Talk:List of U.S. Army installations named for Confederate soldiers

List inclusion

There are also Army National Guard facilities named for Confederate personnel. Since the Army National Guard is a component of the U.S. Army, should those facilities be included in this list? Enchilada Sunrise (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Enchilada Sunrise: Our list already includes the Virginia Army National Guard's Fort Pickett. Please, can you identify the other Army National Guard installations named for Confederate soldiers? NedFausa (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa:The ones I've identified so far are Camp Pendleton in Virginia, Camp Beauregard in Louisiana, and Camp Maxey in Texas. I assume there are probably more. Enchilada Sunrise (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Enchilada Sunrise:

• Camp Beauregard is already included in our list.
• About Camp Maxey, Wikipedia says, Presently, the installation serves as a training center for the Texas National Guard, which is part of the Texas Military Forces that exist under civilian control and are the principal instrument through which the Texas Military Department (TMD) executes security policy for Texas.
• That leaves Camp Pendleton (Virginia), which Wikipedia calls a state military reservation.

Of course I'll abide by consensus following discussion here, but as yet I'm unconvinced that state facilities should be included on our List of U.S. Army installations. I'm afraid that would be stretching a point in a way that would implicate WP:UNDUE. NedFausa (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: The only thing I can add is that, like Camp Maxey and Camp Pendleton, Fort Pickett and Camp Beauregard are state military lands owned and managed by their respective states' National Guard. So I'm not sure what the criteria was that included the latter two on the list. Enchilada Sunrise (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Enchilada Sunrise: You're right, this is very confusing. Thank you for raising the issue. Perhaps other editors can help us understand. For the time being, if you want to add Camp Maxey and Camp Pendleton, I would not object. NedFausa (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I think the biggest problem we have with the article is that the whole thing is a muddle of inconsistency. The title is "U.S. Army installations" but the article opens with "Ten military installations in the United States are named after general officers in the Confederate States Army." So it opens with inconsistency, and then continues it by including two U.S. Army National Guard facilities, which *can* be considered "U.S. Army installations," but can also be considered a separate animal (and are, of course, state facilities just like Maxey and Pendleton). The article has gained new-found prominence because the controversy has come to the fore. And it seems likely that some of the people writing the various articles since the issue has come to the fore start by Googling, "Army bases named for Confederates" and find the wikipedia article, and don't do any research themselves to see Pendleton and Maxey. I think the best course of action to fix the issues with the article would be to make "List of U.S. Army installations" a redirect, and have the main article be "List of military installations in the United States named for Confederates".CruiserBob (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I don't think it implicates WP:UNDUE because the facilities in question, like Beauregard and Pickett, were named by the US Army when they were opened, and like Beauregard and Pickett, kept their names when transferred to state control. I know that the overwhelming majority of Pendleton's budget comes from US Army sources (I have no idea about Maxey), so it's not like the US Army is completely disconnected from the names, and it could certainly influence Virginia and Texas by saying, "We're not going to give you money for these facilities unless you change the name."CruiserBob (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@CruiserBob: I see that you propose dropping "soldiers" from the page title. Is that to save space? I ask because you reword "U.S. Army installations" to "military installations in the United States"—which lengthens the page title. I'm curious why you didn't go with "U.S. military installations." NedFausa (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I don't actually propose dropping "soldiers" that was just me not noticing that I didn't include the last word. I don't like "U.S. military installations" because of the whole inconsistency issue - Virginia and Texas state facilities could be argued as not being "U.S. military installations" just like they can be argued to not be "U.S. Army installations". The new page title should avoid the inconsistency by using a more inclusive term that *definitely* includes state facilities, so that we don't wind up having the same discussion in a few weeks or months.CruiserBob (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@CruiserBob:Thanks for clarifying. But since you mention "a few weeks or months," please let me ask what would happen if, in that time, these installations were renamed? President Trump is opposed, but the election in November might lead to a new administration more receptive to renaming. In which case, this page would again need to be retitled. Under the circumstances, perhaps it would be best to leave it as is for another four months. NedFausa (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa:I agree that it's best to leave it for now. Anyone who takes issue with the inconsistency will see this discussion and likely agree as well. In any case, a reasonable argument can be made that all the facilities on the list were US Army installations named for Confederates at the time they were named. In fact, given the past tense of "named for" I think the name of the page should remain unchanged even if the names of the installations are changed. If I were more dedicated, I'd look for other bases that were named for Confederates which have since closed or been renamed and add them to the list.CruiserBob (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fort Belvoir

Why is Fort Belvoir mentioned only in the See Also section? Shouldn't it be listed with the others? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing myself when I was cleaning up the article, but left it in the See Also section because it was not originally named after a Confederate soldier (only when it was renamed)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it is not named after a Confederate genersl, it is named after the plantation that was formerly on the site. Thus, while it is obviously a related issue, it is not covered by the title of this page.--Khajidha (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)