de facto if not de jure. The obstinacy not to reflect the de facto change serves no purpose, IMO. Talmage (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support It's comparable to Fort Liberty, which was moved back swiftly to its historic name. Killuminator (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the DoD it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty -- meaning the name change did not actually take effect for nearly a month. So if you're saying this is comparable to Fort Liberty, you're saying that the name here has not in fact actually changed, yet you are voting the opposite.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the name change on Wikipedia. Killuminator (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The article for Fort Liberty was not changed back until after the Army announced that the renaming was officially complete. The first attempt at renaming the article on 29 January, before the base renaming was completed, resulted in unanimous opposition to the move, and failed. That's my point. If you're saying this is comparable to Fort Liberty's article, you're inherently arguing in opposition to a page move at this point in time, because the consensus at Fort Liberty during the same point in time was against moving. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The 29 January attempt was put forth before the name change. I'm talking about the February move proposal, which followed the name change. Wikipedia followed swiftly and it should do the same here. Killuminator (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose; Premature. As of today, March 7, the Department of Defense stated "The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty." It's quite clear that the renaming is a process that happens some days or weeks after the Secretary issues the order, and that the DoD does not know what that date will be. The current website is a mess -- just a couple of days ago, it was moore.army.mil and almost all references to the installation name referred to "Fort Moore". Over the past couple of days the website has been in transition; it is now at army.mil/benning but it is still absolutely littered with places where it's referenced to as Fort Moore. So as a self-published source, the Army and the DoD collectively have an ambiguous track record for how they refer to themselves -- the renaming itself is not yet completed. Even when the Army refers to itself as Fort Benning, they do so using the future-progressive tense as to the process of renaming -- a prime example, being this source from Georgia Public Broadcasting in which the garrison commander states: “The Fort Benning Garrison team is rapidly working through the renaming process of updating our systems, facilities, and infrastructure in a deliberate and phased manner. As we update assets across Fort Benning in honor of Distinguished Service Cross recipient Cpl. Fred G. Benning, we will also continue to honor the legacy of Lt. Gen. Hal Moore’s storied military service and Julia Moore’s family and casualty notification advocacy in a manner that celebrates their significant contributions to the local community and the Army.. That article uses the phrase "Fort Moore" 5 times. A Google Search of "Fort Moore" within the past 24 hours shows over 2400 results. The fact that the renaming isn't yet completed is why there's still so many results referring to the renaming process, or to the Secretary's order to rename. So, we have inconsistency on the Army and DoD's own usage, which we see reflected in external reliable sources still using the old name in the process of reporting the as-of-yet-unfinished change. As far as WP:NAMECHANGES and our article titles policy are concerned, it's not yet established that a change is ripe. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. There's absolutely no need to rush to beat the Army and the DoD to a change that they haven't even finished making yet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"That article uses the phrase "Fort Moore" 5 times." Yes it does - but context is important. And reading the article makes it very clear that Fort Moore has been renamed and is now Fort Benning. It's pretty unambiguous about this, using language like "now that the U.S. Army post next to Columbus has been renamed back to Fort Benning" and "now that Fort Moore has been renamed back to Fort Benning". Simply counting the number of times the article uses the name "Fort Moore" doesn't really tell us much - but, if you insist on doing so, I think it's only fair to point out that the same article uses the phrase "Fort Benning" ten times. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact Col Evans referred to "the Fort Benning Garrison team" updating assets "across Fort Benning" says it all. The name has changed. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Without conceding any of the facts you assert, I would merely ask, “So what?” Are we discussing a technical legal matter or the de facto name that’s in common usage? I’m not interested in adjudicating the matter as if it were a title action under the property law of common law England. This isn’t a court. When the Army has clearly embraced one name over the other, it’s clear to me which name should prevail. Talmage (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

In response to the question of "So what?" Our policies on name changes are "what." This isn't a court -- but this is a process on a website with policies and guidelines that we expect editors to follow. We are not the Army; we're not obligated to operate by their rules or their process. That's something I personally find immensely frustrating at times, for instance, on the matter of capitalization (where I agree with the Army's preference for capitalization of terms that, here, we instead have determined by consensus must be lowercase) but this project runs by consensus and that consensus has developed into policies that place a high bar towards these kind of page moves, and we *are* obligated to operate under those regarding the evidence necessary to support a page move based on a name change. As such, I've laid out my argument for why the requested move is premature under those policies. In another 25 days that may be different, but WP:NAMECHANGE is very clear that we operate based on the status now, not the hypothetical future.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The status now is that Fort Benning is called Fort Benning, and you have nothing that says otherwise. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

When I click on the NAMECHANGE link, I read something different than what you represent it as saying. It seems the “independent, reliable, English-language sources” reflect the name Benning but you insist on a different standard of proof. Anything drafted before the announcement of the change is irrelevant when just about everything written subsequent to it uses Benning. With regard to consensus for Moore, I don’t see much of any, unless that’s judged off the character count of your verbose comments. Talmage (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I already noticed that what SWATJester reads and what other people read may not be the same thing. His insistence that both Fort Benning and the DoD are saying the name change hasn't occurred yet is just the most glaring example. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you're unable to make a compelling point about this without devolving to personal attacks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It's an observation, not an attack. You repeatedly claim sources say things they do not in fact say. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

And that's an WP:ASPERSION based on zero evidence, but you know this. I managed to make my argument against moving without referencing you at all. It's entirely telling but not surprising, that you find yourself categorically unable to do the same. That's fine though, keep it up, and we'll see if the Arbitration Committee agrees with you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there's that statement about the name change being effective immediately. You claimed it then said the name change wasn't effective immediately. It doesn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

And I backed up my claim with evidence -- I've showed you both that immediately following text that goes on to explain why the name change wasn't effective immediately, and then provided you the Defense.gov article from yesterday that unambiguously states that no date has been chosen for the name change. So you're unquestionably aware of the fact that your description of my position is false, yet you said it anyway. So I'm going to be very unambiguously clear: keep my name out of your mouth. Do not mention me again, unless you're prepared to do it before the Arbitration Committee. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

But this is exactly my point; the source quite simply does not say that. Nor does the Defense.gov article say no date has been chosen for the name change; it says Hegseth didn't specify one, which is not the same thing at all. The fact he didn't specify one does not mean nobody else did. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support It's absolutely clear the post has been renamed to Fort Benning. Despite the efforts of some editors to misrepresent what sources are saying, words like "effective immediately" are completely devoid of ambiguity. Fort Moore has been renamed and is now Fort Benning. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Even the commissary is using the new name now. At this point, arguing that Fort Benning fails WP:COMMONNAME is just silly. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per precedent established at Denali. We do not change articles' names because of political whims, we change them because of changes in the common name. No evidence has been given that the proposed name is the common name. It took twenty-nine years for us to change the title of the Ukrainian capital from Kiev to Kyiv – and it is unlikely that this new name will stick in a Democratic administration. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The result of that discussion was "no consensus", which means that discussion had no precedential value. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The post was called Fort Benning for over a century, became Moore for 18 months and is now Benning again. Benning is the common name. And if we don't change names because of political whims, why was it changed to Fort Moore in the first place? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Right now you're closer to an indef than to getting this page moved, so please stop bludgeoning as you are making yourself look very bad, and disrupting the consensus-building process. Very well, since you asked, the exact same thing happened with Denali. BOLD move, uncontested, name change by Trump, attempted move, RM. Also, you have given exactly zero evidence to demonstrate Benning being the common name, while much evidence has been given for Moore still being the common name above. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The evidence I've seen for Moore still being the common name is... not persuasive. There's a link to one article that uses the phrase "Fort Moore" five times - but uses the name Fort Benning ten times. There's the fact the Fort Benning website has a news article from last May that still says Fort Moore. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

With respect to Denali, the locals predominantly call it Denali. Is there any indication that a significant group (Wikipedia editors notwithstanding) still refer to the base as Fort Moore? The evidence from the base’s rebranding suggests this renaming isn’t comparable to the renaming of Denali. Talmage (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Support Fort Moore/Fort Benning is currently in the process of updating all official information including their Website, https://home.army.mil/moore/ now redirects to https://home.army.mil/benning/ . Since I live very near Ft Benning training area I subscribe to their community notice emails and it now identifies the installation as Fort Benning. As when it changed to Fort Moore it will take months to complete all updates and signage changes. Like it or not the name change is now official. Straykat99 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• For the love of everything, just wait two or three weeks. Oppose until then Red Slash 17:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose; Premature. While no-one doubts that the military base has been renamed, and that the process of updating all the relevant signage, etc. has commenced, one of the questions seems to be whether or not the change is effective from the moment the memorandum is signed or from the moment the Army has informed "the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment of its plans, including timelines and resource requirements, to implement this decision." as per the memorandum signed March 3 by the Secretary of Defense ("... all necessary and appropriate actions to implement this decision in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Army shall inform the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment of its plans, including timelines and resource requirements, to implement this decision."), linked from the U.S. Department of Defense's press release. Or, indeed, at the moment the corresponding authority officially announces the effective name change of the military base has been completed. Press departments have their timelines, U.S. Department of Defense has its timeles, the Army has its timelines and Wikipedia has its timelines and its policies... Meanwhile, in the absence of any actual Wikipedia policy being cited to justify the requested move with such urgency, I notice that, despite the reminder at the top of this RM "to remain civil" and "avoid bludgeoning", the disrespectful comments continue. Surely that is not how consensus is built at Wikipedia? --Technopat (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Well, consensus certainly isn't built by aggressively refusing to move the article to match the actual name of the post. The post is called Fort Benning, and has been from the moment Colonel Evans said it is. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  How about WP:NAMECHANGE as a policy justification for moving the article? After all, it says If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.

  The news is full of things that are happening at Fort Benning, like the All Army shooting championships or the installation of new heat sensors. On the other hand, no media outlet has mentioned the former Fort Moore in over a week except to say it's called Fort Benning now. I really don't understand the policy justification for not moving the article. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support There's no point in delaying the inevitable. It's very clear that the name has been changed and it won't change back. This is not really analogous to the name of a mountain; the US Army decides the name of its bases. Kfein (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per the precedent set at Talk:Denali. — E_F⁵ 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that, with Denali, local people have been calling it Denali for centuries. Nobody called Fort Benning "Fort Moore" before 2023, and nobody (outside this talk page, anyway) is calling Fort Benning "Fort Moore" now. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No one calls it Fort Moore. 2605:4A80:B401:AE41:D009:43E6:7B44:7B06 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ditto that for the most part. I live in Columbus, Georgia area and very few have called it Fort Moore. Even those who didn’t oppose or didn’t care the name changed still called it Fort Benning purely out of habit. There was a lot of “…Fort Benning, I mean Moore...” in conversations.

Habits die hard and it would have to remained Fort Moore for a few more years before it would have become natural. I’m finding it odd there is still resistance to changing the article back to Fort Benning. Straykat99 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Even if the official name hasn't been changed yet, there is no reason to delay this move, as the original name is still the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support because it will need to be done eventually. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

The article contains an image of a pamphlet titled "Fort Benning, home of the infantry". People keep changing the caption to read "Fort Moore, home of the infantry." Why? The name Fort Moore does not appear anywhere on the pamphlet. It was not in use at the time the pamphlet was produced (which appears to be some time in the early 1980s). Is there any reason this caption should say "Fort Moore" instead of "Fort Benning"? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This question is somewhat surprising coming from a user who is so very keen to urgently move the page to its "new" name... I would have thought that, by now, you would have at least read the article. If so, you would have seen that, in the section that explains the name, it explains that the installation was originally named for Henry L. Benning, a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army during the Civil War, and that it was "one of the ten U.S. Army installations named for former Confederate generals that were renamed on 11 May 2023" and that the "congressionally mandated Naming Commission recommended that Fort Benning be renamed Fort Moore after Lieutenant General Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, both of whom are buried on post. On 6 October 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin accepted the recommendation and directed the name change occur no later than 1 January 2024. The redesignation ceremony officially renaming Fort Benning as Fort Moore was held on 11 May 2023, the day the renaming took effect." (BTW, there you can clearly see that these kinda things don't happen overnight and that there are procedures established...)

Then, as we all know, on "March 3, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the U.S. Army to rename the base back to Fort Benning, but with the new namesake of Corporal Fred G. Benning, who earned a distinguished cross in World War I. By March 4, 2025, the "new" name and logo of Fort Benning were displayed on the offical US Army website. In other wwords, the pamphlet you refer to, "which appears to be some time in the early 1980s", does not refer to the Corporal Benning at all, but to the army officer the base was originally named after. Hope that answers your question or settles the doubts that other readers may have regarding what all the fuss is about. --Technopat (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I am asking why the caption to an image of a pamphlet does not match the actual title of the pamphlet. Consensus was reached long ago that when mentioning events that happened while the post was previously called Fort Benning, the name Fort Benning should be used. Given that, I don't see why the caption should read "Fort Moore, home of the infantry" when the image it's referring to has nothing to do with Fort Moore at all. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my comments above didn't help resolve your doubts. I took for granted that it was obvious that if name changes occur throughout the history of a place (New Amsterdam → New York or Londinium → London), such changes wouldn't be confusing, even if there's only one page dedicated to the subject and one which specifically mentions the name changes, as opposed to two specific pages dedicated to two similar, but clearly separate [?], subjects. My fault and I'm afraid I cannot think of any other way to explain it to you. Hopefully someone else can. --Technopat (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems the simple solution is to just change the caption back so it matches the title of the pamphlet it's describing. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

...which has now been done. Problem solved. That was nice and simple, wasn't it? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead missing 2023 change

As an editor from the other side of the pond, I'd never heard of this place until seeing a post on a User page discussing its name change. So I came to see what was going on, and found the lead confusing. The 2023 name change isn't mentioned in the lead, only in the "Name"section, although the 2025 move back to previous name is in the lead. I'm not going to venture into a controversial US topic to fix this, but could someone please do so? Thanks. PamD 06:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It should really say "Fort Moore, formerly Fort Benning". Of course, in the circumstances, that would be a bit pathetic. Personally, if I was you I wouldn't worry about it. In a few days the article will say "Fort Benning, formerly Fort Moore". Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And it probably should read, "Fort Benning, temporarily Fort Moore..."Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Or (called Fort Moore from 2022-2025). It wasn't actually a temporary name change, even though it was short-lived. There's a difference. Kfein (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. "Called Fort Moore from 2023-2025" makes clear it wasn't always called Fort Moore. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per the precedent set at Talk:Denali. (see below) — E_F⁵ 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. What are you opposing? If it's the page move, that's two sections up. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems to have been a reply button issue. — E_F⁵ 16:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I did wonder. I've had that issue myself a couple of times. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea, sometimes it'll put your reply at the bottom of the page instead of the bottom of the section. :) — E_F⁵ 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)