Talk:Fort Liberty/Archive 1

June 2005
Removed the U.S. Special Operations Command reference. It's homepage at www.socom.mil lists it as headquartered at Macdill Air Force Base in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CancerOfJuly (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I put USASOC back in - don't have the original of what I put in but my intent was US Army Special Operations Command - which is at Fort Bragg. Many of the units listed on the page report to USASOC and USASOC reports to USSOCOM at MacDill. Also, the page I just edited referred to the 82d ABN as a special forces unit - it is not although it is airborne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.136.7.18 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

October 2005
What place does " The racial makeup of the Special Forces is another interesting subject in that minorities are significantly underrepresented." have in this article? Sounds pretty racist to me. The "racial makeup" of Fort Bragg seems to roughly echo that of the United States, so where does the "underrepresented" come from? It seems like this should be stricken from the article as biased and false. Jgw 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Article
Article importance was changed to Top as this is an important United States base that has a lot of general interest. Would have assessed it as a B Class article if the history was expended.--Oldwildbill 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fort Bragg disambiguation page
Currently Fort Bragg is a disambiguation page for this article and Fort Bragg, California. It seems to me that on the notability scale this Fort Bragg ranks far higher than a town with a population of 6,800 (and falling) in California. What is your opinion of turning Fort Bragg into a redirect to here and moving the content of that page to Fort Bragg (disambiguation)? I'm also leaving a note on the Fort Bragg, CA article telling any interested parties there to join the conversation here. --Bobblehead 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think popularity should have anything to do with it. Fort Bragg seems to describe 3 things: A fort in NC, and fort in CA and a City in CA. It should have a disambiguation page. If you could give some examples where popularity is used in this manner it might help your argument. Gam3 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there wouldn't be a disambiguation page, because there would be one, but the most commonly known Fort Bragg is the one in NC, so Fort Bragg would redirect to this article and at a top of the article would be a link to the Fort Bragg, California (is there an article for the base?). As far as examples of this, Seattle. It redirects to the city of Seattle, Washington, but the top of the Seattle, WA article includes directions to Chief Seattle and Seattle (Perry Como album). --Bobblehead 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer Fort Bragg redirect to Fort Bragg (disambiguation). Once links to this page has been disambiguated, you can then use Special:Whatlinkshere/Fort Bragg for ongoing disambiguation maintenance. -- Robocoder ( talk | contribs ) 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article states that the base covers "19.0 mi. sq.". That is 361 square miles. Later, it states that Ft. Bragg covers 148,609 acres. That is 232.2 square miles. Which is it? Bradleyturnerx 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

35th Signal Brigade
On the picture, a patch for the 35th Signal Brigade is displayed. The unit still exists, but it left Fort Bragg and lost its airborne designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Parsecboy 13:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

JSOC
There should be at least some mention of JSOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs) 07:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

General Comments
5th Group was not replaced by 7th Group - they had both been at the installation for several years prior to 5th Group's departure to Fort Campbell, KY. I left the year of 5th Group's departure in although I can't verify it - I can tell you that 5th Group was there until a few years later, although they could have begun their move in 1986. 3rd Group was stood up about 1990, although it would be incorrect to say it replaced 5th Group since they are two different missions. The 82d barracks going through replacement were constructed in the 1950's, not during the Vietnam War. The barracks replacement began 1994 and will likely continue through 2011 or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.10.12 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (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) 11:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Area of Ft. Bragg cited
I don't know about the "city" or whatever; it may be 19 sq miles -- But Ft. Bragg as a military base is obviously (and ridiculously so) much, much larger than that. It's gotta be over a hundred sq miles.

140,618 acres, whatever that might be. 140 618 acre = 219.715 625 square mile

71.65.229.109 (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look in the "Geography" section of the text, it explains the difference. The 19 sq mi is just the census-designated area - Fort Bragg "proper". The article gives 232 sq mi figure for the entire base. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fort Bragg (North Carolina) → Fort Bragg — Restore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; Fort Bragg is a well known, gi-normous military installation with its place in history; the next contender is a northern CA town of about 7000. -- Ja Ga  talk 05:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Page viewing stats (monthly in Dec 2010 and Jan 2011) seem to support this as the Carolina:California ratio is around 3:1. It should also be considered that the "Fort Bragg fever" (a redirect to Leptospirosis) is not mentioned in the body of the article to establish why the name exists. Possible names such as "Fort Bragg (military base)" should also perhaps be considered though.
 * Approx 370 pages link to Fort_Bragg,_California, whereas there are approx 208 to Fort Bragg (North Carolina). The California pages may be vastly over counted though as many of them are through the template . There are similar templats on the Carolina article but these are very small in number in comparison.
 * If we turn to notability most of the people I know, online that is and in the UK and The Netherlands, know of Fort Bragg in the military sense only and have not heard of the California one.
 * There is also the problem of inception, as both were originally forts and named after the same General. The Californian fort was established in 1857 and the Carolina one in 1918. I am not sure exactly how this relates, but it could be claimed that "first come first served" should be taken into account as educational historical searches may be weighted towards California.. That said, neither are listed as vital articles. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support; I didn't even know there was one in California. Powers T 14:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Support this. Neutralitytalk 21:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ordering of tenant units
After trying to find FORSCOM in this list, I was surprised by the rationale for the ordering of the formations. Numerals first, then alphabetic labels without regard for heirarchy? FORSCOM commands 750,000 troops, so ...

If the ordering of the units is meant to make it easier to find the one you seek, then shouldn't there be a note with the suggested ordering? Other ordering possibilities come to mind, such as functional, say MP units grouped together, Sustainment units together, etc. What do the editors of this article wish to emphasize in the listing? --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After a suitable wait --it's been 4 months -- I am pruning this list down to the orphans which are neither on the Fort Bragg navigation template, nor the USSOCOM navigation template. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I cut back the units which are already visible on the Template:Fort Bragg nav box.
 * However there are some units on the Fort Bragg units page which are merely a representative unit of other organizations which are headquartered elsewhere such as
 * IMCOM in San Antonio
 * 83rd Civil Affairs Battalion which is part of 85th Civil Affairs Brigade, which is headquartered in Ft Hood -- what is the relationship to 95th  Civil Affairs Brigade?
 * 35th Signal Brigade was moved to Fort Gordon. It must have been reflagged???
 * 93rd Signal was ostensibly reflagged to 35th, but it moved to Fort Eustis???
 * I'm not propagating these inconsistencies unless we get an explanation on this page --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 21:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Civil_affairs shows a red link for 85th Civil Affairs Brigade; can we get a volunteer to work on this article?
 * 50th Expeditionary Signal Battalion is at Ft Bragg; can we get a volunteer to work on this article?
 * 93rd Signal Brigade (Strategic) is at Ft Eustis; can we get a volunteer to work on this article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 01:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Intersection list
Here is a list of Fort Bragg-associated one-stars: I found it when researching Jonathan Braga's statement on Battle of Khasham (Feb 2018) --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 19:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * USACAPOC(A) small.jpg

Largest base in the world by population?
There is a sentence in the article that says "by population, is the largest military installation in the world with more than 50,000 active duty personnel". The citation goes to a site called army-technology.com. I cannot find any reference for their sources, or any other data on worldwide military base populations. I would suggest you remove this sentence or at least move it out of the opening paragraph, as it doesn't seem well sourced. 71.231.189.174 (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a weaker claim backed up by a reliable source. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Named for Braxton Bragg
The main text includes - ".. named for native North Carolinian Confederate General Braxton Bragg .." From Bragg's own main article, I infer that Bragg was not of any First Nations' heritage. There it states - "Braxton Bragg was born in Warrenton, North Carolina,[1] one of the six sons of Thomas and Margaret Crosland Bragg. .. considered by his neighbors to be from the lower class, Thomas Bragg was a carpenter and contractor .." Braxton Bragg's English lineage is specifically cited. Perhaps the word "native" might be omitted ? (It seems that Congress has agreed that Fort Bragg may soon be re-named anyways.)49.195.118.24 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In that context, it literally means that Bragg was a native of North Carolina - he was born there. It doesn't mean that he was Native American, any more than the protagonist of Native New Yorker (song) was other than someone born in New York, and not that they are a descendant of the Manhattoe people. However, it is a bit redundant.   Acroterion   (talk)   22:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote - "The main difference between 'native' and 'indigenous' is that indigenous is often used to the non-white, original inhabitants of a place [while] the usage of native to refer to non-white, original inhabitants of a place can cause offense.
 * Source - https://pediaa.com/difference-between-native-and-indigenous/
 * Omitting that 'redundant' adjective 'native' from the main Bragg text would remove an offensive usage, at least in my English usage. 49.180.23.106 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing offensive or redundant about the lead reference to Braxton Bragg. He was born in North Carolina, therefore he was a native of that state. But since his family home was there, and he was raised there as well, that also makes him a North Carolinian. The two descriptors are not the same. Lastly, bringing in "white vs non-white" and trying to define the terms "indigenous" or "native" as somehow racist or pejorative, in this context, is absurd and counter-productive. - wolf  15:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistakenly imagining that ".. named for native North Carolinian Confederate General Braxton Bragg .." might possibly have been categorising Bragg to be a First Nations 'native' (without my reading his own wiki biography) probably does seems curious, Wolf. Describing someone to be 'native' in the context of 1860s American Civil War times, seemed somewhat ambiguous, at least to my reading as a Foreigner. Of course, it is presumably utterly ludicrous, Wolf, for my even entertaining the faintest possibility that any Confederate officers were First Nations peoples. Nevertheless, the inclusion of that word 'native' arguably does remain simply 'redundant' as Acroterion kindly acknowledged. Those quotes were an attempt to clarify how the adjective 'native' can be unhelpful, even here about the naming of a US Army Fort. Cheerio. Keep Safe! 49.181.162.220 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Acroterion is an admin and he's supposed to find a middle ground to keep everyone happy, whether they be editors or IP-hoppers, but that doesn't mean he's right. Again, the term " n ative" (with lower-case 'n'; see native), is not exactly the same as " N ative" (with upper-case 'N'; as in Native American). In this case, "native" is simply an adjective, used regularly and often in this sense without any negative connotation, and "North Carolinian" is an equally harmless demonym. The two are not the same and therefore their usage here is not redundant, and there need not be any negativity or impropriety inferred. - wolf  18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing anything here as an admin, I'm just observing as an editor. This is a question of semantics that may have inadvertently highlighted a quirk of language that is not well understood outside of North America. @49.x (since you appear to be editing from an Australian IP), "First Nations" is usually a Canadian usage, it's virtually non-existent in the US, where "Native American" is more common, And that leads to parsing "native." In common usage, "native" without the modifier is never used with respect to indigenous people, and might be easily construed as a slur if not carefully used. I agree with TWC's distinction between "native" and "Native."  I can see how that's all rather confusing to readers outside the U.S. who don't have that context, and we need to consider how to convey that appropriately.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The distinction drawn between 'native' and Native in US English, and of First Nations in Canadian English usage, was indeed not much in my English usage (Yes; being in @49.x Oz). I still consider there could be non-USA readers who would jib / jibe at the 'Anglo-American' ethnicity to be inferred from the main article - it did give me sufficient pause for thought, to have started this chat, and to try to explain what I was struck by. To me, the adjective 'native' relates to Origin (as does "North Carolinian', of course), and where the subtlety of my missing '.. named for Native North Carolinian ..' better signifying a Native American N.C-ian, had escaped my understanding.
 * I note this sentence particularly - "In common usage, "native" without the modifier [capitalising the 'N'] is never used with respect to indigenous people, and might be easily construed as a slur if not carefully used."
 * As I wrote earlier on, Bragg's Biographical entry accords him a more distinct non-Native ethnicity.
 * On first-reading, I found 'native' at best ambiguous, and at worst questionable. In my usage, the adjective 'native' certainly might potentially connote a pejorative. Also, the existence of two Wiki articles - see Aboriginal Australians and Indigenous Australians - hinge around the many complex, still far from resolved issues for Native Australians, as well as for all other migrant 'invaders' of their lands including Bragg-like 'natives' here since 1788. (Also, I have looked at Demonym as well, now.) Wolf, I was wondering what your 'absurd and counter-productive' really conveyed; now, I better appreciate that you were writing about my various comments from your own U.S.A. perspective, including American-English-usage, and presumably a far more detailed knowledge of WHO Braxton Bragg was, as a Confederate Army General evidently having been considered worthy of having had a Fort named for his memory. As a parting aside, his Bio. seems to imply Bragg had a split-personality - just jesting.  Keep Safe ! Thanks both for your assistance in improving my understanding. 49.180.226.106 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am intentionally NOT Editing anything in Wiki. - only Talking here. Thanks again. Cheerio ! 49.180.226.106 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obscure when we have to deploy capital letters (indistinguishable in spoken language) to make distinctions. I will clarify that "native" in isolation, would only be perceived as a slur if the subject was Native Americans. It would be seen as a casual dismissal.
 * As for the proximate condition w/r/t Bragg, "native-born North Carolinian" might be a better construction, though someone unfamiliar with all the above might still find ambiguity. Perhaps better would be "North Carolina-born" and dispense with the "native" as a regional colloquialism that doesn't convey sufficient meaning outside the US.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your kindly substituting "North Carolina-born" would best resolve this linguistic puzzle for me, at least. Very Much Appreciated. All the Best.49.180.226.106 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

49dot: "Wolf, I was wondering what your 'absurd and counter-productive' really conveyed; now, I better appreciate that you were writing about my various comments from your own U.S.A. perspective, including American-English-usage" - what makes you think I'm in, or from, the US? And/or have an American perspective? And/or prefer American-English-usage? You know what they say about "assuming" things... it can make an "ass" outta "u" and some guy named "Ming". 😉 Anyway, I don't really see a need for a change, as the only issue that has been raised is both tenuous and questionable, and of concern to only one person, an IP-hopper who self-admittedly has no interest in contributing to the article (or the whole project perhaps?), supported by his refusal to register an account. But, I'm nothing if not reasonable... so I would support Acroterion's suggested change to "native-born North Carolinian". Perhaps that will finally put this to rest. - wolf  05:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wolf's faded text emboldened for all above. AND I've deleted 'native' from the main article to rebut Wolf's own little assumption about my IP_hopper status. 49.180.226.106 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're not allowed to alter other people's comments. (just an fyi) Anyone can see it easily enough by right-click-selecting the text. It's just an old joke, a play on words from an even older joke, directed at no one specifically, with no harm intended. But if you were somehow hurt, in any way, I certainly apologize, and will strike it if you like. Meanwhile, if I can steer us back towards the topic at hand; if you are indeed looking for a change to that sentence in the lead, would the edit suggested by Acro, that I've agreed to, be acceptable to you? The changed sentence would read: "native-born North Carolinian". It seems like a reasonable solution, and for such a minor issue, I think we have all expended more time and typing than was really needed. With this finally wrapped up, we can all move on to other things. Have a nice day 🙂 - wolf  10:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added note, as this issue is currently being discussed, the involved content should not be edited until the discussion is complete and there is a consensus to do so. I have reverted back to wp:quo, and basically, we should follow wp:brd from this point. There is a proposed change just above, if you agree, then we can close this. Otherwise, we can wait for other editors, or try a wp:dr route. (Which I hope is not necessary). Lastly, I'm not sure how you equate the term "ip-hopper" with the content being discussed. There is no relation, "ip-hopper" is an informal and innocuous term to describe a user like yourself, who is editing from multiple ip addresses. (just an fyi) - wolf  10:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, "[a]ctually, you are not allowed to alter other people's comments". Therefore that Rule logically ought to include anyone's  deleting  altogether another person's comments here, not affecting the Main Article. Having become interested in this topic, I see that the inclusion of 'native' meaning 'native-born' began back around 25 July 2020, last, involving KingAntenor and Doug Weller. Anyways, you Administrators can do whatever you think fit, since Twitter has now banned permanently POTUS Trump. So much for free-speech, since mine was terse but not inciting riot, with all due respect. Cheerio. 49.180.246.102 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)