Talk:Royal Marines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

To anyone who might known about the page, the 1761 capture of Belle Isle now needs to be disambiguated, but I do not know if it is the island in the Detroit River in Michigan, or the one off the coast of Brittany. The time frame suggests it could be either, and I hesistate to guess. -- Decumanus

The Bretish one. --the Epopt 14:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Initiation

Those involved in the video of the joining run were not recruits. They were newly trained ranks just passed out of training. ______

Whoever added the initiation bit should get thier facts straight. It wasn't an initiation of any kind. It was a bit of drunken fun as was evidenced actually by the marine who was kicked in the face. When you get lads together and drunk fights will happen. Admittedly this is a bit of an odd fight but...

And they werent newly trained ranks they had been marines for a while (cant remember how long so cant state...)

Craig Humphreys. Not a member.

Official Name & Creation date

Althouth the Royoyal Marines are in fact a corps their official title is Her Majesty's Royal Marines NOT the Corps of.........!
As for the birth of the Corps you will see that one of the memorable dates is 28 October 1664 the birth of the Corps. This is celebrated in every unit, every year so please stop changing it to 1755.

While the army regiment which became the Royal Marines was formed in 1664, the Marines were created as a unit under the Admiralty in 1755. Therefore the latter date is the correct one for the creation of the RM itself, although not for its antecedent! As for not having "Corps" in their official name, a number of reputable websites disagree with you. See here, here, here (an MOD website) etc. -- Necrothesp 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, i'm sorry that this is only a quick reply but i'm performing in London this week at The Mountbatten Festival of Music so wil be away from my pc. But i hope that i can direct you to a couple of relevent web sites. the first is This one where if you look at the bottom paragraph you will see the date 1664. The second is here which is the historical section of The Globe & Laurel website which is the journal for the Royal Marines. Please don't take any offence in any of my replies as this was never the intention. I look forward to continuing this discussion when i get back. Cheers :) -- Bartsimp

I'm not disputing that the Royal Marines' origins go back to 1664 or that they celebrate their date of origin as 1664 - I'm merely saying that technically they were indeed created as Marines under the Admiralty in 1755. Saying they were created in 1664 is like saying the RAF was created in 1912, because that's when the Royal Flying Corps was created. But it's generally recognised that the RAF was created in 1918, because that's when it emerged as a separate service distinct from the Army and the RN. -- Necrothesp 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any credible references to the official name being "The Corps of Her Majesty's Royal Marines" (the links above are either broken or changed, google for the phrase finds nothing at mod.uk apart from some forum posts) Khendon (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I always have wondered why you guys -as all scholars usually do- talk the talk and more over, write about victories but anything about defeats. E.g. as Cartagena de Indias = British Navy major defeat ever. Please do not sweat, ours do the same. By the way ..., Marines you say ?? Sorry mates, you came late. We made it = 1537 . Matter of fact Miguel de Cervantes was one of the first Marines.

Landing craft units in WWII

The landing craft units of WWII are still missing from the article. JMOsman 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WWI RMLI

Why did the Royal Marines mutine?

• The unit involved was formed from former prisoners of war and formerly wounded men. It was sent to monitor a plebiscite (election) in northern Europe after the war. When Marines were needed in Northern Russia the composition of the unit was overlooked and it was sent to do a job that was beyond its means. Jmosman 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The Royal Marines - a Pictorial History 1664-1987" by Peter Smith and Derek Oakley does not mention POWs or formerly wounded personnel but does note that the 6th Battalion RMLI (raised in 1919 to police the plebiscite in Schleswig-Holstein and then diverted to northern Russia) did include a large number of young recruits plus longer serving men expecting demobilisation. Most did not specifically volunteer for Russian service (unlike other units sent there). Post-war disillusionment, an instance of "friendly fire" and casualties in an initial clash were also to blame. As noted above, it was the wrong unit in the wrong place. Ninety marines were found guilty after court-martial, of whom 13 were sentenced to death (all death sentences were subsequently commuted to five years in prison). Buistr 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Insignia question

Could someone confirm whether 75px or 75px is correct for a WO2 in the Marines? In addition, are the officers' insignia available publically anywhere? I hesitate to copy them from a commercial site, despite the lack of copyright on such symbols. Tevildo 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are or were various images of tri-service insignia on the RN's own website. Don't have actual links to hand but you should be able to find them their or on the MOD or other service websites. David Underdown 12:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The crown in wreath is the correct insignia for a RM WO2 30 June 2006 [London]

From what I remember during a death by powerpoint lesson on rank in the British Army at least both are WO2, however the first is worn by the squadron/company quarter master. However it may be diffrent for the marines. Renski 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the British Army, the crown is worn by Company/Squadron Sergeant Majors. The crown in wreath is worn by the Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant and technical appointments. In the Royal Marines as stated above the crown in wreath is used for all WO2 appontments--81.145.240.232 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Band

Shouldnt there be something included on the bands here, i don't know enough abou tthem to include anything but i think something ought to be put in about them.

Commandos

This section:

Commandos

• 40 Commando - formerly 3rd Royal Marine Battalion
• 41 Commando - formerly 8th Royal Marine Battalion (disbanded 1981)
• 42 Commando - formerly 1st Royal Marine Battalion
• 43 Commando - formerly 2nd Royal Marine Battalion (disbanded 1968)
• 44 Commando - renumbered 40 Commando in 1946
• 45 Commando - formerly 5th Royal Marine Battalion
• CSG

Was included and doesn't appear to add a great deal to the article. I've removed it to here, anyone with an interest in beefing it up is free to do so, but in its present form it just jars the flow.ALR 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

The size of the article page is a bit big, the History section is pretty big and it's not my area so I'm reluctant to butcher it. The alternative would be to split it off into a History of the Royal Marines article. Any thoughts?ALR 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A seperate article might not be a bad idea. However, you'd really need to summarise the most important stuff here to give an overview, and provide a link to the main article for those who want to know more. David Underdown 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass reversion

Given the scale of edits undone by reverting all of my edits over the last day or so I'd appreciate some indication of what the issues are? My version unexplained reversion.

ALR 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My outside view. First, please post diff links, not version links, so it's easier for others to see changes made. For example, [1]. Click on history and copy the "last" link for each version you'd like to discuss.

There are a lot of changes made, so I'll have to check everything, but Tashtastic's mass reversion without explaining in the comment or the talk page what constitutes "butchered" is odd and uncivil. I don't see anything glaring about ALR's edits.

To defend your edits against reversions, I'll echo Wandalstouring's comment that you must cite all your sources. Otherwise, everything's fair game for removal. I would be VERY wary about using intranet sources; I wouldn't post anything that I couldn't myself verify was openly available. Furthermore, you don't need to use internet sources; there are many good books on the Royal Marines that you sould consult for sources. I'll post 2 later that I used a paper sometime back. --Mmx1 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Julian Thompson's Royal Marines: From sea soldiers to a special force is a great history
• Robin Eggar's Commando: Survival of the Fittest follows a class of officers through training; quite motivating. --Mmx1 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. to be honest I'm not planning on touching the historical side any more than I have to, not a strong point for me, I'm more interested in current state and doctrine/ strategy. Given the most recent changes are probably too recent to be documented I'm not convinced that there'll be anything better than internet sources. You'll note I said I validated on the intranet, rather than sourced. The most recent C2 change was about 5 months ago when CINCFLEET re-organised, something STRIKE AND LAND are in the process of themselves.ALR 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking it over; I see nothing wrong with ALR's additions; though citations would always be helpful (but this is a typical wiki problem). I'm also not impressed with Tash's edit history. Good job, carry on, and I'll keep this page on my watchlist against any further unexplained reverts. --Mmx1 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "issues" are your changes are a bloody mess. What's "odd" is:

• why the organisation section was changed so 3 Commando Brigade is now no longer mentioned as a separate formation
• Why it's no longer mentioned as the main formation.
• Why its components have been separated and scattered.
• Why there is no link to articles on all the components
• Why Fleet Protection Group is listed twice
• Why the section on it claims it has tasks different from those on its page on the Marines website.
• Why the UK Landing Force Command Support Group listing is incomplete and has no link
• Why the entire section on attached army units was deleted with no explanation
• Why no alternative mention was made of the particular attached army units, leaving the organisation section incomplete and mis-leading.

These are major changes reducing the quality and reliability of the article. Unless these are adequately addressed, further action will be taken and the article will be ripe for reversion. Tashtastic 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Commando Brigade is mentioned and linked. It's role as the major deployable force could possibly be highlighted more in the current version. It is mentioned that RE and RA units are attached, and full details of the attached units are in the article on the brigade itself, which seems to me to be the correct place for them. There is no article for UK Landing Force Command Support Group to link to as far as I can see (it's a red link in the 3 Cdo Brigade article). Treatment of the Fleet Prtoection Group could be tightened also. Overall I would say the article is "better" in it's current state than it was previously and your concerns can be adressed easily enough from the current article without making any further mass reverts. David Underdown 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardly "better" as the quality and reliability of the article have been reduced. 3 Commando Brigade is only given the briefest of mentions and is not mentioned as the main formation. "It is mentioned that RE and RA units are attached, and full details of the attached units are in the article on the brigade itself, which seems to me to be the correct place for them." Again, only given the briefest of mentions. My point was not that it does not have "full details", but that there is not even any mention of the units so that one can either know which units they are or link to the articles about them. That is a mess. Tashtastic 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the solution would be to work together to build consensus here on the Talk page rather then edit warring and reverting. You also need sources to cite for major changes to the page as per WP:VER.Michael Dorosh 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tash, thankyou for your comments, it's useful in developing these articles to use the talk page and collaborate to improve the articles. I'll concede that there is still some way to go, however I think I've structured things in a meaningful way and trimmed off some of the unencyclopedic language, to create a more formal style. Highly appropriate to use a style that Officers of the Corps might themselves use. I'll deal with each of you're points in turn:

• why the organisation section was changed so 3 Commando Brigade is now no longer mentioned as a separate formation

The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to.

• Why it's no longer mentioned as the main formation.

It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language.

• Why its components have been separated and scattered.

The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly.

• Why there is no link to articles on all the components

The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful.

• Why Fleet Protection Group is listed twice

Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that.

• Why the section on it claims it has tasks different from those on its page on the Marines website.

I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'.

• Why the UK Landing Force Command Support Group listing is incomplete and has no link

There is no article for UKLFCSG as yet, so no need for a red-link. I don't usually put in red links until such time as I'm ready to create an article. Although I note that I've wrongly referred to the Sigs Squadron as a Sigs Troop. I've also described the Loggy function as Life Support, that's what Loggys do, I'm content to alter that. I am thinking of creating the appropriate article once I've finished tidyiong up the various others.

• Why the entire section on attached army units was deleted with no explanation

Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article.

• Why no alternative mention was made of the particular attached army units, leaving the organisation section incomplete and mis-leading.

See my previous response, they are mentioned.ALR 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to." I understand what it's about, the point is it's now no longer clear that it's part of the organisation.

"It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language." Actually not, as your mass change says the operational formation is only 5 Battalion-size units, instead of 3 Commando Brigade. It also implies the Brigade is only an administrative section for other units, which it is clearly not. "To my mind.." this is also not "particularly encyclopedic language".

"The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly." Your point of view only. The components are actually separated from each other and are not clearly portrayed as components of 3 Commando Brigade.

"The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful." There is already an article on 45 Commando, so not having one for the others is inconsistent and not very thorough.

"Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that." Fine about the header and further text, but mentioning it twice is just repetetive and of no value, especially when listing it with components of 3 Commando Brigade, which it is clearly not one of.

"I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'." not good enough for an encyclopedia that requires sources. The section on FPG RM from the mass reverted version adequately summarised its role. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". It's more reliable to stick to information about its role that can be verified from reputable sources such as the Royal navy website.

"Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article." They are not marines, but they are also Commandos and still components of 3 Commando Brigade. This makes the organisation section incomplete and not very thorough.

With this much mass reversion and point of view, the quality and reliability of the article is reduced and is now a bloody mess. Tashtastic 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your useful and clearly well considered comments. I note the point about 40 and 42, the artilce about 45 was already written, given that the structural and employment issues are generic across the three then the only distinctive issue is the history of each Commando. Personally it's not much of an interest of mine so I'll leave it for someone else to write, if they feel the need.

Notwithstanding that I get the impression that your main concern is that this article is not about 3 Cdo? I would draw your attention to my previous point on the issue, 3 Cdo has its own article, and is subordinate to this one. The article on the Brigade does need some work, but the two are different topics. The relationship between the two is clear, the relationship between the various formations is also clear, although I'll review the wording again, you seem to be suggesting that the wording indicates that the section is about the Brigade, so I can deal with that.ALR 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your impression is wrong. My concern is about the organisation listing. I realise 3 Commando Brigade has its own article which is the place for details about it. You have changed the section so it is no longer clear the Brigade is part of the organisation and is the main operational formation.

If you are going to list it or its components, it is only logical and consistent that you list them together, separate from other units like Fleet Protection Group and SBS which are not part of it; and list ALL of the components. That includes attached army units, which only need to be listed, with links to the articles about them.

If not, then the organisation section is inconsistent, incomplete and mis-leading. As it is, the section is a mess and not of the clear and complete quality it was before your mass change. Tashtastic 11:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on which bit of this article is about the RM, not 3Cdo isn't clear. The article now reflects that the RM is made up of a number of units, some of those have OPCON delegated to 3 Cdo, the subject of it's own article. I really don't see the value in listing units which are not RM in an article about the RM, when they are more fully discussed elsewhere.

Clearly this discussion is going nowhere, so unless you can present some substantive suggestion I think I'll leave it there.

Regards. ALR 12:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Commando Flash image

Would it be possible to move the image of the commando flash so it's inline with the section about when royal became a commando force?

MedCab Case

This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal case

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Tashtastic ALR

Would any other interested parties add their name to the list and review the suggested compromise on the case page. Thanks, Addhoc 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise

The following compromise has been suggested by Tashtastic:

"The Brigade also has attached army units from the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers:

• 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, based at Royal Citadel, Plymouth
• 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers, based at Chivenor
• 131 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers (Volunteers)

These units are components of the brigade and their personnel have completed the All Arms Commando Course conducted at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines at Lympstone, which entitles them to wear the Green beret and the 'commando dagger' on their uniform."

replaces

"The Brigade also holds Operational Control of attached Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer assets."

Addhoc 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As identified on the case, it's verbose and inappropriate in this article. the subject of the article is the ROYAL MARINES, not 3 CDO BDE.ALR 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's an uneccesary level of detail for this article for an article on the RM in general, all that matters about the attached units is that they are not RM, having full details in this article just gives to places to change information if the attached untis (or their designation) is changed for any reason. However, perhaps the profile of the 3 Cdo Brigade within the article could be raised by having it as a sub-sub-head and using {{main|3 Commando Brigade}} to highlight the article on it? David Underdown 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regarding your suggestion, I think we could also have a sub-sub-head for the independent elements and this would make it easier to find relevant information. Addhoc 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a see also or main to the Brigade would be entirely reasonable, however anything more than that would be overkill.

30 Commando Assault Unit

Why is there no mention of 30 Commando Assault Unit in this history? It consisted virtually entirely of Royal Marines.. http://www.30AU.co.uk

Typo?

Should the word "altitude" be "latitude"? even better would be "... and are optimised for operations in high latitudes"

Original: "As the United Kingdom Armed Forces' specialists in cold weather warfare the Corps will provide lead element expertise in the NATO Northern Flank and are optimised for high altitude operations."

The wording might need optimising but altitude is correct, the Corps provide the UK mountain warfare lead element.ALR 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

I would like to suggest that the history be moved more to the top and the current organisation details be moved more toward the bottom. That way, the reader doesn't have to scroll down through so much content that is essentially "lists" to get to textual "meat". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

info on officers

The information on officers is lacking and vague. As an outside observer I am confused on how one becomes a Marine Officer. Does one attend Britannia Royal Naval College or completed university? --ProdigySportsman 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) the qualifications are 2 a-levels 5GCSEs including maths and english 92.40.35.179 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) RM Officers are trained at CTCRM alongside the RM Recruits, training is 60 weeks long compared with the 32 weeks for recruits. University is not a necessity, A-Levels are sufficient but it is more common for graduates to commence training. The annual intake for RM Young Officers (that's to say, those in training) is 65 with an output of 35-ish.

surrender comment

whoever came up with it, congrats it gave me a big laugh.

Surrendered In Falklands & Iraq/Iran

Maybe some information about the female who passed the commando course?? hahah

History 20th Century

I think the traditional turret manned by RM was "X" turret - not "A" turret. My father was a Royal Marine 1913-33 and 1939-45. --Applesave 14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

British Royal Marine Commandos

my reasoning is the Royal Marines are defined as the British Royal Marine Commandos as you have other countries which have Marine Corps, the Netherlands in particular which also are known as Royal Marines and do some joint operations with the British Royal Marines also if you look on the Marines website on becoming a Royal Marine, its refered to as a Royal Marine Commando. Also in training it is taught that the Corp is the 'British Royal Marine Commandos', the term Royal Marines is just an abreviation for the full title, well thats my reasoning, however if you disagree it may pay just to pop by a recruiting office and ask senior rank his advice there are a few around your area, Idon't want to cause problems just adding what I thought to be correct anyway have a good day Vinaka

Maikeli MB 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not all Royal Marines are commandos (e.g. the band service for a start). As I understand it when the names of other marine corps which in their native language literally means royal marine (as in your example of the Dutch), then in translation we add the name of the country, but RM remains simply Royal Marines. Similarly, Royal Navy refers uniquely to the navy of the UK, with in English the Royal Norwegian Navy, even though in Norwegian the title of that navy is literally simply royal navy too. Royal Marines is an abbreviation - but for Her (His) Majesty's Corps of Royal Marines, not for British Royal Marine Commandos as you think. To convince me otherwise you need to find a written source which shows it. I didn't think about it over the weekend, but I have a book on the history of the RM at home and I'll try to remember to check what it says. For the moment I still think that you are simply incorrect. David Underdown 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to that point in the training?

fwiw Not all Royal are Commandos, and not all Commandos are Royals. The Corps has existed for far longer than formalised commando forces and hasn't undergone any name change ;)

The RM provide the Commando capability to UK forces, however 3Cdo is formed from RM, RN and army assets.

ALR 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you do have a point I just thought Bitish Royal Marine Commandos was the correct title, no matter though I suppose Royal Marines is Suffice.

Vinaka Maikeli MB 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL Royal Marines are Commandoes with the sole exception of the Band Service, but these are not serving soldiers in any case. All Commandoes (as defined by the green beret/AACC) are attached to 3 Cdo Bde. I fail to see the confusion.Bunnyman78 (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RM Bandsmen are still RM, they come under the command of CINC, exercised through CG. Next time I've got bandsmen in the field I'll remind them that they're not serving ;)

And not all Commando are with the Bde, I'd say about 50% of Commando trained personnel are posted outside the Bde at any one time: Fleet HQ, CTC, 1AGRM, UKSF, FPGRM, PJHQ, inter-service exchanges etc. Many non-RM Cdo will only do one tour in the Bde before moving elsewhere. Just because they no longer wear the beret doesn't mean they're no longer Cdo.

It's not difficult, but I can understand why people outside the corps don't appreciate the subtleties.

ALR (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that they did not serve. What I said was that RM bandsmen are not soldiers (they do not fight, they perform medical duties)- they do not undergo amphibious training with their overall infantry training clocking in at only 8 weeks, which would would be the same logic of your argument make the definition of 'amphibious infantry' erroneous. Do you have any evidence for your claim of 50% commandoes outside the brigade? The units you mention outside of the brigade are to my knowledge squadron or company sized. If we were then to say that the RM and the brigade are not the same thing- it would require the brigade wiki page to define the unit as commando role wouldn't it? Which I editted in and has so far thankfully not been deleted. My main beef is that whilst what you say is true, that the RM are not the same as the British Commandoes overall, yet since the RM is in fact the home of the British Commandoes and the Commando Brigade, and run the Commando Course and run all the other units which are dedicated Commando units- then it seems in fact rather misleading to split hairs. A good portion of the USMC is not amphibious trained or capable in any way, much more than the percentage of RM who are not Commandoes- are we then to change the definition of the USMC page from amphibious infantry? Bunnyman78 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I will grant you that Bandies are not infanteers, however soldiers is a pretty broad collective term that's not really applied to Royal anyway. Bandies are medical orderlies and in the course of their filed duties they're still pretty exposed to hostile action.

In terms of numbers of Cdo trained people, you have RMs, numbering about 6k at the moment, you also have about half of CLR are non RM, most of 29 RA are army with a small number of RN in 148 Bty, you have the Engineer Regiment. Each of those has people who rotate back out, either into the wider RA, RE, RLC and REME or elsewhere. SBS, FPGRM and 1AGRM are each about Battalion strength, you then have a company+ in SFSG. That leaves you not far short of 50% of green lidded people outside the Bde. Bear in mind that whilst many AACC qualified people don't wear the beret when they're outside the Bde that doesn't mean that they're not Cdo qualified.

That said, the evidence is based on 20 or so years experience including sub-unit command, but then I'm not trying to include it in the article, merely use it to illustrate that you're claim that 'all Cdo are in the Bde is false.

I'm not clear about what you're trying to say in the last sentence.

ALR (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

By my last sentence, and overall, I mean that it seems like splitting hairs to not define the Royal Marines wiki page as commando since by comparison the USMC page gets away with defining that corps as amphibious infantry, which is an extreme generalisation. A Royal Marine is a commando, apart from the bandsmen, not an extreme generalisation. Therefore I don't see that as being misleading or incorrect to define the RM as commandos, if you are bootie Im surprised you don't see the lack of mention as a dis! Bunnyman78 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

I'm unclear on why there is a motivation to move away from a simple headcount. The Corps is roughly 6000 strong, most of those in 3Cdo but many in other areas; Assault Group, SBS, HQ and staff jobs, training etc.

ALR 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And the 6000 figure is reasonably well referenced. Anything else and you get into the question of what (sub-)units are worth mentioning specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Caps and jargon

Don't understand why military articles on Wikipedia are written with so many caps, for example: "The Course ends at the..." it's just a course, it doesn't matter whether the RM call it "the Endurance Course", it's not a proper noun in the sense of an encyclopaedia. And Marine Bloggs yes, but Marine surely no? Also, as the organisation is also called the Royal Marines, the opening line in the article should be IS instead of ARE which would be better for a group of marines. Any thoughts? Regards. Escaper27 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate the point the edits which I reverted were a mixyblob of style changes and substance changes. I'd disagree with a number of the substance changes, the RM is not a Regiment for starters, so I'd urge caution in copy-editing the article. The point about OPCON is that it is a specific, legal and command authority related, term.

ALR 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but it's written almost exclusively in military jargon, if OPCON is an actual functioning body, then it should be capitalised. What does OPCON do etc? If it's simply "Operational control of the three... etc" then it's self explanatory. As for the caps on the Order of Precedence heading, it's capped up in that article's title but not in the bold intro so equally inconsistent. Escaper27 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Preobrajensky

The Preobrajensky MP3 is taken from http://www.kremlinzoria.ru/media.asp?topic=16&id=5 (Kremlin Zoria website). 202.89.152.202 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian article

Does the content of this article Booth, Robert (12 January 2008). "Freerunning goes to war as marines take tips from EZ, Livewire and Sticky". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. p. 13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) merit a mention? David Underdown (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

30 miler

In the paragraph on this in the commando tests should be corrected as it leads one to believe that only the officers carry their equipment with them and unless im wrong they all do User:Shamboss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambosse (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think someone else might have alluded to this, but what exactly is involved in the process of becoming a RM officer, do potential officers receive specific/distinct training from the enlisted personnel? If so where? I understand they undergo the same commando course training, but do they attend an Academy prior to this. 67.150.59.65 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Understand I'm more than a tad late for this question, but will answer in case anyone else is reading this and interested. To become an officer, you apply directly as an officer when enlisting. The selection process is much more competitive, and the training process is 64 wee,s whereas it's 32 for a non-officer. The training is conducted out at CTCRM though, and the All Arms Commando Course is part of the course, with requirements being stricter for officers than other ranks. Alternatively, upon reaching sergeant, you can apply to become a late entry officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.63.213 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Marines or marines?

If you were sayig such and such is an infantry battalion or whatever, would you capitalise Infantry? Why should marines be any different, we are referring to a conept, a type of force. What about a navy, would you write "the Royal Navy is the navy of the United Kingdom", or "is the Navy..."?? David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it probably shouldn't be capitalised in the lead, in common usage we don't describe the corps as Marines anyway, it's Royal Marines.

The usage in the lead reflects the task; an embarked force.

ALR (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I had also raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Another minor style issue, where the feeling also seems to be that it should be lower cased. David Underdown (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of books which refer to Guards regiments, Pioneer battalions and the like, but I can't claim to have seen a capitalised Infantry battalion. In the lead though marines is surely referring to their rôle and not the title of the sea soldier, so it shouldn't be capitalised? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its unfair to say that "we dont describe the corps as Marines anyway, it's Royal Marines. Many civilians use the term Marines. Also, many Royal Marines describe the unit as the Corp and so there and varitions as to the title. I agree that Marines is a suitable title (Archangel1 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)).

Just because the ill informed do it, doesn't make it right. Marines refers to the US flavour.

ALR (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify on the subject of whether the term is a proper noun (i.e., more specifically whether it should be capitalized or not): When speaking of an army in general it is in lower case.

• "The Romans built a great army."

When speaking of a specific army it becomes a proper noun and thus is capitalized.

• "The tank belongs to the Army." In this case, due to the conversation, the full title of "United States Army" or "British Royal Army" or whatever country is substituted is implied. Almost the same as saying, "The car belongs to John." Just because John's full name is John Carl Doe doesn't necessarily make the shortened version "John," a common noun. The same that "John" in itself is not a proper noun either.
• "I have to go to the john (toilette)."

When referring to a single Marine (as a member of a national naval army), it is a proper noun. This was to differentiate between Marine (a proper noun and a person) and marine (an adjective).

• "There is a sale on marine boat motors at Joe's Wholesale."

The same sentence with Marine would imply that the boat motors come from the military organization. The words soldier, sailor, airman, et cetera are not capitalized because there are only one of each in the English language and could not be confused with another word. I hope this helps! Happy editing to all!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not the style Wikipedia uses. All the examples you give there would normally be lower cased. Please look at the general manual of style WP:MOS, and the Military History project guidelines, WP:MILMOS. In any case here we were speaking of marines as a type of force, we had alredy mentioned Royal Marines in full, the subsequent mention is to define that as a generic branch of service. David Underdown (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The MOS does not (and cannot) override proper English. But this is your (if you will) Marine force article, so do with it what you will. When speaking of (US) Marines, the personnel and the force are always capitalized. Cheers!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On their own pages they can do what they like. The gernal trend in professional writing is to reduced use of caps, see this UK national newspaper style guide for example (see the entry on capitals), and elsewhere even suggests British army, not British Army (though still goes with Royal Navy) see army, the and Royal Marines but US marines see marines. Even in the example you cite it's noted that not all style guides agree with the approach the army is trying to decree. David Underdown (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RMLI in early British Columbia

Just a heads-up for any RM historians here about this but you may have that page on your watchlist anyway. Any further citations I find I'll post on that page, not sure if any mention of them shoudl be here or only on that page.Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of former members

Given the disputed removal, here and elsewhere, I've re-raised the topic at Milhist talk

ALR (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Role definition

Some clarification is needed concerning the role and type of the Royal Marines since defining them merely as 'marine infantry' is lacking in information and in fact downright misleading. The repetition of the definition of the role as being 'naval infantry' as the type is rather pointless by standards of definition too.

I recommend the use of role -'commando', something well-attested in MOD references (I actually gave a footnote ref). Also the secondary definition of 'Special Operations Capable', 'Direct Action', as well as the FPGRM being specifically designed for 'Maritime Interdiction Operations' and 'Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure'. Why these definitions are absent on this wiki entry when they are better detailed (particularly on American forces' pages) is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyman78 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Cardiff_patrol_boat.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boarding_Procedures_demonstrated_by_the_British_Royal_Marines.jpg

Battle Honours

Why is there no mention of the RM's battle honours and military awards of its troops? Gibraltar in the Marines legend needs explaining, and the listing of Victoria Crosses and George Crosses, as well as the two Presidential Unit Citations should be mentioned at the least. Bunnyman78 (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the whole article? The battle hours aspect is there, interminable listings of medals aren't ;)

ALR (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have in fact read the whole article. However on the USMC page there are full listings of unit merits, which in the case of the British counterpart would suggest inclusion of the VCs and GCs (hardly requiring more than a note: "10 VCs, 2 Presidential Unit Citations" etc) since the RM does not use battle honours in the same way as other units this seems correct. Medals aside, there is nothing interminable about listing engagements, in exactly the same way that the USMC page lists its rather lengthy battle histories. The engagements I listed (in the same way as the USMC page) was deleted for being too lengthy, yet it seems rather double standards that it is for some reason allowed for the USMC page. Bunnyman78 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from now. there is no overarching policy about whether to include these things or not. British articles tend not to kick the arse out of these lists, although I do tend to agree with the removal, particularly in this case where there is a history of... article alongside, leaving this article about the RM currently.

ALR (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is an important point that the types of information that 'we' choose to list and define in the majority of British units is much more meagre, unflattering and I argue even misleading since it is erroneous by lack of content. If the US pages are going to mention a list of 19 operational engagements and 10 unit decorations then it stands to reason that the RM should have there lists. Arguing that the RM information is based on another page only begs the question why it is then acceptable that such information is placed on the USMC page despite it also having a history page, and despite the fact that both US pages are much longer than the RM pages would be. So saying that their is no over-arching policy, or that listings are interminable or that the info is mentioned in another article are all countered by the US articles. It is clear by the log of comments made on this discussion page from at least the last 5 years that I am not the only one who beleives that the RM page requires and deserves a more detailed and well-defined catalogueing of history and info. In fact, since you are the naysayer to the vast majority of such attempts to improve this page one might conclude that you are deliberately blocking a proper representation of the RM in the Wiki. Bunnyman78 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The History section was completely excised by a former para, nobody has come up with a brief summary to replace it and point to the history article. Feel free to crack on and do so if you wish. You may want to add your information to the history page as well while you're at it.

I might also suggest that you take a look at the guidance on expressing views on others.

ALR (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I apologise if you see it as a personal attack, I just wanted to point out the lack of continuity between various articles and raising the question of fair representation as regards content. I felt I was following this "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". I think it is a fair point also that many people have been frustrated about this article and have attempted discussions over several years to improve it. Of course, their writing or points might be poorly documented regardless. It is clear to me however that there is a need to look at certain points and without labouring upon them (as you have warned against) some form of change might be required.Bunnyman78 (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If one considers a significant amount of experience and a desire to see my service appropriately presented to be a conflict of interest, then certainly. I don't see that you framed the above as a COI issue though. Frankly we don't get excited about bigging ourselves up in the same way that others do around here. It's a bit chad to do so. I wouldn't consider the talk page to be useful in isolation, you need to also look at the edits being discussed. I had a quick run through yesterday and the only contentious ones were when people really didn't know what they were on about and got their defence commentary from the Stun.

There is a style issue, the key principles of British service writing are clarity, brevity and accuracy and given that I've been trained for that I try to work with it. Structurally; Exec summary, depth, detail. Military writing style in the US is somewhat different tending to dive straight into detail and stay there for a while.

There is also a question about what people want to read, personally I prefer to talk about the current organisation up front and then allow people to go to the history, the MilHist style recommends history sections up front and to relegate discussion of the current organisation to the footnotes. From a professional information exploitation perspective there is a huge amount of value in chunking up the information, moving it to a portfolio of pages, rather than one very long article. The issue with long articles is people tend not to read them, but they will click through to other, shorter, articles.

To be quite honest we had a pretty reasonable article until the aforementioned Para butchered it. I was a bit hesitant to put much more effort into it after that given his collaboration approach, although he has now gone from WP so it might be the time to look at restoring some balance.

ALR (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair dues, well I'm sure you appreciate the need to not get bogged down with the whys and wherefores, I hope you can accept my apology as well-meant. I can agree that it might just be an issue of style that is in discussion. I can slo appreciate the chavish nature of what be argued as 'bragging', but again my personal take (and it seems to be rightly or wrongly echoed amongst others here in the past) that there should be highlights of a few details that do the corps justice. I can have a look at the history page, plus the 3 Brigade page and see if some bits can be brought in here without repeating reams of info. I see what you mean about spreading the info over several articles also. Keep in mind however, that the USMC page has been given awards as one of the top Wiki articles for its style and content. (Now we could be cynical about that) but I am sure there is something that can be taken from that to enhance the RM page -or pages if needed. Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The place to start with a summary of Royal Marine history is at the top of the History of the Royal Marines article which has a two-sentence lede. You could then copy the lede to the section in this article and it would be a good start. (I will be tagging the History... article with the tooshort tag.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin to US Special Forces

It might be interesting to mention the role that the RM have played in inspiring, training, advising and mentoring a number of military forces internationally through history, particularly since the Second World War.Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would really have much use. With the reference to US SF, they weren't really the origin, simply the color of beret selected when that unit decided to create a distinctive head gear.ForwardObserver85 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Commandos not Special Forces

New section for your consideration: Commandos not Special Forces

Contrary to some, the Royal Marines are not special forces. However, it is understandable why this is generally considered to be the case. Firstly, the ‘Commando’ moniker is itself usually applied to special forces, indeed the modern Royal Marines Commandos share their origins with the SAS and SBS of the current British Special Forces. During the Second World War, the Royal Marines Commandos and other commando units were basically acting in a special forces role, and the raiding element of that role is continued by the corps' 3 Commando Brigade today. Furthermore, the SBS are an independent sub-unit of the Royal Marines, and therefore in popular understanding the two are perhaps confused. According to Warrant Officer Phil Green* the Royal Marines contribute roughly 40% of the UKSF overall. The fact that the Royal Marines were the first green berets might also explain the confusion with the US Army Special Forces also referred to as ‘Green Berets’, and other special forces around the world who have styled themselves ‘green berets’. Today, the Royal Marines could be defined using American military terms (that are fast becoming standard descriptions) as being ‘Special Operations Capable’, and able to perform ‘Direct Action’. The FPGRM maintains a role that is specifically designed for 'Maritime Interdiction Operations' and 'Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure'.

• Royal Marines Recruitment DVD 2010 “Extreme Challenge”

Suggested accompanying photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boarding_Procedures_demonstrated_by_the_British_Royal_Marines.jpg

Bunnyman78 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I hate the wording, I don't feel the need to be apologetic about our heritage and role, the US military litter their ORBAT with special operations forces. It's worth thinking about why they feel the need to make the distinction. US Army SF are derived from the Commando forces of WWII, hence the use of the green lid, they get very precious about being called SF so everyone else in the US has to be called SOF. That includes media ops, information ops, civil military relations, all the things that are vanilla field capabilities in the UK. You might as meaningfully talk about how the entire UK force equates to SOF in US parlance. Specifically MIO is not a SOF capability. Maritime hostage rescue is a whole different debate but the majority of boardings in the NAG are unopposed.

I think the section detracts from the rest of the article.

I also think you need to rationalise the editorialising, there is no need to try to work out why people don't understand the distinction.

If you must include this material then try to weave it into the extant material, rather than bolt in an apology. It's more appropriate to have it in the history, talking about the development of the Cdo role post WWII and the separation of amphibiosity from SF ops.

ALR (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SBS are are actually part of the Royal Navy, and not the Royal Marines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.76 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you're right- I realise it is mainly original research too. It might make more sense to just focus on the History page and make a far shorter and concise definition of continuing the commando role and tradition. The history section does seem to race through the post-war years which is a shame since the RM have been one of the few British 'regiments' to actually adapt and keep much of their identity intact, unlike say 1 Rifles or the Scottish battalions. Bunnyman78 (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ALR, MIO is not considered SOF operations in the US military. US Navy VBSS teams conduct those routinely with your run of the mill sailors. Also, US Army SF was not derived from the British commandos. They trace their lineage to the the US Army Ranger units in the Pacific (not to be confused with the Ranger units that went to Europe), the First Special Service Force, and the OSS. Of those units, only the OSS sent people to the commando training course. The fact that they chose the rifle green color of the commando beret was because of all their accumulated berets, they liked its color the most. Hate to go off on a tangent, but misinformation like that does not need to be placed into these articles. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

References for historical summary

Re:Helicopter insertions (first military unit to perform)

• http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/museumresearch/PDFs/Suez%201956.pdf
• http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/units-and-deployments/3-commando-brigade/brigade-information/history/

Re: Active every year since 1942

• http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/units-and-deployments/3-commando-brigade/brigade-information/history/

Bunnyman78 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reserve

There is very little in this article about the Royal Marines Reserve. I could add what little there is on the Mod web site, but that leaves a lot of questions. Do the RMR units Tyne for example form complete platoons, Companies or Commandos and do they have heavy weapons etc?--Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to discuss in a sourced manner for the article but essentially the training units do tend to have a thematic focus, with a unit being biased towards Assault Engineers, raiding craft, etc. Notwithstanding that there are marines of various specialisations within each unit.

In terms of operational employment the RMR tends to work on the basis of individual augmentation, the training units don't deploy as formed units but individuals are mobilised in response to a specific scale of requirements. As an example for the upcoming Herrick deployment of 3Cdo a requirement was trawled in the autumn to fill specific billets with either gravs or specialisations in the various ranks.

I'm not entirely sure where one might source that from though.

ALR (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems they have their own article Royal Marines Reserve Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New unit?

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialistUnitUncoversTalibanWeaponsAndDrugsStash.htm 30 Commando Royal Marines (30 Cdo RM) Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really its here 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the MOD news link said it is reformed.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-formed inasmuch as the UK Landing Force Command Support Group was established as a formed unit in the latter part of 2010 and has subsequently deployed on Herrick 14 as the 3 Cdo HQ.

ALR (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, their choice of words was confusing.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recruit Training

How come there is no mention of RT, PRMC, or specializations etc? Unless i'm missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDarkling (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of smallpox spread by Marines

Christopher Warren appears to be a relative unknown who has published an article in a minor journal. He even says himself that "Contrariwise, several authors – including Josephine Flood, Alan Frost, Charles Wilson and Judy Campbell – maintain that First Fleet smallpox did not cause the outbreak ". As such, this seems to be a minority view not worth mentioning in this article. (Hohum ^@) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This deletion does not represent a neutral point of view. Warren is published in other journals and the facts on smallpox use are covered by many other writers in 'Journal of Royal Australian Historical Society' (Craig Mear) and 'Bulletin of the History of Medicine' (Michael Bennett).

It has been reinstated as it is a mainstream view that has emerged since 2007 resolving much of earlier controversy.

Wilcannia (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

He still has hardly any credentials, and isn't widely cited. The additional citations may at least show it isn't a completely fringe theory though. Balance would be including that others don't share their views. (Hohum ^@) 17:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have tightened the wording for relevance and weight to the topic of this article, and provided a brief counterpoint to include views of other authors. (Hohum ^@) 18:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How would the Marines spread smallpox in 1789 without risking getting it themselves - Edward Jenner didn't discover/invent vaccination for smallpox until 1796. And no one suffering from smallpox would have been allowed on the expedition, which took several months to reach Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.220 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Two of the references used to illustrate this claim don't actually include the claim at all. The third (Bennett) does, and I've left this in the article alongside a mention that others have proposed alternative explanations for the smallpox outbreak. In passing, the claim that the marines were not supplied with ammunition is incorrect - they were not supplied before leaving Portsmouth, but were supplied when the Fleet reached Rio on the way to Australia. Reference now included. It's hard to prove a negative, but the formal records of the colony (any of the Historical Records of New South Wales series) contain zero references to the NSW Marines deliberately spreading smallpox, or running out of ammunition. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No risk of the marines getting smallpox as all would have been previously exposed to it in Britain or in North American campaigns during Revolutionary War where most served. That is why Washington accused British of attempting to spread it during siege of Boston and Adams blamed American defeat at Quebec on British spreading smallpox among American forces. Of course official records of NSW do not mention marines spreading smallpox. It was not Phillip's idea, he was into kidnapping. If any marines did spread smallpox it would have been done secretly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allowrie (talk • contribs) 04:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

How does one 'spread' a disease at a time when the cause of the disease hadn't even been discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.215 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no record of smallpox being spread by NSW Marines, secretly or otherwise. The proponent of this conspiracy theory is correctly described above as a "relative unknown" compared to the historians who refute it. Including this fringe theory in this article is a prime example of undue weight. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"service branch of the British Armed Forces"

user:Amerijuanican, see: Talk:British Armed Forces/Archive 2#The Royal Marines are an arm of the Royal Navy. There was no consensus on whether the Royal Navy is a "service branch of the British Armed Forces" (hence the ambiguity), however I think it was agreed that the Royal Marines definitely aren't. Lots of sources were provided, many contradicting each other, however non supported your view that the Royal Marines are an independent service branch of the British Armed Forces. It doesn't even really make sense to refer to "branches" of the British Armed Forces. The British Armed Forces isn't an organisation. Each branch is a "British Armed Force", together referred to as the "British Armed Forces". Rob984 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120503184523/http://www.pdavis.nl/China2.htm to http://www.pdavis.nl/China2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/item/researching-family-and-royal-marine-history/the-crest-colours-beret-nicknames-and-prayers-of-the-royal-marines
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/item/researching-family-and-royal-marine-history/the-victoria-cross-the-royal-marin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Uniforms

This article could do with some more photographs of the different uniforms worn by the RM. If not in this article, they could be added to the article titled Uniforms of the Royal Marines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_Royal_Marines Dreddmoto (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia

I think the rank of Officer Cadet needs to be removed under 'Ranks and insignia'. Royal Marine Officers are commissioned on day one (unlike Army Officers) as Second Lieutenants and I don't think any Royal Marines would hold this rank.46.226.49.237 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow the sources: RM are part of the RN

Previous discussion see Talk:Royal Marines/Archive 1#"service branch of the British Armed Forces"

@user:Garuda28 with regards to this revert and your comment "Not saying that you are wrong, but before such a massive (and wide reaching) change is made can we discus in talk first?", see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially

Never revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let those the editors who object to it do their own reverting. ...

and then explain why I should not revert your revert? -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus against such a change at Talk:British Armed Forces/Archive 2#The Royal Marines are an arm of the Royal Navy. I could have phrased that better, but my main point is that it appears there is a current consensus against, which requires a new discussion. I didn’t mean to break guidance either, done completely in good faith. If you feel reverting me is appropriate, I can self-revert myself.Garuda28 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@user:Garuda28. Please see who started the old section to which you link. It is now 3½ years later and "consensus can change" (although I think that the the majority who contributed to the conversation before were of the opinion that the RM is part of the RN). I would prefer it you self-revert. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@user:PBS Already done when I realized that I was incorrect. And I agree with you, it seems that the Royal Marines are an integral part of the Royal Navy. Looking through it I was confused by the Naval Service, and its relationship between the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Could you explain that difference so I can use it to help reflect that change across RN/RM pages? Garuda28 (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Although there in much repetition in it, I would suggest that you read the very long discussion in the old section to which you linked, then if it is not clear, I will discuss it further. Basically the page on the British Armed Forces used to mimic the US Armed Forces page and list the [British] Royal Marines as a fourth corps like that of the US Marines. The kludge that was introduced to get around that was to introduce the regather legalistic "Naval Service" so that the RM remained in the info-box. However that begs the question why just the RM and not for example the Fleet Air Arm, or using an alternative source the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service? That is a rhetorical question and I am not asking you to reply to it. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@PBS: - You made a bold edit, which, for the most part, you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion. The reason you don't "revert his revert" is because that is called edit-warring and it's not allowed. See WP:BRD. FYI. - ^theWOLFchild 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• PBS wrote:

  On Talk:Royal Marines you wrote "you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion" (diff). 1.If one reverts a bold edit one has to have a verified reason for doing so. Did you read what I posted to explain why reverting a bold edit because you think someone else may object to it is considered to be detrimental to the project (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially) and see also the wording of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")". 2.I did not revert, I started a section on the talk page pointing out to sections in guidance and I asked was there any reason for not reverting (IE I was following BRD). Reverting a revert under such circumstances in not edit warring. On the other-hand you posting to the article talk page was off topic. If you wished to make such an observation the place to do it was my talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:TPYES) -- PBS 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

PBS - I, like most users, like to keep discussions in one place, so let's keep it here. It's not necessarily "off topic" because depending on your reply, or any additional responses from others, or myself, this may very well relate to the content of this article, so again, best to have this discussion here, instead of having it spread across multiple user talk pages.

From what I saw, Garuda28 didn't just revert you because he "didn't like your edit". He initially believed that it went against an already established consensus. You then pointed out that that from several years ago, and while I didn't realize consensuses had expiry dates, G28 seemed to accept that. Now, how did you guys come to that agreement? By discussion. You also pointed out that "consensus can change". How do a group of editors form a new consensus? By discussion. So that's why I pointed out the validity of G28's revert, because it lead to a discussion. If you had chosen to refuse discussing and instead just reverted again, what would that accomplish? If G28 still felt your edit was incorrect and reverted you again, then What? Do you start discussing then? Or do revert yet again? If you do, the you're well on your way to an edit war. This is why WP:BRD can be useful, even valuable, to resolving disputes and building & maintaining content. That was the point of my first post; to discuss edits, not editors. I'm glad you guys were able to discuss it and work it out. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 00:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hazing

What about hazing scandal in 2005?87.249.197.42 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Photographs

One of the current photographs could be moved within the article. In 3 Formation and structure the section 3.3 Structure of a commando has a photograph of Commando and flag badges on a shoulder of a Multi-Terrain Pattern uniform. This could be moved to 7 Customs and traditions, replacing the image of a green beret and badge. That beret is also visible in the article Uniforms of the Royal Marines. Does it need to be in both? --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the photographs with section 7.1 Uniforms. The current image of marine officers with green berets is also used in the Cap badge and Military beret articles. It could be replaced with a photograph showing both beret colours worn by the RM, green as well as navy blue and scarlet. These colours are already mentioned in the text of section 7.1. --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't see an image in 3.3 (unless I'm making a mistake, but I agree that variety in visual representation as it pertains to the subject is important. A different image for 7.1 could definitely be warranted if its repeated on another section/article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, please disregard the suggestion of 12 October 2020. It has since been done.

Regarding an image for 7.1, there are some possibilities. That part mentions the green Lovat uniform with the two beret colours, as well as the dark blue ceremonial uniform. There are some photographs that show both berets together https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evening_Parade_140718-M-LU710-368.jpg , as well as both cuts of dark blue uniform, here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Mayor%27s_Show,_London_2006_(295199765).jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Mayor%27s_Show_2007_(2073260817).jpg What do you think of using one of those three images? --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

These are all great. options. I think the second one is the most illustrative and contains the highest quality.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Working together leads to great improvements. I'll add that photograph. --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Formation and structure

in the Formation and structure section the attached picture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines#/media/File:Royal_Marines_eng.png) doesn't match the structure listed in the article. Is one or the other out-of-date, or does some additional clarification need to be added? 194.28.124.53 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Women

Have any women been successful in training and joining a unit? It would be good to have a section on this. I know about: 'This month Capt Eve Newton be­came the Royal Logistic Corps’ first female to pass the all-arms commando course.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13580537/navy-chiefs-apologise-women-blocked-joining-marines/ Does that count? Escaper27 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To start with, you'll need a better reference than The Sun per WP:RSP#The Sun. (Hohum ^@) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

For the first to get a green beret, Philippa Tattersall may be of interest, for more recent numbers - Information_regarding_women_within_the_Royal_Marines___201913766.pdf. (Hohum ^@) 18:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox title etc.

An editor has made extensive changes to this article to include "commandos" everywhere including the infobox title and the short description. I am aware of publicity to rebrand Royal Marines as commandos but "Royal Marines Commandos" is neither historically correct or the common name: Royal Marines gets 4.6 million hits, where as Royal Marines Commandos gets less than 0.1 million. Dormskirk (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Strength

Given that the RM's has a current strength of over 6,000 regular personnel as well as Royal Marine Reserve personnel, it's not realistic to use future projections, and the exact figure in terms of Future Commando has not yet been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence and is merely the subject of conjecture. There is also the possibility of a further review in relation to both Army and Marines strength as a result of events in Ukraine which took place after the Defence in a Competitive Age review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3CEB:3B00:7CE4:3F4F:6321:7EB1 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regular strength is over 7,000 personnel 82.24.169.40 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to change the figure you need a source for it: please read WP:CITE. Dormskirk (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Please change the following reference:

back to what it was before a script broke it:

XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Request made obsolete [2]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Roles

If you go to any military units Wikipedia page you will find a list of roles in the infobox, it would look odd if the Royal Marines is the only page without it, therefore I don’t think the roles of the RM should have been removed. I request to revert the recent edit that removed them? Iago4102 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be content to see two or three words which succinctly describe the role, not a long list. Dormskirk (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I feel that several of the roles are too important to not be included, If we make the list shorter I would suggest to keep the following - “Special operations, Raiding, Amphibious warfare, Arctic warfare, Mountain warfare, Jungle warfare, Desert warfare, Expeditionary warfare”. these are integral roles of the RM and also up to date with the FCF programme. Iago4102 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be OK with some thing like "Amphibious warfare" (on its own) but would be influenced by Nick-D's thoughts. Dormskirk (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is “Amphibious warfare” is only one out of several key roles of the RM. I think all key roles should be included as they are for other military unit pages on Wikipedia. Iago4102 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer a succinct role and not a long list. The United States Marine Corps article does not use the {{Infobox military unit}} parameter role. I would be okay with Dormskirk's suggestion of "Amphibious warfare". Melbguy05 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The RM are commandos, they are a small elite unit with a variety of roles, they are comparable to USMC Force Recon/Raiders, not the USMC as a whole, which is larger than the entire British military combined. Iago4102 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The USMC article was an example of a branch that has a variety of roles and doesn't use the role parameter. My preference is for a succinct role similar to the British Army and Royal Navy articles. The role can be “Amphibious warfare” as suggested by Dormskirk. Melbguy05 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The USMC is around 30x larger the RM, they are not comparable. The RM is a small elite commando unit similar to the USMC’s Force Recon/Raiders, “amphibious warfare” on its own is way too vague to describe one of the most elite units in the world. Iago4102 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The lengthy lists of roles are being added by a vandal across multiple articles on (mainly) elite military units. It's hard to see what they add. The current list of roles in the infobox are all standard for infantry units, and don't need to be spelled out individually - as noted above, they could be summarised as either Amphibious warfare or light infantry, with the articles on these topics providing further detail for readers. I'd note that Iago4102 (talk · contribs) has made no other edits other than in regards to this issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the list (again). There is no way that the comments above could be construed as a consensus for a list, so Iago4102 is edit warring. Dormskirk (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

respectfully, what consensus did anyone have to remove the roles of the RM that were in place on the article for over a year? Iago4102 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If I was a vandal I would not have initiated this conversation with on the talk page. The Royal Marines are not a regular infantry unit, they are commandos. The roles are correct, therefore I see no reason why they shouldn’t be included. For example the British army’s closest units to the RM (Ranger Regiment and the Parachute Regiment) have a list of roles, as does the USMC Force Reconnaissance unit which shares the same status as the Royal Marine Commandos (Special operations-capable). Therefore I think it is clearly illogical for this page not to have a list of roles aswell. Iago4102 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nick-D, that list is not standard for infantry units, specifically “special operations” and “Arctic warfare”. The Royal Marines Commandos are the only unit in the British military that receives arctic warfare training. Iago4102 (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iago4102: couple/few things; have you provided any sources that comfirm the RM are "like the USMC Raiders"...? Also, the vandal mentioned above, has been repeatedly adding long lists of every conceivable role to several military units for quite some time now. They do this while refusing to provide sourcing and refusing to engage any editors in discussion. Lastly, per your question, consensus was not required by any editor removing their unsupported problem edits, becuase per WP:ONUS, the obligation falls to the editor seeking to add content to ensure that it is properly sourced, and if disputed, to seek consensus to add. This applies to you as well. - wolf 06:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Hi, to respond to your question comparing them to units like the USMC raiders, yes there is already a source attached from the UK government in the “type” part of the infobox which describes the Royal Marines Commandos as “special operations-capable”, and also states that they take on many roles (special operations) of the UK Special Forces, also all Royal Marines are commandos (specialised raiders), they are not regular infantry soldiers, the Royal Navy website source attached in the article also describes them as an “elite force” and they are also the only British military unit who’s specialise in arctic warfare. And apart from the evidence I provided above, Royal Marine Commandos and US Marines state themselves that the RM are comparable to units like USMC Raiders,Rangers, Force Recon, Seals… Iago4102 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dormskirk, Nick-D, Thewolfchild, and Iago4102: Is there any consensus for the role parameter to be Amphibious warfare as suggested by Dormskirk? Iago4102 in a reverted edit added Special operations, Commandos and Amphibious troops wiklinked to Amphibious warfare. Melbguy05 (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Those roles were directly quoted from official Royal Navy and Royal Marines sources. There is no reason why there shouldn’t be any consensus. Iago4102 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I would still be OK with "Amphibious warfare" but would not support a list. Dormskirk (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The three roles were directly quoted from official Royal Navy and Royal Marines sources so explain why you would not support it? I will not support “amphibious warfare” on its own because it is inaccurate. Iago4102 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. It is probably best to revert to no list at all then as per Nick-D's edit. Dormskirk (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask why if the information was accurately sourced? Nick-d’s stated reason for reverting the original list of roles that was already in place for a year is because he thinks their “silly”, that is not a logical facts based reason. Why are you agreeing with it? Iago4102 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that we will be unable to achieve consensus on the inclusion of anything and, I don't want to waste any more on this, so the best alternative is to include nothing. Dormskirk (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven’t explained why again. The role of the Royal Marines Commandos is being commandos, amphibious troops and carrying out special operations, that is factual information directly from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines official sources. Therefore the best option is to include the information. Iago4102 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

My reason, as previously stated is "that we will be unable to achieve consensus on the inclusion of anything and, I don't want to waste any more on this, so the best alternative is to include nothing". Dormskirk (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Why won’t you consent to official information directly from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines being included in the article?

It should be very easy for us to achieve consensus as again the information is accurate and sourced. Iago4102 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have twice set out my view and my reasoning. I am not required to do so a third time. No one is obligated to satisfy you. Dormskirk (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You said we can’t achieve consensus, I’m simply asking why if the information is accurate and sourced?

If you deny information that is quoted and sourced from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines official websites and YouTube channels, then you are in the wrong here. Iago4102 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not slavishly source material from primary sources; we prefer to use secondary sources. But, I say again, my view, is "that we will be unable to achieve consensus on the inclusion of anything and, I don't want to waste any more on this, so the best alternative is to include nothing". And, I also say again, no one is obligated to satisfy you. Dormskirk (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully my suggestion and edit is supported by evidence, yours is not. Therefore in my opinion at this point the only reason for your objection is clearly due to ego. The Royal Marines page had a list of roles for years, Nick-d removed them without consensus, because he thinks their “silly”, and for some reason you have supported him. I request you rethink that decision and consent to the factual roles of the Royal Marines being included in the infobox. Iago4102 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have re-thought my decision (which was not my original position) and for the fourth time, my view is "that we will be unable to achieve consensus on the inclusion of anything and, I don't want to waste any more on this, so the best alternative is to include nothing". Nick-D, nobody should have to explain their reasoning four times: I would appreciate your thoughts as to whether the repeated requests by Iago4102 constitute badgering. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you said we cannot achieve consensus but you did not explain why, hence why I obviously keep asking you, if the information is accurate and sourced why can’t we achieve consensus? the reason is obviously ego at this point, because you have provided no evidence or logical explanation to support your suggestion or edit, whereas I have. Iago4102 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And your repeated assertions that this is about my ego are personal attacks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What other reason would it be. The information is factual and evidence based. I joined Wikipedia to contribute to articles fairly and with the aid of sources, hence why I initiated this discussion on the talk page regarding the roles, unlike Nick-d. Your personal opinions should not overrule the official Royal Navy and Royal Marines websites and YouTube channel. Iago4102 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That's your third personal attack on top of badgering and edit warring. I am now going to leave it to others watching this to give their view. Dormskirk (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You are a wiki editor who thinks he knows better than the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and UK governments official websites and YouTube channels, ofcourse you have an ego. Iago4102 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)