Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archives

Part of the Navy Discussion Archive 1 (2004-2/2006) Archive 2 (2/2006-8/2006)

Section on D.C /non-fleet units

I am thinking there needs to be a section that speaks about HQMC, TECOM, MCCDC, the Warfighting Lab, etc.... and how all of these units interact in regards to doctrine, procurement of new equipment and personnel management. Any thoughts? To much info for this page? Just a paragraph with other more in depth articles splintered from it? Interested to hear thoughts.--Looper5920 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What Approach Should Contributors Take to This Article?

In sympathy with the above...

Perhaps the real issue is deciding what a person coming to this page on the USMC needs to learn. I think we contributors need to approach this page from the point of view of a total newcomer to the subject of the USMC. Like all sister services, in addition to operational and war-fighting units, the Corps has a vast collection of supporting establishments starting with HQMC, Marine Corps Districts, Recruiting, Reserve Forces, Basing, depots and the like which go into the entire mix.

I suggest we almost pretend we're giving a presentation on the US Marine Corps at a high school, a college or in front of some group that asks simple questions like, "are you in the Pentagon?" "So that guy, your Commandant tells generals in wars what to do?" I'm not suggesting over simplification here but too often in Wikipedia, subject matter experts are victims of their own expertise. In the case of this article, for example, we can almost "Semper Fi" and "MAGTF" ourselves to death if we're not careful. As some others have suggested, starting with this "cover story" article, perhaps a family or collection of individual articles. Such as

• Marine Corps History,
• Marine Corps Organization,
• Marine Corps Women and their Role,
• Marine Corps Culture
• Marine Corps Bases,
• Marine Corps Reserve,
• Marine Corps Geography,
• Marine Corps Schools and Education.

You get my point...Things like that... SimonATL 12:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. Most topcs can be broken out alot more and probably whould not be done so all on the one page. A good article to look at for reference might be George Bush. Most of the sections are just one paragraph with a link leading to the main article that really gets into ass bleeding detail. There might even be enough to make this it's own portal but that is a bit beyond my ability. --Looper5920 05:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• E.g. hierarchically, there should be an obvious way to get from the USMC page to Parris Island, or OCS, or MCB Pendleton, etc. --Mmx1 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Agreed Much of that already exists in lists of units and also, when you look at say, division pages they list the regiments and units unders them and when you look at regimental pages they list the battalions that belong to them etc (at least I am trying to get them all to reflect this). There is some logical flow already and I think we also need to distinguish between active and deactivated units. For right now I think we just need to get all of the unit articles written down to the Bn/Sqd level and then we can nut out how we want the logic to flow. The leg work is in creating the articles themselves (this includes nonfleet units like Recruiting command etc.... --Looper5920 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks El C Vandalization Defense

Added comment in LOgic's page that I created "Your childish "Join the Marines" additions interpersed throughout the article, while cute, from a four year old child's perspective, are of no interest to people seeking information on Marines. The site is for information purposes. The Marine Corps has more than an adequate budget not to need Wikipedia for recruiting. Thanks" SimonATL 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Creation of USMC Portal

Ladies and Gents.... There is so much that needs to be done under this topic that I went and got ahead of myself and created a portal. It can be found at Portal:United States Marine Corps. I think I may have bit off a bit more than I can chew and ask you all for some help in anyway. I believe I have some great ideas and there are a ton of topics to be covered but my knowledge of how to do it is not where it needs to be. Once again any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Looper5920 10:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Example of declining reputation overseas

Maybe this section needs a rewrite but the use of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir as an example of the Marine Corps emphasizes its prowess at the expense of the reputation of Army or Navy units which are nearby is very poor. According to Martin Russ' Breakout and Eric Hammel's Chosin: Heroic Ordeal of the Korean War the 7th Infantry Division didn't show itself in the best of light. Not the fault of the individual soldiers. Mostly good, but ill-equipped soldiers left high and dry by their commanders. The unit descended into chaos and dissolved. It got so bad that right after the battle the Secretary of the Navy issed an order that no Marines were to make public statements about the performance of the 7th ID. I would argue that this is not the best example. Maybe World War I is more appropriate. Where both the Army and Marine fought well but the Marine played the PR game better. All this being said though it may be better to just strike the portion of the paragraph all together. It may be better stated that the Marines are historically better with the press. Interested to hear thoughts? --Looper5920 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To whoever slapped the POV tag on the section; quantify with the so-called reports. The Army, Marine Corps, and British Army have always disagreed on tactics, even back to the taking of the Iraq war. That is not to be taken as having a declining reputation --Mmx1 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the IP user's additions, and added citations to the recognition of uniforms bit. Also, I've removed the reference to the Chosin, as per Looper5920. There was no citation, and no evidence that any disparagement that may have occured was "at the expense of" the army unit. There are at least some articles about skillful press manipulation and corresponding army resentment surrounding Belleau Wood, but I don't have time to track them down.
As far as the removals, I'll recreate the relevant section of my comments from the IP user's talk page:

Firstly, citation means more than simply attaching a quote to a claim, it means to CITE the publication where the statement was made. Second, your quotes are completely without context and don't even address your main thrust. Producing a British officer who disagrees with their tactics in no way indicates declining reputation around the world, it indicates that a British officer disagrees with their tactics. Even that isn't noteworthy, since their is significant disagreement and debate of tactics with the U.S. military, and within the Corps itself.

I fully expect you can find articles generally critical of the Marine Corps, as well, but even using that to try and claim your point is original research, it is possible to find an article, publication or editorial critical of quite literally any subject on earth. Using this to claim a general trend is completely unscientific and biased.

I've removed that tag, and I'm going to be fairly hostile to its re-insertion until there have been substantive arguments given indicating bias.
Fox1 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a considerable difference between discussing the "tactics" and discussing the reputation of the marines for over-agresion leading to unnecessary killing. There is also a considerable difference between "producing a British officer", and reporting comments of two generals, one of whom served in Iraq and the other who is the commander of the British army. I made no claim of "original research", I just mentioned the FACT that there is criticism, from both these officers, and the non-US press. I refer particularly to the major respected British newspapers, such as that i referenced to (the Guardian), which reference was then deleted.

The fact that there is criticism is apparently an unacceptable fact to you, but that will not change the fact, and the section is clearly not neutral.

Unfortunately I do not have time to pursue this issue myself, but I hope someone will improve this poor quality section.

129.12.200.49 16:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, hardly any of the above addresses the issue, but feel free to do a POV flag-n-run. You failed to provide citations for anything approaching "discussing the reputation of the marines for over-agresion leading to unnecessary killing." You found a officer who said extremely general things about the U.S. military as a whole, by your own admission with no actual mention of the Corps, and another who made even more ridiculously general statements about not having to fight "as the Americans" after apparently serving within a USMC zone of operations, and provided zero context as to what the hell that's supposed to mean.

I have absolutely no problem with criticism, if it's formatted well, cited and quantifiable. I do have a problem with editors throwing around unsourced, personally held opinions and collected gleanings from "things they've read" as if they are in any way authoritative.

Fox1 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following claims: "In many conflicts, members of the other armed forces of the United States have complained that the Marine Corps often emphasizes its prowess at the expense of the reputation of Army or Navy units which are nearby. Additionally, the public perception of the Corps as both an aggressive organization and an elite force within the U.S. military, has at times led to public relations issues surrounding accusations of bullying, harassment, and hazing since WWII." These claims are not verified. Unverified information may be appropriately removed under the WP:VERIFY policy. I do not object to the claims being re-inserted with references to a credible sources as defined by Wikipedia. Kelly 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Motivation Cry: Turkish?

The word "Oorah" has no resemblance whatsoever with "öldür", the Turkish word for kill. The root of the word is "öl", meaning "die", but also used in imperative form as if ordering someone to die. But "öldür" is directly translated as "make one die", hence kill, and has no similarity with "oorah" or "hoorah" etc. (kutukagan 15:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

Better?

Fox1 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oorah could indeed come from Turkic word Urr - beat, Urrash - war. Note Russians also use battle cry Hurah. Arman.

There is no reputable evidence that "Oorah" comes from a Turkisk word, it is more likey another Marine Corps urban myth (like the "bloodstripe"). The most likely story is it evolving from the original motivational cry of Recon in the 1950's in imitation of the dive horn on a submarine, as this explanation has first hand accounts of it's orgins ande makes much more sense. NeoFreak 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Detailed History

My main source for adding detail to the history section until after the Civil War is "Report on Marine Corps Duplication of Effort between Army and Navy" 17 December 1932. Its available in scanned TIFF format from the archives of the Marine Corps University. Jmosman 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mess Dress

I removed the portion of this article regarding Mess Dress. The proper term is Evening Dress. I will add a portion regarding Evening Dress as soon as I take a look at the official regulations. There is a difference between Mess Dress and Evening Dress. In the interenst of accuracy please do not add anything regarding Mess Dress to this article.Bunns USMC 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shortening this article

I must say that I agree with the additon of the "too long" tag. It is probably a good time to start forking off some of the longer sections and just leaving a synopsis on this page. The first edits that stand out to me as being easily made are to branch off the history section to a History of the United States Marine Corps and then remove all of the equipment at the bottom since they have a separate page already created for that. Interseted to hear other ideas.--Looper5920 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Appearance section

What struck me very odd while reading this entry is that suddenly in the appearance section, the article turned into not much more than a compare/contrast of Marine/Army uniforms. I found it odd that someone just picked the Army to compare the Marines to, seems like the section should stand as a description of Marine appearance only, perhaps if someone thinks that there is value of a comparison of the branches that could be made into a separate article comparing all of the military branches. I do not have the knowledge on this subject to rewrite it myself to be standalone Marine only (or at least mostly), perhaps someone else does? Katrianya 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational names - discuss here

I just reverted the article to the state it was in on 07:03, June 16, 2006 with the last edit by Furrykef — the version just prior to the beginning of a removal of operational names. It is clear that there is an issue here, on which there is not a consensus — evidenced by the reverts. So, I restored the page to the state that it was in before any of the changes were made. Please, let's discuss it here before making any more reverts. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda names should be avoided wherever possible, this is an encyclopedia. Furthermore, you should not revert when this causes unnecessary redirects. There is a reason why the articles are not under the propaganda names. Añoranza 05:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I had fixed the redirects ... I also think the article should contain the operation names as that is what the military participates in, the operation names are also used to distinguish between different phases of a conflict often. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The operational names are appropriate in this context. The colloquial names should also be given to ensure the reader understands exactly what we're talking about but the operational names should be the primary reference in this article. --ElKevbo 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, operational Names are needed ← ΣcoPhreek _contribs^talk→ 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Designated Marksman

Since when does this type of soldier exist in the USMC? --89.58.6.254 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to the M14 in the weapons listing than A "Designated Marksman" can be fireteam or squad's top shooter given diffrent or priority gear or a certified Sniper depending on the context. It is not an offical billet but a tactical role. NeoFreak 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm .. I wanted to know when this tactical role was invented. Which year? --89.58.6.254 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Post 9/11. Google is your friend, I recommend you try it:

• http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/marines/a/marmarksmen.htm
• http://www.military-training-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=206
• http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20031120.aspx
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/04/mil-050426-usmc02.htm
• http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/8D9E4DD09F7C0D28852570DE00151D6E?opendocument

NeoFreak 23:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to Relationship with Navy section

I've made the following changes:

• Naval officers are not trained by "their Navy Recruit Division Commander." That's only enlisted folks.
• (Marine Option) NROTC is a commissioning source for the Marine Corps; to only mention the Academy is shortsighted.
• The Academy does not train Marine Corps officers "in return" for the participation of Marine Corps instructors in Navy training. It's not a quid pro quo arrangement.
• There are many other medical personnel the Navy "supplies" to the Marine Corps, including nurses, doctors, and dentists. Corpsman are the most visible, particularly as they are most directly attached to Marine Corps units, but they're not the only Navy medical personnel associated with the Marine Corps.
• The references to "bonds of brotherhood" (both in respect to Corpsman and Chaplains) and the reference to the relationship between the Navy and Marine Corps are orginal research unsupported by citations.

In addition to the above changes, the role of Marine Corps DIs in Navy OCS should be mentioned. If I'm wrong about any of these facts, please feel free to correct me or offer further discussion! --ElKevbo 20:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Point by point:

• You're right.
• Yes, NROTC and the Naval Academy are commisioning sources for Marine Officers but they do not train them. They have to opt for a Marine commision after graduation and they are then trained to be Marine Officers by the Marine Corps.

Negative. The choice is made before graduation. Academy mids are commissioned Second Lieutenants. I can't speak knowledgeably about NROTC but I seem to recall that they go through some training during the summer (the nickname "Bulldog" springs to mind) and are commissioned Second Lieutenants as well. Then they go to Quantico for TBS. But they're Marine Corps officers when they're commissioned and when they arrive at TBS. And the training at TBS is not necessarily all done by DIs, either. So the original statement is still misleading from that perspective. --ElKevbo 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is just a lack of communication and not a disagreement. Yes cadets get commisioned out of the Academy but they are not trained Marine officers until after they go to TBS, unlike Naval officers who are traied basic Officers out of School. The Academy is a way of combinnig OCS and a four year university for Marines. Also, yes, they do have the option of going to a Marine prepatory "Summer school". NeoFreak 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not "cadets," they're Midshipmen. Excluding mustangs, LDOs, and other special cases, Naval officers also attend post-commissioning training - sub school, SWO school, flight school, etc. But this isn't material that is in the article so it's not really a very good discussion. --ElKevbo 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're 100% right on the Midshipmen, my mistake, but the point I'm making is that the Midshipmen that go Marine are not trained Basic Marine Officers until they complete Marine TBS, unlike Midshipmen. Those named schools ie sub school are job specific training courses just like a post-TBS MOS school. As far as LDOs I do not believe they are elidgeble for graduate level work at the Academy as they are already commisioned officers. NeoFreak 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to ensure we're both on the same page: ALL Marine Corps Second Lieutenants commissioned through the Academy or NROTC go through TBS. I'm pretty sure that nearly all 0-1s go through TBS regardless of commissioning source but I'm wary of making a blanket statement because I'm sure there are some exceptions (although I'm hard pressed to think of any; the officers that don't go through TBS, such as JAGs, aren't commissioned as 0-1s). --ElKevbo 00:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Quid pro quo means "something for something" or in return.

"This for that" but you get the general idea. I'm sure it's not an arrangement between the two services as implied in the original statement. They're in the military and they both work for SECNAV. I could be wrong on this point and I'd love if anyone could provide good citations on this topic. But on the face of it the idea of a quid pro quo arrangement between the Navy and Marine Corps in this area doesn't make sense to me. --ElKevbo 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, wording. The Navy and the Marine Corps have a relationship based on mutual support and exchange of services since their founding. Sea Duty, Security Forces, Brig Duty, Guards at the Naval Academy, Exchange of training personnel, Corpsmen, Chaplians, RP's and strategic cooperation in MEU(SOC)s etc. NeoFreak 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - my edit was about wording. My assertion is that the previous wording was misleading or wrong. --ElKevbo 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• All Navy medical and religious personnel attached to Marine Corps are subject to Marine uniform regs and do not wear Marine uniforms "emblazoned" with Navy symbols. The only exception to this is when they wear Navy office or dress uniforms and the attachment of "U.S. Navy" nametapes to the from of their MARPATS. Also most Navy medical personnel are in Naval units that fall under a Marine Corps chain of command not directly augmented into Marine units.

I'm sorry - I don't quite understand what you're saying. My recollection of the uniform regs are that only those Navy personnel who choose to wear the Marine Corps uniforms (which is not all of them; I'm sure it is most of them, however, for reasons of camaraderie, utility, and aesthetics) are subjected to Marine Corps weight and grooming standards. I concede that it's almost assuredly "voluntary" in name only for many personnel, particularly junior enlisted. I have seen several chaplains, however, who chose to retain their Navy uniform even when in Marine Corps units. I could easily be wrong on this particular point but my edit was aimed solely at the uniform issue. There was also some uncited material about those Navy personnel wanting to always remain with Marine Corps units. I'm sorry but that kind of statement necessitates supporting evidence. I also edited that paragraph as it stated Corpsmen and chaplains are the only Navy personnel to serve with Marine Corps units when that is either very poorly stated or simply untrue. I suspect the former. --ElKevbo 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find all the CMC level guidence on this subject in MCO1020.34G Chapter 8- http://www.usmc.mil/directiv.nsf/bc9ae2674a92558d852569140064e9d8/6d62f5fbea2cc03a85256850005ee8de?OpenDocument - There is a new directive out or about to come out on Navy regs but I can't find it yet. Like you said wearing a Marine uniform is "voluntary" but when in a Marine uniform Sailors follow the same rules as Marines. NeoFreak 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference! --ElKevbo 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Bonds of brotherhood" is clearly reflected in offial Marine and Navy tradition such as Mess Nights. It's a Marine/Navy POV in a section of the article about Marine/Navy POV.

Ah, then there does exist verifiable evidence of this bond. Great! Please add the references to the article.

I'll look for something tangible but as I said it's a section of the article about POV.

I understand what you're saying but in Wikipedia, as with any other scholarly or encylopediac document, it's simply not good enough to take your word for something. You gotta prove it. --ElKevbo 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That was my point. You removed good (and uncited) info and replaced it with incorrect (and uncited) info. NeoFreak 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The standards for "good" in Wikipedia are neutral point of view, verifiability, and supported by a cited source. By those standards, the previous information was not "good." Unless I'm mistaken, I didn't replace any of that particular text with anything at all - I simply removed it. --ElKevbo 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And added inncorrect and uncited uniform information. I need to look it over tomorrow. Maybe I'll throw up something in my userspace tomorrow and let you look it over so we can come to a concensus here before I make anymore changes. I apoligize for simply reverting without adding a note in your (or this) Talk page. NeoFreak 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great idea! Thanks for working with me and carrying out a civil, productive discussion! --ElKevbo 00:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit needs to be altered if not removed. There is further discussion about Navy personnel in the Marine Coprs elsewhere on the Talk page. NeoFreak 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that my edits can be improved and I welcome any attempts to do so! However, I would not welcome the reinsertion of erroneous, confusing, or uncited material.

C'mon NeoFreak - we can do better than what's currently in this article! There are *tons* of excellent resources on this topic but very few of them are cited or referenced leaving the reader with no idea of what is verifiable and what is not. --ElKevbo 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and this and other USMC articles are on my to do list whe I'm done with the others I'm working on. I don't have time to nitpick over this one thing but that info is confusing, erroneous and uncited. NeoFreak 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you're stating that something is "confusing, erroneous and uncited" then by necessity you're going to have to pick nits to sort it out. I'll take another look at these edits tomorrow to give myself some distance and reevaluate them. I'm positive they can improved but I am pretty sure they're better than what was there previously. --ElKevbo 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Breakout Sections - primarily History

Well, the article is getting quite long; at the same time I don't find many Marine history articles. I've got a lazy summer ahead of me and a stack of books; how about we knock together a roadmap for breaking out the longer sections of this into separate articles?

I tried to look at the other services' pages for ideas, but it seems like this is the best maintained of all the pages. Instead, how about United States as a model on how large topics should be broken up?

The history is a prime candidate to be broken out. Going over the article, it looks like the uniform/appearance/customs and courtesies section would also be a prime candidate. I will leave the latter to people better versed in the subject than I, but I feel I can handle the history (with copious help).

My plan would be to develop a summary of the History section in parallel for approval (continuous prose without headings for every subsection as it is now, based on United_States#History, then move the section as it exists into a new article titled History of the United States Marine Corps. The latter would then be free to expand without concerns of bloating this main page.

I should say this was motivated by a desire to add Victor Krulak's has an interesting (if one-sided) account of the events leading up to the National Security Act of 1947 in First to Fight. While the material would outweigh the existing wiki articles on the period (which are very scant) and would require alternate sources to be NPOV, it would be quite appropriate here. Unfortunately, it would also be out of balance with the rest of the section, seeing as all of the Korean War has 3 paragraphs.--Mmx1 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Looper's already posited the idea. Doesn't seem to real popular, though. --Mmx1 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I will help out where I can. I still think this is the way to go and will help improve this article and the coverage of USMC history at the same time. Also a good idea to take a look at the Simmons book as a good starting point. The biggest issue will be making sure it is NPOV. Hopefully other concur.--Looper5920 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just the daunting amount of work - throwing out info's harder than adding it as judgement calls need to be made. I was hoping to use Simmons as a guideline to expand the History section; I fear it may not be the best resource for basically what amounts to a 1000-2000 word abstract of Marine history. Browsing the web for some ideas. Actually, the Marine officer's Guide has a 30 page history (half pictures...hold the jokes) that would work well. If you are speaking w.r.t. National Security Act and NPOV, Krulak's account would be POV as 50% of any other article on the matter, but as a piece of a Marine history article, presenting the Marine contribution and role in the debate seems quite appropriate.

Using User:Mmx1/USMCHistory as the workspace; it'll probably take me the better part of a week to get it condensed down. --Mmx1 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary Done

As promised, the summary section is done at User:Mmx1/USMCHistory and submitted for approval Notes:

• The guideline was United States#History. The idea was to construct a brief synopsis of Marine history that would introduce a complete novice to the subject and give an overview of the Marine Corps from 1775 to the present. There'll be a spinoff full article History of the Marine Corps to explore all issues in depth, so it's not necessary to mention every name, unit and event in the synopsis. There's barely enough space to mention key battles, and I think Vietnam and WWII still get short shrift; they might be worth another paragraph each.
• The headers are not meant to describe all the content that follows but rather as placemarkers for major sections of the Corps's history.
• It does need more photos; when the Marine Corps History Division finishes revamping their website I'll upload some of the art they have.

--Mmx1 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mission - part deux

The Mission section needs a rewrite. It places too much of an emphasis on amphibious warfare, which, while famous, is not the largest or most important mission of the Marine corps. It's really not a mission but rather, a strategy. One that falls under the Corps' jurisdiction and which part and parcel of what the Corps does, but it isn't everything. Moreover, trying to fit the Corps' early expeditionary activities and raiding parties to "amphibious warfare" is a pretty poor fit.

The entire section needs a rewrite to address the seizure of advanced bases (as outlined in the 1947 National Security Act alongside amphibious warfare), and the long history of expeditionary warfare which gets no treatment in the current version. While not officially stated (except perhaps under "President's discretion") in Congressional acts, the expeditionary role is one that has consistent ties through most of the Corps' history. Marines have been the long arm of American foreign policy throughout its history. --Mmx1 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed but do not discount the role of amphibious warfare. Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare is the new buzz term and expeditionary is the best description of what the Marines did prior to WWI but AW is why they exist no matter what the term we use to describe it is. Take a read of Gen. Vandegrift's [No bended knee speech]. It is the Amphibious warfare that saved the Marine Corps and led to the 1947 National Security Act. It is also an outstanding read if you are at all interested in Marine Corps history.--Looper5920 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It is an important part of the Corps' modern history and is outlined as part of its responsibilites the 1947 National Security Act. However, the development of such tactics for landing on opposed beaches was developed largely under Lejeune's tenure. The only part that bugs me is trying to shuffle previous, largely unopposed landings, under the heading of "amphibious warfare" to try to create a common thread. I see a lot of that in the history section, of labeling small instances in wars of the 19th century "amphibious warfare" and "advanced base seizure" in order to create a common thread. I do not dispute such labeling, only the emphasis placed on them. However, "expeditionary" is a more accurate term for the hundreds of small interventions made through the Corps' history. Amphibious and expeditionary warfare are closely tied, no doubt, but the latter doesn't fit many of the Corp's famous and significant pre-WWII battles: Tripoli, Chapultapec, the Seminole War, the Boxer Rebellion, Nicaragua, etc, none fit neatly under "amphibious warfare" nor "advanced base seizure". Expeditionary is the most accurate term to describe them. I am looking not from a modern sense of "expeditionary maneuver warfare" doctrine, but simply the description of engagement in foreign conflicts as "expeditionary", much the way the British and French colonial armies were considered "expeditionary". --Mmx1 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some more modern documents supporting the use of Marines in an expeditionary role[1], I think the "President's own" and "President's discretion" are a stretch. The "President's Own" refers to the band, not any fleet forces, and "President's discretion" is technically implied from his status as Commander in Chief.

And oddly, it appears that the oft-quoted section of the National Security act of 1947 defining the Marine's Mission was repealed in 1956 [2] - it was sections 206.(b) and (c). This I have NEVER heard before. Digging up the appropriate acts that repealed it but I'm no lawyer. Also poking through U.S. Code Title 10 (relating to the Armed forces) to see if any of the language survived.--Mmx1 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, the language is preserved in essentially its original form. Current U.S. Code: [3]. I'll give the Mission section a try in a sandbox. --Mmx1 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack, the end of the current mission section reads like an essay. Digresses into Truman's dislike of the Corps, etc. Shuffling some of the stuff under a "capabilities" subsection, should be done in about 30 min. --Mmx1 05:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. TheGrappler 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvements

Looking over the article, I think we can definitely get this to GA status and possibly FA (BTW, Navy is rated A-class!). We have enough material, but much of is poorly tied together and many times rambles on. Exclusion criteria, not inclusion are what this article needs. I would use United States or United States Navy as a model for what an article on an extensive topic should look like.

I've taken a first step in drafting rewrites of the current History and Mission sections. The History is meant to supplement the current text, which will be moved off to History of the United States Marine Corps and will be free to grow without constraining this article. The Mission draft is a 1-1 replacement of the current section. The drafts are User:Mmx1/USMCHistory and User:Mmx1/USMCMission

Further steps for improvement:

• The rank structure takes up too much space, I feel, or has too little prose. I would support integrating the "commandant", "initial training", and "rank structure" under a "personnel" section
• Given that we have a Category:United_States_Marine_Corps_equipment, the current list should be purged of more minor equipment (e.g. C-12 Huron?) and turned into a prose treatment (stealing..er..borrowing the U.S. Navy layout.
• Miscellaneous needs to be incorporated elswhere in context or nuked. I've already put MSG and the Band into the proposed "Mission" section. --Mmx1 05:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I honestly have not taken a look at this article in depth for a long time. You become so familiar with something and you just fail to see the problems. Thanks for making me go back over it. As to your suggestions:
    • Rank Structure should be made smaller. Officer ranks do not have to be so big. Would actually prefer if all ranks were made the same size in a smaller table.
    • I prefer to keep the commandant separate. My argument being that the Commandant has a cult like status within the Marine Corps...more so than any other service chief and should not just be folded in with the masses.
    • Agree that a prose version of the equipment list would be better and explaining how it fits with Expeditionary maneuver warfare etc...
    • A paragraph should be added to the bases section just so the section is more than a link to a list.
    • Agree on miscellaneuos section being removed and the info absorbed elsewhere
    • Organization section needs to be spun out into it's own separate article. It has become a bit of a beast.

That's all I have for now. I'll revisit in a bit to see if I can catch anything new.--Looper5920 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll integrate the new Mission and history sections then, and start working on the rest. By integrate I just meant move the Commandant section alongside "Rank Structure" (hierarchically; it'd be first in the section), under a "Personnel" header, not rewording it or minimizing it. It's still distinct from the regular ranks, but a bit more logically organized. Though a figurehead, he is still a person, distinct from equipment, history, and mission. You could make an argument that it should fall under culture, but I think personnel is more logical. The Commandant section could stand a bit of expanding, in fact. I can very well see a Commandants of the United States Marine Corps article; there's plenty of material for it. But one step at at time.--Mmx1 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While reading the article I came across a reference I believe to be incorrect. Under the section titled "Origins", it was listed that Andrew Jackson was nicknamed "Stonewall" after his participation in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. Whoever input this data did not site the source and I believe confused Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson with Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson of Civil War fame. Andrew Jackson received the nickname "Old Hickory" in the battle, not "Stonewall". I removed this apparent incorrect statement regarding "Stonewall" from the article, as I believe it is blatently untrue. I did a search for any connection between the "Stonewall" nickname and Andrew Jackson, and there was absolutely NOTHING. Since the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I would suggest that some sort of backup citation is in order. I will drop my objection if such a citation is presented that says that Andrew Jackson did indeed carry the "Stonewall" nickname. --Tbkflav 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, just my poor recollection of history. It appears the nickname "Old Hickory" wasn't necessarily the name given to him as a result of the battle of New Orleans, either.--Mmx1 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Stage

Have now finished the Mission, History, and Uniform rewrites; I will copyedit and cite those in the coming days (but FYI, the references have been largely "Marine Officer's Guide" for Mission, Simmons for history, and the regs for the Uniforms).

I intend to group the Commandant, rank structure, and Initial training under a new Personnel section, in order to create a neater hierarchy. That would leave as top level sections:

To-Do

(In General)

Copyedit, source

• Mission
• History

(needs citations but honestly, it's all from Simmons; footnotes would look odd having 10+ carets in front of Simmons).

I still think this section needs to be shortened. Compare to United_States_Navy#History or United States#History. This page is already at 80k and there's a bit of expansion left in other sections. A good source I've found is USMC history division's "brief history of the Marine Corps. I'll start cutting once I've incorporated the new structure back into the USMC History page.

• Organization

Flesh out Air and Supply sides a bit more

:Move SOCOM discussion to a section under ground.

• Reputation of the Marine Corps

I'm at a loss as to what to do with this. In its current form, it's a list of loosely-tied together historical events. Of course, any treatment of "Reputation" preferably needs a source to guide it along. I may have to go back to the library and dig out some more popular-interest books (Lawliss's Marine Book, or Rick's Making the Corps) that would deal with something like "reputation".

• Personnel

:Create, place and expand Commandant, Rank Structure; place initial training

• Uniforms and Appearance

:Utilities description is a bit haphazard; could use rewrite.

• Culture

:Needs citations

• Martial Arts

:I feel this should fall under "something", I just can't put my finger on it. Moved under culture

• Equipment

:Will flesh out into prose

• Relationship with the U.S. Navy

:There is orphaned material under "organization" ("participation in joint operations") about relationship and tension with other services. Should this become "Relationship with other services?"

• Miscellaneous

:(will be gone as soon as I figure out where to put the Academy Awards section) - Perhaps replace with Famous Marines paragraph and link to the List?? *Famous Marines needs an intro paragraph. --Mmx1 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on debunking?

What is the proper place to discuss the reality behind many commonly Marine traditions? E.g.

• Robert Mullan was not commissioned until 1776, a year after the Continental Marines were created and two companies raised by Nicholas, hence not technically the "first Marine recruiter", nor Tun Tavern (owned by the Mullen family) the first Marine recruiting post. Simmons postulates that the first recruiting post was more likely a Nicholas family pub.
• The bloodstripe was a common fashion of the time and adopted prior to Chapultapec. This does not detract from its symbolism, but it's not true that the Corps adopted the bloodstripe as a result of Chapultapec.
• No records indicate that the term teufelhunden was ever used by the Germans.
• and a few other minor ones

Simmons and Chenoweth/Nihart are the source for these. Delving into it on the history page at the appropriate chronological place, does it make sense to collect them? I'm not keen on making the culture section into a snopes; legends have value even if they're inaccurate. --Mmx1 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting "Reputation" Section

After some thought, I think the best option for the "Reputation" section is to just delete it. What other similar article has such a "reputation of" or "opinion of" section or article? Even the "United States" article, which has an interesting reputation overseas, is not covered in its article or any related article. Even the article Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States sticks to quantifiable relationships, not vague "reputations".

All this section is right now is a collection of pros and con's, many of which are uncited. And while the events are; there are no reliable sources for their effect on the Corps' "reputation". Moreover, without some sort of guideline or neutral third-partly source to act as a guideline, the inclusion/exclusion criteria are NPOV, and any attempt to create a thread or theme through the isolated pros and con's would be a synthesis of facts, a violation of WP:OR. Thoughts.

P.S. I would welcome any comments on improvements to the article; I am shooting for a Wikiproject Military peer-review by mid-month and FA-review by the end of the month. --Mmx1 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you on the deletion of the section, but there are so many other places in the article where personal opinions prevail in the writing and they're usually done in a positive light without any type of resource cited. Any negative comments are just confined to the "Reputation" section so I would question whether you're really wanting to keep all bias out of the article or just the negative. Thoughts? Roguegeek 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And because we have started a discussion on the dispute of neutrality of the article and certain sections, a POV tag will be placed. Roguegeek 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, since when have we disputed the neutrality of the article? It's the relevance of the section, not bias any one way, that's in question.

Am working on the citations; would welcome requests for them. The positive is also represented sloppily in the Reputation and it's no better than the negative. The question is, where should criticism go and how should it be organized? Certainly a "reputation" section is the wrong way to go about it. I'm looking to other articles (e.g. nations and other military services) and I don't see any comparable inclusion.

As to the issue of deleting negative comments, are these relevant to the organization? The negative comments presented here are individual misdeeds which, while embarrasing and damaging to the Corps' reputation, are about as relevant to the Marine Corps as O.J. Simpson is to football players or Floyd Landis to American athletes. While in the history section there are several instances of the President or the Army raising the question of why the Marine Corps is needed, bringing up the transgressions of individuals is hardly relevant. Perhaps there should be a section for famous/infamous incidents, but really, these events appropriately belong in the history article. --Mmx1 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the POV, outside of the sloppy Reputation section? Because I'm not seeing it and you haven't provided any examples. The Reputation contains POV statements in both directions, but is fairly balanced; what is disputed is not the POV but its relevance. I request you retract your POV tags. --Mmx1 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right about POV with the article. I jumped the gun and haven't presented a dispute yet and will remove the article POV. Can't do it right now due to time constraints, but I'll try to present a dispute in a couple of days for the entire article with examples.

I didn't know there was a debate going on about the reputation part of the USMC page, just saw it on my recent changes page. I don't know if I completely agree with getting rid of the reputation section as a whole. No reputation isn't POV. All reputation is POV. The thing is that at least within the US, the USMC has a reputation of being, well, more elite in general than the rest of the armed forces (excluding their respective special forces). I'm more than willing to support shortening the reputation but to not have a section on the reputation of the USMC at least from a US point of view isn't getting a full picture of the USMC. If I do not receive a response in a couple of days, I will reinstate the reputation area, though I'll try to remove what seems to be overly POV. Bubbleboys 02:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You will find popular sources that claim the Marine Corps to be a more elite force, much as popular sources proclaim the United States as the freest nation. Is that necessarily fair in either case to include in the encyclopedia either POV? It would only attract arguments and counterarguments that it is not elite, in some messy NPOV "present all views section". This section was originally all chest-pounding about the positive reputation, which naturally attracted the comments about McKeon and Haditha. And you will certainly find sources that say the reputation of the Corps was tarnished by them. So what's the inclusion/exclusion criteria? Every event, good or bad, influences the reputation of the Corps, for better or worse. Tabulating them or trying to assemble a small list of the most significant is original research without a reliable NPOV source, which I cannot think of. What other stable article has such a pro/com section? I just don't think it's a good idea.

I think it's better to stick to verifiable and concrete statements about the mission, capabilities, and culture of the Marine Corps that distinguish it from others, than to bandy about generalities. Also, the "within US" POV is too exclusive as wiki is an international encyclopedia. --Mmx1 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The culture of the Marine Corps is also POV. It's not concrete in any way. I'm sure you'll find some Marine who will attest that it isn't right and that that was the POV of some marines. The difference is that the culture is the POV of most marines. The same goes for the reputation of the Marines at least in the US. I'm more than willing to accept that entire section turned into one sentence.

"The Marines have a reputation within the United States of being more elite than the other military branches." How's that sound? Bubbleboys 12:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The culture of the Marines is very concrete; it is institutionalized in things like the emblem, the flag, the bloodstripe, the sword, the quatrefoil, etc. The unofficial traditions are well documented in history books like Simmons and other reliable sources. They are taught at boot and OCS, so it's hardly just the POV of a bunch of Marines. I don't know what you mean by "some Marine who will attest that it isn't right".

You may be willing to keep the section at one sentence, but will others? And where would that one sentence go? It can't be a section of its own. NPOV requires the encyclopedia to present all points of view, including international, Army, and anti-war. If you include the "American" view that the Marines are elite, you'll also invite the international opinion that Marines suck, the Army opinion that Marines suck, and the anti-military opinion that Marines are a bunch of cold-blodded killers. The result, as I said above, would be a messy melange of different POV's with no guidance on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Better to strike the section entirely.

As for the comparison section, there is a main article Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, and a lengthy comparison in there, of which the deleted section was a summary of. So it's hardly like the information has been deleted from wiki. However, in a lengthy main article, discretion must be exercised over what's important and what's not. Description of the uniforms is important; an arbitrary comparison with another service is not. --Mmx1 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand and agree with what you are saying. However, to not include even a tiny snippet on the reputation the Marines have would not really be the marines at all. The marine's reputation stems from many things such as their combat record as well as soldiers who have faced the marines such as the Germans. They called the Marines teufel heunden (spelling's probably wrong) which means devil dog. I think its somewhere in the article but their reputation stems from many other things about it.

How about "Due to their combat record among other things, the Marines have achieved a reputation of being a fierce fighting force within the United States."

Once again, I understand that this is a POV, I'm not debating the fact that the above statement is a POV. I'm debating the need for this POV within the article. The wikipedia policy is NPOV but just look at articles out there, so many of the articles have POV. Such as moves considered some of the best by IMDB. Is that not POV? Of course it is, but it describes the movie according to how a majority of people felt about it. Understand what I'm trying to get across here? Bubbleboys 00:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Devil Dog" tale is a perfect example of why a "reputation" section would be a benefit to this article. Not because the Marines were the baddest thing on the block in Belgium but because there is no real record of the Germans ever calling the Marines "teufel hunden" at all. This is just one example on a huge list of propaganda, public relations, and posturing that the Marine Corps has engaged in for over two hundred years. President Truman compared the propaganda machine of the Marine Corps to that of Stalin's goverment. Had it not been for the storied testimonies in front of Congress and the public relations campaign by the Corps after the Second World War the Marine Corps wouldn't even exist today. I'd say that the Marine Corps, a strategically redundant organization, depends more on its public image and reputation that any other branch of the American military or maybe of any other military organization period and to not include that in this artilce is wrong. The reputation section just has to reflect the role of the Marine's reputation in it's history and not just rattle off a dozen reasons why the Marine Coprs is so gosh darn cool. NeoFreak 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A section of assembled POV is to me, a sign of a poorly written article. Stable articles like United States don't have such a POV section, as it invites instability and shifting POV additions from other editors. Certainly there's lots of material for a "Reputation of the United States" article, but properly constraining its size and organization would be a mess. The role of reputation in USMC history is already covered in the history (both the summary here and them main history; e.g. the Tuefulhunden incident. NeoFreak's argument about the dependence on public image and reputation is also a POV, particularly Truman's Stalin comparison. And by the way, the efforts to fight its dissolution after WWII consisted mostly of political lobbying, not "public relations". And while critics have often levied the "public relations campaign" argument against the Marine Corps, I've not seen any evidence that the Marine Corps engages in recruiting or public relations activities that the other services don't. --Mmx1 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not when that POV has tangible historical implications. The "political lobbying" that led to the National Security Act of 1947 is an argument for the reputation section as the Marine was so popular in the public's eye that Congressmen attacking the Marine Corps were commiting political suicide. Look to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal's Iwo Jima quote "The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years" or Lt Gen Holland Smith's poor insight when he said that "When the war is over and money is short they will be after the Marines again, and a dozen Iwo Jimas would make no difference" as examples of relavent POV concerning the public image of the Marine Corps. This is just the small post-WWII period. Some of the most memorable propaganda in the American mind was made for or by the Marine Corps. Also you have to consider the reputation of the Marine Corps outside the United States. Prior to the Second World War most interaction with the American military by foreigners was with Marines, esp in Latin America and it was this slice of Ameriacn society that these indiginous people were most familiar with. No other branch of the American military has had its very existence or mission put into as much question as the Marine Corps and then had it saved by extensive non-military political lobbying and image shaping. NeoFreak 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Memorable propaganda" and the interatction with foreigners, while true, will need the appropriate sourcing via Reliable Sources to be included, otherwise it's original research. What evidence is there of "image shaping" that doesn't go on elsewhere? I'm sure the Marines aren't the only service that makes up tales about nicknames they're given, and Victor Krulak indicates that at the start of the 1946-48 crisis, the Corps "had no plan or system for mustering congressional help or for generating favorable press support". The POV is interesting from a historical context, and should be addressed there (I've been planning on a more detailed treatment of the period in the history article), but trying to substantiate that POV or to establish it as a "trend" constitutes original research. I agree that the Corps has generally been more effective at public relations, but without a reliable source or definition of what constitutes "effective", it's unencyclopedic. --Mmx1 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is more than enough citable sources. I can see the issue of assembling them to make a case as a potential Original Research issue though, that' a valid point. Look to Vandegrift's "beended knee" speech to Congress for a clear example of how the Corps has used "image shaping" to get their desired results. This speech was a direct message to the American public and Congress. Look at the Marines advertising themselves as "America's 911 force", "America's Force-in-Readiness", "First to Fight", "First in, first out", and foriegners singling the Marines out from other services as happened in Haiti and Iraq.

Is the only issue here providing soures of the Corps' willful or otherwise manipulation of public image and propaganda? If so that is fixed easily enough. NeoFreak 07:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Manipulation to an extent not practiced by other services. Every service has recruiting slogans, press hounds, public relations departments and personnel. Other than a bunch of accusations from Truman and Army commanders, what substantive evidence is there of a substantively different or more prominent effort to warrant a separate "Reputation" section? Again, I have no problem discussing each particular slogan or incident under the history section; aggregating them under a "Reputation section" constitutes a synthesis of facts as per WP:OR, unless you have a source that gives a comprehensive treatment of the reputation.

Expanding the Army-Congress-Corps dynamic can be done under "Organization-Relationship with other Services", in a more constrained treatment without opening the door to every pro or con people want to throw in.--Mmx1 07:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the precedent was set here by Truman's comparison of the Corps' propaganda machine to that of Stalin's and his statement (and somewhat of a backpeddling) that it was his "feeling that many of the renewed pleas for such representation are the result of propaganda inspired by individuals who may not be aware of the best interests of our Defense Establishment as a whole, and it was this feeling which I was expressing to Mr. McDonough." Also a paper by Marine Maj Holihan for the United States Army Command and General Staff College with particular attention to Chapter I, sections A & B. Former Marine General Smedley Butler makes this point as well in War is a Racket. This is not an unprecedented concept and this is just the tip of the iceburg. NeoFreak 08:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Butler's socialist rantings after retirement have to do with the Corps? Again, the POV. Truman's hot-headed comment is an interesting historical note, but how relevant is it to the Corps today? Maj. Holihan's paper is not about Marine history, but cold weather warfare, and his 1-paragraph treatment of the subject of Marine PR, while concise, is a simplified version of the events. As Victor Krulak describes in First to Fight, there wasn't significant "indignant uproar" from the country, and the fight for relevance continued past the 1948 National Security Act, with the aid of several strong supporters in Congress, including Carl Vinson. This is exactly what I see happening: A section built out of plucked quotations, e.g. "Murtha says the incident will be damaging to the Corps's reputation", providing ground for original synthesis of facts. --Mmx1 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that you dismiss one of the most decorated, experienced and senior Marine Corps' Generals positions because of his poiltical leanings. I'd say that they are entirely relevant at the very least as a dissenting opinion in an organization that frowns on dissent. Truman's "intresting historical note" is applicable because it is a response of frustration by the President of the United States over his inability to push through reforms of the Marine Corps due to grassroots support of them and their image. Maj Holihan's paper was published by the Command and Staff College and is a reflection of how the Corps and the public view the Marines. These are just a few examples of how the Marines' reputation has had a real, observable effect on it, the country, national leadership and military reform. I don't understand your inclination to dismiss this material. If you could provide examples of how this isn't the case maybe I would understand your position a little better. NeoFreak 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws in trying to construct a relationship where there is none. "Reputation" is a nebulous concept and to demonstrate a "real, observable effect" you need more concrete examples than that, or it constitutes original research. It is wrong to attribute things to vague things like "reputation" when specific human actions drive events. It wasn't the "reputation" of the Marine Corps that magically saved the Corps in 1948, it was active and concerted lobbying efforts by Marine leadership that swayed Congress. Reputation is an influence, but its extent is a debate for historians, not encyclopedians. What wiki deals with are verifiable facts; human actions are verifiable; the impact of "reputation", less so.

As for Smedley Butler, I'm not obligated to take stock of his political beliefs merely because of his battle honors. War is a Racket is not a a "dissenting opinion" on the Marine Corps, it is a pacifist view of the entire military-industrial complex. It doesn't even mention the Marine Corps by name in the piece. What does he say that doesn't equally apply to the Army? Where does the "reputation of the Marines" even play a role in that screed?

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill of Maj. Holihan's paper, its aim is to establish that The Marine Corps must be able to identify, deal with and solve the large unit level sanitation and hygiene problems which exist when conducting military operations in cold weather environment.; it is not a history paper and does not treat the "reputation of the Marines" except to use the line in every clime and place as a literary intro to his paper. --Mmx1 09:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Results of peer review; please insert thoughts on ways to address

• More citations

• adding as I see fit

• Shrink size, breakout?

• Will copyedit for brevity; I think uniforms can be tightened up, especially as there's a main article. Capabilities seems long and should be tightented (my fault, I wrote that). I don't see any prime breakout candidates; culture and traditions might be but the lack of reliable sources makes it difficult to expand.

• Expand famous Marines

Will do; but I can't think of any citations that would be apropos, except sources confirming each as a Marine? I suppose that's a possibility.

• Lists

Now this I'm not convinced is a liability, since their use here is not simply for a list but to denote hierarchical levels. The short lists (the 4 Divisions/ Air Wings/MLG's/uniforms) could certainly be prosified but I see no benefit to; nor a need to tabulate it. The long list of ground unit is best as a list, I think. It's hierarchical, but contains a lot of dissimilar data, so it makes for a poor table. I think tables with a "Notes" column are not particularly useful. --Mmx1 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of quick thoughts on shortening this thing. The uniform section need to be one paragraph or two at the most with just one picture. The info has it's own article so should not be dealt with in such great depth as it is here. Uniforms are not that important as to rate all the sapce given them here. Another section that needs to be spun off is the info under the organization section. Keep the 1st organization paragraph and the info regarding the MARFORs and MEFs and explain the MAGTF concept and then all of the other info regarding the ACE, GCE, CSSE and structure of Wings, Groups, Companies, Battalions and Regiments should be spun off into a new page titled Oragaization of the United States Marine Corps or something similiar. Just my thoughts.--203.10.224.59 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier up on the talk page (now archived), there'd been a request for more on the uniform than just a Marine in Blues. I do think the blues, greens, and utilities should all be pictured. Short of finding a good composite of all three uniforms, I think it's helpful to have the official plates of all 3 there; I would agree with removing the "A/B/C/D classification" as it's not that important, but it fleshes out the text acompanying the photos. Perhaps put them in a side by side table? How do you feel about deleting the Army comparison? (I'd tried to delete it but it was challenged).

I like the organization idea. There's already a lot of content at the MAGTF article; but that's not really the right place to discuss ACE/GCE/CSSE structure. --Mmx1 04:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I realize that it was requested but all that is needed on this page is a paragraph explaining the different uniforms with one picture, pick any of them. Look at the overall context. Are the uniforms one of the most important things about the Marine Corps?? Absolutely not, a nice to have but it is a warfighting organization. It should mentioned and then refer to the larger article. Actually the MAGTF article would be the perfect place to expand on the ACE, GCE and CSSE as this is where they are drived from. That being said and Organization article will be required. --Looper5920 06:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I just think the fireteam->division chart and the like belongs in an organizational article, not the MAGTF, hence the statement.

As far as uniforms, I believe that the section is more than about explaining uniforms; is also about explaining what Marines look like. That is, after all, the purpose of the uniform, to distinguish Marines from other servicemembers. I know I deleted "appearance" from the section header to be pedantic (and it is a rather unencyclopedic title), but I still think that's a main justification for including the plates. Editors familiar with Marines take this for granted, but nowhere else on the page are Marines clearly depicted (there's a portrait of Commandant Hagee and some obscured action shots), so without them, a general reader would have a hard time figuring out just what a Marine looks like. I find this far more relevant to the general reader than the rank insignia. If you don't know what a uniform even looks like, rank insignia mean little to you. I'm now thinking about how we might simplify the rank insignia section and move some of the information elsewhere.

I pruned out most of the uniform detailing about varieties, but I still think it's useful to have all three uniforms clearly depicted. I agree the text is still overkill, but I think the plates should stay. The MARPAT plate doesn't work so well at this size; I'd like to replace it with a picture of a single Marine. --Mmx1 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Implementing the Organization fork; this wil make the History section by far the largest section and will probably warrant another pruning. --Mmx1 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also just discovered the United States Marine Corps officer rank insignia and United States Marine Corps enlisted rank insignia articles (which frankly should be updated with material from this page. However, I'm finding it hard to justify forking the content as it currently is only a (big) table and a few paragraphs; I don't see much to justify breaking out to a separate article. Is there perhaps an abbreviated version of the rank insignia tables we could use for this main article, and devote the full details on the subarticles? --Mmx1 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick Q for you military history experts

Did the Marines see any action in the European Theater in WWII, or were they just assigned to the Pacific Theater? jengod 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• There was a small cadre of Marines that observed/advised during the North African and Normandy invasions but really did not take part in any fighting. There was a project in 1944, codenamed "Jenny", where Marine F4U Corsair pilots were trained for attacking V-1 rockets hitting London. They were going to deploy to England but it was eventually called off as the generals decided it would be better to take attack the launch sites in Germany using ground forces all ready on the ground in Europe. All this being said, it is safe to say that there were no Marine Forces in the European Theater.--Looper5920 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you very very much. Best wishes. jengod 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests

I'm removing the "JAG leads ambush counter-attack" bit. I've heard this story several times and it's a great illustration of the "every Marine is a rifleman" concept, but I can't for the life of me find a reference on google news, google, or MCNews. Removing until it can be sourced, or a similar example provided. Perhaps the Wake Island example is sufficient. --Mmx1 02:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also requesting a citation for the withdrawl of Marines as security detachments from Navy ships. --Mmx1

Note regarding reversions of recent history As this is a history subsection, I'm trying to keep the section headers to a minimum as there's already too many. Grouping OIF and OEF under GWOT is an editorial decision; as this is about Marine history, the term used by the Marines is apropos here. Similarly, my editorial decision is that Gulf War doesn't warrant a section title. Also reworded out the POV "central to" and "combat conditions seen only rarely since the Vietnam War". Geez, more Marines died in Lebanon than the Gulf. New wording sticks to facts of a) Marines forming brunt of initial Desert Shield forces (could be worded better), and liberating Kuwait. That they pinned down Iraqi forces by their presence strays a bit into POV and while not inadmissible, concern for length makes it redundant. Again, direct all clarifications and full explanations to the main History article.--Mmx1 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Verification requested list

Having trouble sourcing these reliably:

• In 1997, the Marine Corps changed how it structured the training of female recruits. Prior to the change, female recruits trained at Parris Island two weeks longer than their male counterparts, but did not train in the MCT program. Afterwards, their training at Parris Island was consistent with male training and Camp Lejeune expanded MCT to encompass female Marines.
• The German soldiers used the "Hurra" as a battle cry in WWI. (is this really necessary to this article? Add to MCT or SOI article, I say).
• In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers nicknamed the Marines "Angels of Death." Haitians called Marines participating in relief operations "whitesleeves" because of the way they roll up the sleeves of their utility uniform, colloquially called "cammies." In Somalia, they were referred to as "The Devils in black boots," due to their rapid deployment preventing them from acquiring desert boots.
• This nicknaming extends to the Corps itself. The acronym 'USMC' is regularly reworked into "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children," or sometimes the "University of Science, Music, and Culture." Similarly, the word "Marines" is jokingly said to be an acronym for "My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment, Sir!" Even Marines themselves have semi-derogatory nicknames for their Corps, with Marines during the Vietnam era labeling it "The Crotch" and Cold War era Marines preferring "The Suck."

--Mmx1 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of these may simply be anecdotal and therefore difficult to source as well as we might like. From my personal experience, "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" was quite well-known among Marines. Can't vouch for the rest. I'll see what I can turn up. — ripley/talk 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Serving in joint units and aboard ship, I've heard the old "My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment" (without the "sir") plenty of times. I'm sure it's documented on unofficial sites like chat rooms, blogs, and whatnot (as well as "Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential") but I'm sure it's not in any DoD manuals and it doesn't really lend itself to a story in Newsweek.

I find the bit about the Iraqis doubtful; seems more like what an American would like to think they would have said. Secular Iraqis wouldn't bother with the religious imagery, Christians don't have an angel of death, and most Muslims wouldn't cheapen their religion that way. We don't give our enemies glorious, supernatural nicknames, and neither do they. The typical Arabic name for Marines basically translates to "infantry of the sea", and the Iraqis I've known have used that. Kafziel 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood; I'm trying to satisfy WP:V to get this to featured article status, which is why I'm taking a stricter interpretation than is ususally followed. Going through featured articles and successful FA candidates, they typically cite close to every other sentence. I've myself heard both interpretations of Marine as an acronym, but finding a reliable source is difficult, googling turns up blogs and what not (though I managed to find "Semper Fi, Mac" in an MCA FAQ). The best bet, I would say, would be someone's memoirs. Maybe Jarhead or Generation Kill, less formal depictions of young Marines. As for the nicknames from adversaries, that's probably an apocryphal story. --Mmx1 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll flip through a few books and see what I can find, too. There might be something in "Boot" or "Force Recon Diary" that might help. Kafziel 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I see you've got an FA and a few GA's under your belt. Would appreciate any directions or feedback on the status of this article. --Mmx1 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at this point published memoirs are probably best. I think I still have Jarhead at home, but I don't recall off the top of my head whether any of these terms were addressed. — ripley/talk 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of Marines being called "Black Boots" due to the Marine Corps not procuring desert boots in time for Desert Storm, and it was a way the Iraqis distiguished between Marines and Army soldiers, due to cammies being exactly the same. Gelston 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedman's "Corps Business: The 30 Management Principles of the U.S. Marines" sources the Haitian "whitesleeves" comment. Putting it back in under "uniform".--Mmx1 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Marine Corps ball/birthday celebration traditions?

Is there an article on the Marine Corps ball/birthday celebration traditions? Probably this wouldn't warrant its own article, but maybe some additions to this article. —Kenyon (t·c) 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Reference: [4] —Kenyon (t·c) 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It could certainly in time do with its own article; but for now I'll put in a paragraph under the culture. --Mmx1 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • is considered
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Replies:

• Relative time periods. It is used in this article in the context of "Most recently, " as a transition to finish the timeline detailed in the history, not as a replacement for an indication of time, which is also given. This statement may be made obsolete if/when Bush decides to invade another country, and it can be updated then, but it is good practice to provide transitions rather than clinically stating years - this is, after all, prose, not a list. Quality of prose trumps attempting to accomodate future changes.
  • There are several sports where "currently" is not needed at all, and a few more where "as of 2006" could be used instead. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you really want to pick nits, there's only one use of "currently" remaining, to describe the current event of Conway's promotion to Commandant. "As of 2006" indicates some doubt that his billet will change prior to his promotion. --Mmx1 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Concise Captions addressed
• No apropos infobox for military services (as opposed to militaries). There is a nav box in the works. User:Mmx1/Sandbox (started by Looper).
• WP:MOSNUM addressed
• Date links addressed
• Interlanguage Links addressed
• Long TOC This is a long article.
  • The personell section has several very short pargraphs under headers, can this be refactored?
• Summary Style Already done. There are 11 Main articles which are summarized here. 12 if we make the Commandant a link.
  • Re-read what summary style is. The history section should be shortend. If there is an article on it than only 1-2 paragraphs should be in this article. To me this article isnt currently compelling because some sections are so big, you get bored and exit.

Nowhere does it say that a summary needs to be 1-2 paragraphs. It states "several", and for history, it is difficult to summarize so generally without running afoul of the "synthesis" portion of WP:OR. The precedent is for lengthy "summaries" of history, e.g. United States. Could the history be shorter, yes. But length is a guideline, WP:OR is a policy. --Mmx1 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weasel words All uses are cited, not in dispute, and clear from the sentence context (in all cases, the USMC is the subject of the verb). The ommission is merely for the sake of smoother prose.
• Footnotes addressed.
• Redundancies and Copyediting I've read Tony1's exercises.--Mmx1 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

I have put this template together for use on some USMC pages but before I use it I wanted to make it available for all to see and make any appropratie changes. Please add, delete, hack or whatever as you see fit, and once we come to a consensus I think this will be a good addition to a few USMC pages. Cheers--Looper5920 12:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I like templates like this better when they're set up horizontally. When they're vertical like this one, they have to go either on the right or left side of the article, and the placement tends to screw with section headers and leave a lot of blank space in the text. When they're horizontal, they can go at the bottom of the page without disturbing anything. Kafziel 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If setup in the top, it would go alongside the whitespace along the ToC. The intro would be crammed a bit, but not significantly. So far the biggest problem is the length of "Marine Forces Special Operations Command", which sets the width of the box. I'm tempted to break with convention and just turn it into an acronym. --Mmx1 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It would fit well at the top of this one since the TOC is so huge, but I assumed it was intended to be used on other USMC articles, too. Not all of them have that much white space. For example, if used in Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, which has a short TOC, it would create a big gap and throw off the pictures that follow. Or if used in I Marine Expeditionary Force, which already has a big infobox, it would either show up next to the other one and squash the text, or create a lot of white space at the end. If it's laid out horizontally, it can go at the end without disrupting the other sections. Kafziel 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was really only thinking of using it here because of the huge ToC. I do like the idea of a template at the bottom of the page if anyone if willing to take a crack. This was just something to try. If no one likes it then no worries, scrap it. I am not trying to jam this down anyone's throat. --Looper5920 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Any way to stick Flag of the United States Marine Corps? into this since it uses the flag. Also what about the seal? - Tutmosis 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what you're seeing, but this template is using the flag as the header image. It's not so much an infobox as a navbox, and I think it could go under the seal. Or we could go the U.S. Navy route and use the seal in place of the flag. --Mmx1 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1...I thought I saw another version of this template in your sandbox. Any chance of getting that one up here. I remember it being much better than this one?--Looper5920 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took yours and reordered some of the entries. Here it is below --Mmx1 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

I just fixed a capitalization. I like this one and am in favor of adding it.--Looper5920 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mmx1 but I ment shouldn't there be the link to Flag of the United States Marine Corps in this template? seems pretty relevant to me. - Tutmosis 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I see no reason to not convert this into a template and start inserting it into articles. - Tutmosis 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections (I'll give it a day or so) I'd like to put the template on the page using the USMC seal and replace the stand alone seal that is currently there. I also made a few changes to clean it up a bit. Let me know.--Looper5920 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Converted to template, Template:US Marine Corps. --Dual Freq 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Naval Installations

I removed the portion that stated Marines guard naval installations. The Navy has it own guard force and in many times hire civilian guards to provide security for their bases and stations.Bunns USMC 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The info should be put back into the article as it was correct. Marine Corps Security Forces guard Naval Installations such as the nuclear sub bases in Bremerton, Washington, Rota, Spain and Kings Bay, Georgia. --Looper5920 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Marine Corps do guard some naval installations. "SOME, NOT ALL." So no the statement needs to stay out of the article.Bunns USMC 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article didn't say they guarded all naval installations, just that they guard naval installations. Which they do. Kafziel ^Talk 15:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Warrant officers

I'm a PFC fresh from MOS school... Maybe I just don't rate it yet, but my platoon commander at MOS was a CWO3, and we always addressed him as "sir", along with a sharp salute when appropriate, and so did the NCOs and staff NCOs. Never as "warrant" or "warrant officer". I talked to a few fleet Marines doing lat moves while I was there, and they said they hadn't head of this, either; they said warrant officers and CWOs are treated the same as officers, e.g., we call them "sir" and salute. (Pardon if I'm editing in the wrong place, on my sidekick at the moment, limited functionality here.) --216.220.208.233 Cuervo 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We saluted them and said "sir" usually, but did say "warrant" or "warrant officer" in the workplace. Joe I 07:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It goes along with calling GySgts Gunnys and all that. There is the proper greeting, which would be sir for a warrant officer, and the informal greeting, with the most common one being Gunner.(Even though they WO/CWO isn't actually a Gunner.. One of my peeves actually.) Warrant Officers in any branch of the US Armed Forces rate the same things as regular officers. They go to the Officer's Club, vice the Enlisted Club. The go to the officer's Birthday Ball, vice the Enlisted Birthday Ball, etc. hope that sort of clears things up devil.Gelston 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at this again, I think what it means is that warrant officers are called such by those that outrank them in a formal environment. (As a captain would call a 1st Lieutenant, Lieutenant.) Lower ranking would , formally, call them sir. This should probably be cleared up a little in the article.Gelston 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to go, that makes more sense. Thanks --Johnny (Cuervo) 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Warrant Officers, I've added WO1 back into the rank table. Someone took it a few edits ago, with no explaination. This is still a rank which exist within the USMC. Gelston 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One big ad

And no one feels this whole article feels more like a huge advertisement for joinning the marines rather than an actual article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.169.90 (talk) 22:07, November 1, 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 11:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that this article is a Wikipedia:Featured article. As such, it has been extensively reviewed. Any major changes to the article should be discussed on this talk page, and consensus should be reached on such changes. — ERcheck (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy 231st

Happy Birthday from Iraq. Semper Fidelis. Gelston 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for spam, please restrict this kind of drek to your own userpage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.131 (talk • contribs) 02:27, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Thanks! Gelston 07:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Marine. USMCAirstrike 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

GWoT?

I noticed someone recently changed the Global War on Terrorism section to Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts. Is there any actualy consensus on what this section should be called? They DO both fall within GWoT (Budget-wise and politically wise, and before the individual campaign ribbons for both places, there was only the GWoT- Expeditionary.) Gelston 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

GWoT is only an all encompassing PR term that has been used since pre 1950s, campaigns were Afghanistan and Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.131 (talk • contribs) 02:26, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the GWoT Wikipedia page. Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters within a overall campaign, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism_-_Theaters_of_operation. You may consider it a PR term, but I think we'll need a consensus before we can go with a specific name. I'm going to revert it back to its original name in a few days if no one else replies to this. Gelston 12:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest that article has only the most tenuous grasp on truth(just look at the Iran segment), remember just because something is on wikipedia doesn't make it truth. Despite it's name, the 'war on terrorism' is term of policy, not an actual war(and incidentally nothing to do with terrorism either). Both the Iraq & Afghanistan campaigns may be affiliated with this policy but they are clearly seperate actions. To say otherwise is POV(this means Point Of View) due to pandering to the white house PR(Public Relations) line relating to that term of policy. 81.152.196.46 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Seriously, it's extremely difficult to understand what you're trying to say when you use inconsistent capitalization, unexplained abbreviations, and poor/incorrect grammar. Please consider using grammatically correct standard English if you're going to communicate with editors in the English version of Wikipedia. Apologies if English is your second (or third or fourth...) language (but I don't think that's the case)! --ElKevbo 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is all your own opinion, therefore POV. Even the money from the USMC to pay for the war in Iraq come from GWoT funds. It may SEEM like a PR term, but that is still what its called. Gelston 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry elkevbo, English(UK(United Kingdom) variant) is my fourth language actually. I'm guessing that you might be American so I'll simplify this for you; the 'War on Terrorism' is government policy, whereas the occupations of Afghanistan(this is a country in Central Asia, east of Iran) and also of Iraq, are military action. Although goverment policy is a stakeholder in military action, they are two clearly seperate events. To confuse the terms of government policy with those of a military action, is to conform to the POV(Point Of View)of the government policy and thereby not being NPOV(Neutral Point Of View) & encyclopaedic as wikipedia aims to be.

Although 'GWOT' does have precedent set in other articles so maybe it's for the best. I suppose you just have to decide which is more important for wikipedia, NPOV or consistency. 81.152.196.46 14:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point and I think it's completely valid. We've had many discussions about the use of the phrase "War on Terror" and related phrases/concepts such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If I recall correctly, there was even an RfA filed in relation to an edit war related to these topics and the use of these terms. I think the general consensus was to use the terms that are most commonly used and the ones most specific to the topic at hand even as we acknowledge that there could be some political issues involved in or conjured up by those terms. This is particularly true when those political terms are also used as the terms for specific and limited combat operations or other operations/events with more clearly defined boundaries.

In summary, I understand and empathize with you. But I do think that (a) consistency is important and (b) there is no clear-cut NPOV solution to this dilemma. I think using the most common terminology is the best we can do. --ElKevbo 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Military action is government policy. It was the government's policy to send troops to both of those places as part of their policy on the Global War on Terrorism. Gelston 09:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A portion of the reasoning for the start of OIF put forth by the Bush Administration contained elements of combating terrorism. The US's continued occupation of Iraq revolves heavily around terrorism. Both OIF and OEF fall under the US goverment's umbrella term "Global War on Terrorism". Regardless of wether or not a person belives that either OIF or OEF have anything to do with the combat of terrorism on a global scale or the term is aplicable in a literal sense it is still the offical operational term used and therefore appropriate for use in an encyclopedic context. That's not to say that there is not a place for cited and sourced concerns about the term's political or military contextual accuracy in another article, just that it's mention doesn't really belong in an article devoted the the United States Marine Corps. NeoFreak 14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the GWoT section to the names of the individual Operations (Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom). GWoT is a political term used by the executive branch-- neither houses of Congress endorse this term; however the names of the Operations are the official terms used by the military. Also, the section does not address operations in Somalia, the Phillipines, ect. that would fall under the category of the GWoT. --Cjs56 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is used pretty regularly, including by the Secretary of the Navy [http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/searchview1?SearchView&Query=global%20war%20on%20terror&SearchOrder=3&SearchMax=&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=FALSE. The section should mention more about its other global operations; for that and the reasons stated above GWoT is going back. --Mmx1 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Secretary of the Navy is a political appointee of the President. But that fact aside, I went and looked at the GWoT article, and I grudgingly concede that it is a potentially appropriate title for the section. I'd still like to see more info on the Corps' involvement in other theatres of operations (not that I'm volunteering myself) in order to make the title less inappropriate, but I won't revert. --Cjs56 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Han indeed shot first.

What I haven't seen in this discussion is the fact that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. GWoT is not a term heard much outside the U.S., and even in the U.S., it's not what you usually hear or see on the news — typically, it's "Afghan conflict", "Iraq war", or similar. We need to choose a title that is more specific (most people might think of embassy security or port security as much as Afghanistan or Iraq when reading that heading. I suggest just "Afghanistan and Iraq", without any use of "war/conflict" to avoid getting into a political fight — the use of simple place names is clear without bringing in any bias. David 20:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Official website

There is no need to keep reverting the official link from marines.mil to usmc.mil or vica-versa. Both addresses point to exactly the same server and provide exactly the same content. However as the site refers to itself as marines.mil that should probably be the address we use. Mikemill 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will have to respectfully disagree. The site does not refer to itself as marines.mil. What you are refering to is a banner for another link. The official site is usmc.mil. Take a look at www.defendamerica.mil (Another DOD site) and then put your Cursor on the USMC link and see where it points too. The official USMC site is www.usmc.mil --Looper5920 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On another note, you can Google United States Marine Corps and take a look at what pops up as the first link and what the descriptive paragraph says.--Looper5920 10:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. They both go to the same site with the same info. They are both the official sites maintained by the USMC.Gelston 11:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looper go to www.usmc.mil and look at the title for the page. It says marines.mil. Now I really don't care which it points to, but the constant changing of that link is getting annoying. Mikemill 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

grammar - capitals

In general use, the English language reserves the use of capital letters to proper nouns and to adjectives associated with such nouns and does not use initial capitals for common nouns
ie: Headquarters Marine Corps & a Marine Expeditionary Force vs 200 marines - otherwise, nice article --Danlibbo 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again thanks for the lesson but people who watch this article will spend the rest of their time reverting back to capitals if you make that change. Anyone familiar with the Marine Corps will revert it back. I hear what you are saying but Marines always capitalize the "m" and I believe in this one instance you can let it go. Save us all the hassle. Thanks--Looper5920 09:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Then too there is common usage. Most news agencies such as the AP for instance also capitalist the word Marine. NeoFreak 10:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• fair enough (I'm Aussie and don't read American press) - but i expect you guys to then stay out of the Australian and New Zealand-related pages when we use ss instead of zs and put us in all over the place - have fun --Danlibbo 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if ya'll want to misspell words in articles about your country then you're more than welcome to do so. :)

I don't think that counts as misspelling, unlike NeoFreak's use of the words "too" and "capitalist". - Matthew238 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You leave my fat fingering alone :P NeoFreak 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Danlibbo, I understand your logic, but you need to look at the exceptions more carefully. The Marine Corps formally capitalizes its members, e.g. Marines, similar to many organizations. Case in point: a member of the baseball team L.A. Dodgers is known as a "Dodger," not dodger. After all, a Marine refers to a member of the highly effective fighting force, the United States Marine Corps, not a generic term for an amphibious troop. I hope this clears up any doubts in the punctuation preference. Semper Fi. - USLeatherneck 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oohrah

I removed a recently added entry about Marine Raiders and Submarines that an IP added. Please give a cite for this info and I'll add it back. Thanks. Gelston 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

MARSOCOM justification

In the "Special Warfare" portion of the "Organization" I found the following quote regarding the Marine Corps resistance to SOCOM: However, resistance from within the Marine Corps dissipated when Marine leaders watched the Corp's "crown jewels"—the 15th and 26th MEU (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)s)—sit on the sidelines during the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom while other special warfare units led the way.

This is not just of a POV tone and nature but is also factually incorrect. The first troops into Afghanistan outside a small group of Special Forces and CIA paramilitaries was an 800 strong group of Marines from a MEU. If anything there was quite a bit of displeasure within the Army Ranger (part of SOCOM) and Army airborne communites. The given source for this statement is the Marine Corps Gazette which is a unoffical publication that carries a large amount of editorial work. Does anyone have this issue of the Gazette on hand and would there be objection to this being removed? NeoFreak 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have the article at home. Give me a day to take a look and see if it jives. I agree with what your saying but would be hesitant to remove sourced material without providing other sources. --Looper5920 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual I appreciate your help. NeoFreak 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article, my impression is that it is good to go. While the Marines were the first conventional forces ashore, they lingered in the Indian Ocean for a month and a half while SOF were the only ones on the ground. This after being the first ones in theater. Then when they were used it was piecemeal and not as they normally would. More as a gap filler for SOF. --Looper5920 07:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I'm assuming this was an editorial written by the Major and not a stated Marine Corps position? How do we include it without going down the "some poeple think" road? NeoFreak 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gazette is a professional journal and I believe worthy of being used as a reference. While there are some examples of the "some people think" articles (e.g. the HF is dead crowd), for the most part the articles are well researched and worthy of using as references. Might be best to take every ref on an individual basis. There are references in some of the Fallujah articles that absolutely drive me nuts. Where reporters for CNN just mindlessly say the US is firing artillery and cluster munitions into the city and A-10s are strafing, and once it is printed it is considered fact because CNN is a reputable company. Despite the fact the reporter had not stepped foot into the city to confirm what he was reporting and also that everyone knows A-10s have not been in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. I'll spare you the rest of the rant. Ultimately, talking it through and taking each reference on its own merit should suffice. I am not one to qoute the rules of Wikipedia so I'll just leave it at that.--Looper5920 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Gazette as well and think it is more than acceptable as a source. I was just concerned about the claim that resistance from within the Marine Corps dissipated when as it makes it seem that was the only cause. The "crown jewels" phrase is a little...questionable as well. Even if that was the exact phrase he used language doesn't always translate to encyclopedic format. NeoFreak 07:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agrred. I think the " crown jewels" should be removed or reworded. There are more neutral and encyclopedic terms that could be used. The other ascertion could be constured that way as well but I tend to agree with it.--Looper5920 08:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made the changes. NeoFreak 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes look good. --Looper5920 11:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV assertion

Despite its featured article status, the first citation under "capabilities", from a Marine Corps-POV source, asserts an opinion as fact regarding "combined forces" capabilities and "jointness". While that may be true in some scenarios, it is not true in all scenarios, and probably not true in most scenarios. No need to weasel word it, but the statement is an opinion, not a fact, and should be re-worded.--Buckboard 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to disagree with your statement and do not feel that the wording needs to be changed at all. For one, the Air Force and the Navy do not have any large scale maneuver units so they are not applicable to the argument. Thus it comes down to the Army v. the Marine Corps as to who has the "ability to permanently maintain integrated multi-element task forces under a single command provides a smoother implementation of combined-arms warfare principles." Just by logic one would have to say the Marine Corps because the service has all of the necessary assets organic to itself. The Army relies on the Air Force for FW support and this has caused friction at times. For a good read please check out this article from Air Force Review. Also the Army employs their organic helicopters much differently from the Marine Corps. Their main role is not necessarily in providing close air support to the grunt on the ground. Many times these squadrons are ceded portions of the battlespace to themselves precluding there need for coordinate with ground troops. Bottomline is that because the Marine Corps has all of these assets organic to itself, trains with them and religiously adheres to the combined arms doctrine, "as a service", they are better at the "implementation of combined-arms warfare principles."--Looper5920 11:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As an army combat veteran with experience working jointly with the Marine Corps in Iraq, I have to agree with Looper's assessment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Material

In November 2006 Court proceedings proved that Marines had acted in the organised murder of at least one Iraqi civillian. I added a section to the article. The section gave full details of what happened as the item is controversial and it relates to current activities. I took great care to provide sufficient details. That entry has been repeatedly removed. A similar problem has occurred on the pages relating to the SS where references to crimes against civillians are removed. Such vandalism is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everef (talk • contribs) 17:34, December 1, 2006

As I said in my edit summary: this is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Please stop accusing other editors of vandalism.

I can't speak for anyone else but as someone else who reverted your edits noted in their edit summary the primary issue I have with your addition is that it's way too long and gives undue weight to this incident. I'd be perfectly happy if you or someone else added a brief mention of this incident and pointed readers to the specific article about this incident for the full details. This article is not the place for full details or lengthy explanations of almost any event in the long history of this organization. --ElKevbo 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. No where in the entire article are individual accounts from any war or battle spoken of. Why should we allow this so this guy can push his agenda? Also, why should the paragraph on this incident be longer than what is written for the entire Vietnam War? I'm sorry, the incident is more than well covered on it's own page and this guy is here solely to push an agenda.--Looper5920 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion-- add a link to the page that covers it under "See also" in lieu of the paragraph here. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned both incidents in a one line edit that is much more appropriate for their scope. I think this is a sufficient compromise. --Looper5920 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. That's what I was envisioning when I made the above suggestions. --ElKevbo 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

History

Shouldn't this article be fused with the article "history of the United states marines" (may not be an exact quote, laughs. There must be some info that we can add to this article, and there IS a LOT of info from the american civil war that we could put in here, or under uniforms in this article. I won't do something without at least one person in agreement.D. Farr 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. IIRC, that material was broken out from this one not too long ago as this article was growing too long. --ElKevbo 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Info that the individual wants to add is an incredibly long list of very detailed information about uniforms from the civil war. It really has no place in this article or the "USMC history" page for that matter. It would need to be severely edited to even be on the "Uniforms of the USMC" page.--Looper5920 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true that it's an understatement to call it wordy, but it got deleted from the History of the US Marine Corp page anyway. Still upset that the 5 marines pic got deleted too. Going to put that on here if it isn't already. I will paraphrase the paragraph and put the piece in us marine corp uniforms, and possibly put in an internal link for this page. That accomidate everyone?D. Farr 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the info is as detailed as Looper5920 alleges and it's well-sourced information why not just make a new article? --ElKevbo 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. How's about I make a new subtopic or a internal link to a new article for the piece? By the way, Article in Question, so you can take a peek at it. Now what do you think?D. Farr 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing "Vietnam was the longest war for the Marine Corps; at its end, 13,091 Marines were killed..." ^[30] points to a link that does not coincide with the Virtual War Memorial casualty statistics. This shows the USMC lost 14,837 of its members. The NARA Public Archives Combat Area Casualties Current File (Southeast Asia) database is used to populate the VWM website records. I am curious as to what would cause such a large discrepency in reported numbers between Navy Records, and the National Archives. --216.209.218.110 Vandel 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

TOC goes too deep

TOC should perhaps be revised to levels deep rather than 3 since it is now too large and takes up over a screen worth even in relatively high-res - PocklingtonDan 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's some pretty nitt-picky stuff. With the amount of info offered and the fact that the template on the right makes it so the TOC is never the only thing on the screen I really don't see it as an issue.--Looper5920 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. PocklingtonDan is right. The TOC needs to revised. It might help if some of the padding were sent to other pages eg badges of rank.Everef

IMO it is not too deep. However would something like this work? Mikemill 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

UNIQUE COMBAT ARMS

I'm interested to know what is meant by the statement that the Marine Corps does not employ "unique combat arms". A reasonable interpretation would be that the Marine Corps does not have weapons which are "unique" to that particular service, a position which is clearly not supportable. (By "unique" I mean among the United States military services.) Thanks ahead of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taloranger (talk • contribs) 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The Marine Corps does not employ any type of combat arms not utilized by another service (though you could make a case for AAVs) - what makes the service unique is not the type of combat arms it employs, but the manner in which it employs them. By contrast, the Navy and Air Force are easily distinguished in the public eye by the unique types of combat arms each employs.--Mmx1 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Marine Corps is the only service that uses the Super Cobra, F-35B and the F/A-18D, along with the AAV as already mentioned. Should the section read "small arms"? When you get into nitty gritty variants of diffrent weapons platforms esp aircraft you will always find unique models. NeoFreak 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence "types" and not just particular weapons systems. We aren't talking equipment, but doctrinal divisions of combat capabilities. A Cobra and Apache both constitute attack aviation, and from an operational standpoint, are interchangeable. The Navy uniquely operates naval combatants, the Air Force uniquely operates strategic bombers and transport (Naval Aviation and SSBN's do overlap their other functions), the Army....I'm sure the Army does something unique. There is no one combat arm of the Marine Corps that isn't duplicated in another branch, what is unique is how the Marine Corps employs them, not their hold on any one particular aspect of the combined arms spectrum.. --Mmx1 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I think you should consider changing your terms. The term/phrase "unique combar arms" isn't helpful because the reader will not know that you mean "doctrinal divisoins of combat capabilities." I also think your explanation is great -- "I'm sure the Army does something unique" is also not helpful as support for your position that the Marine Corps simply duplicates all other braches. If you have a source for this proposition, please cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taloranger (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

No, the terms are quite correct. I see where the misunderstanding lies. The term "combat arms" does not denote weapons, it does mean "doctrinal divisions of combat capabilities". "Arms", in this context, does not mean weapons, but divisions, i.e. "executive arm of the federal government". Infantry, for example, is a combat arm - we are not talking about the various small (and not so small) arms that the infantry uses but a particular branch of the Army (or Marines). There is no argument that the Marine Corps "duplicates" the other branches, the statement contrasts the duplication of combat arms with the unique integration of combat arms not found elsewhere. --Mmx1 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I see this now -- though I did a little outside research. There are a number of web pages which make it clear that "combat arms" are in fact military fields of operation -- infantry, aviation, etc. You might cite to or link to some of this. I spent a number of years in the Marine Corps and didn't automatically pick up on the meaning of that term. Just as an aside, and I may have missed this in law school, don't we have BRANCHES of government rather than ARMS? Taloranger 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy Guards

Can we somehow add Marine Security Guard to the listing of tradition or duties or something....I feel they have been left out, and feel they need to be included in this article SOMEWHERE, as they are the only U.S. service to guard U.S. Embassies in the modern age.Rob 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already there: United States Marine Corps#Mission

By authority of the 1946 Foreign Service act, Marines of the Marine Corps Security Guard Battalion (MSG) provide security for American embassies, legations, and consulates at over 110 Department of State posts overseas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Capabilities, Redux

On review, the Capabilities section could use a rework - the organizational philosophy of the Corps, for example, is more apropos under "Culture" than "Capabilities".

I propose redoing the section to discuss the six MAFTF core competencies: Expeditionary readiness

Combined arms readiness

Expeditionary operations

Sea-based operations

Forcible entry from the sea

Reserve integration (Globalsecurity treatment of it). The "every Marine a rifleman" bit can be shifted down to culture, and the last paragraph can be reworked into "sea-based operations" and expeditionary operations.

The bit about maneuver warfare doesn't fit so neatly into one of the 6 core competencies and should be be treated separately, but probably under the same heading. It should also be updated with a mention of distributed operations --Mmx1 23:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Forms of address Correction

In the forms of address section, it states "All ranks containing "Sergeant" are always addressed by their full rank and never shortened to simply "Sarge", as has been common practice in the Army". I speak from experience when I say it is not, nor has ever been to my knowledge, a common practice for soldier in the Army or Army Reserve to call an NCO "Sarge". Even if an NCO didn't mind this title him or herself, other NCOs would quickly correct the soldier who used such a term. Is it possible some use it occasionally? Perhaps, but it not a common practice at all. I am going to delete that last part of the sentence, unless a significant number of soldiers write in to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.106.69.216 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Teufel Hunden

If the Germans spread the rumour, that US Marines were calling them for DevilDogsn (Devil Dogs in plain English), every English-speaking person would surely classify DevilDogsn as a German manufactured story.
In German: "1 Hund" = "1 dog", "2 Hunde" = "2 dogs", so "Hunden" with an extra 'N' must be "dogsn" with an extra 'N' (not dogs'n'devil). In German, terms are in one word, opposed to English, were two words can describe one term: aircraft carrier (Flugzeugträger), police officer (Polizeivollzugsbeamte), space shuttle (Raumfähre), weather satellite (Wettersatellit) etc. There is a jungle of rules, how to connect two words in German, but here an 'S' is used; Teufelshunde.
A German reader might figure out that Teufel Hunden is suppose to mean Teufelshunde, like an English reader will figure out that "DevilsDogsn" is suppose to mean "Devil Dogs". User:Buckboard changed "DevilDogsn" to "Devil Dogs n" but the whole idea is to literally translate into incorrect English, so it catches the eye. DevilDogsn looks as incorrect to an English reader as Teufel Hunden looks to a German reader. Devil Dogs n doesn't violate as many grammatical rules as DevilDogsn and "Teufel Hunden". Necessary Evil 11:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seal visibility

I can't see the SVG marine corps seal in the infobox. It appears to be completely transparent, despite being fine on its image page. I'm running Firefox 2.0.03 on Windows XP SP2 — Jack · talk · 00:17, Tuesday, 17 April 2007

Same here, same config. It's not displaying on IE either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I of the United States Marine Corps.svg&action=purge purged it so it seems to work now. --Dual Freq 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Wouldn't it be better if citations from books in the footnotes included the page where the info cited can be found? That would make footnotes easier to verify since it wouldn't be necessary to check a whole book in order to find specific information. --Victor12 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous Marines

Surely Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine. That's why he was such a good shot, according to Full Metal Jacket at least. Dr Spam (MD) 08:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I don't remember what branch he served in (I thought it was Army, but I could be wrong), but I do remember he rated very poorly in marksmanship. Insert your favorite conspiracy theory here...--Raulpascal 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that he was a poor shot /is/ the conspiracy theory Raul :) As far as I am aware he was acctually a very good shot (though there are questions as to the quality of the rifle used etc). Adding him in would certainly qualify in that he is famous and a marine. But....he certainly shouldn't be added if there are people who are equally famous for being marines. Best famous for being a marine than famous and a marine in my book :) Narson 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He was accepted as a sniper, was he not? They have very high standards. I'll go check Lee Harvey Oswald. --Hojimachong^talk 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oswald's Marine Training. He barely qualified (scored 191). --Hojimachong^talk 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That score is still very good: that page goes on to cite witnesses who stated that Oswald was above average for a Marine, and an "excellent shot" compared with civilians. Brianlucas 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Don Imus? He also served in the US Marine Corps. And he is really famous because of his non-PC comments. Dr Spam (MD) 08:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Famous Marines section is not meant to be a comprehensive list of Marines who have achieved fame. There is a list for famous Marines. Imus is on that list. — ERcheck (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1812

Just reading the 1812 section of this page and noticed that apparantly the war of 1812 was characterised by frigate duels. Surely it was infact characterised by a series of rather epic land battles? Most people's only real knowledge of 1812 seems to be New Orleans and the burning of DC.

As for US marines delaying the British....they were defeated in short order. 400 men with hand to hand weapons and pole arms provided little more than a 'speed bump'. A gallant and brave speed bump, but they hardly stalled the British for any length of time. It wasn't quite like the beserker story from Stamford Bridge or some epic rear guard action like Thermopolyae.....it seems its just there to 'bulk up' marine involvement in 1812. Narson 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Ignoring the whole 'prescient' thing, I'm not entirely sure how you can argue the US marines were the 'dominent' amphibious warfare practitioners of the early 20th century. Gallipoli was surely the most famous (And certainly largest) amphibious landing of the early 20th century, and that was planned by a certain First Sea Lord called Churchill. If we skip to the next large conflict, we have D-day...where a majority of forces were most definatly not Marines, and a majority of troops were not American. Obviously you had the varied landings in the pacific (though really more interesting in a strategical sense, the whole island hopping doctrine, then in the actual landings, at least to me), though as pointed out in the article, the marines were at that time, as was mentioned above by annother editor, equivalent in operations to a hospital unit or such. Did the island hopping doctrine come from the marines or the navy? Either way there are certainly not undisputed or 'dominent' in the field of putting amphibious warfare into practice in the first half of the 20th century. Narson 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true. They were important in the development of amphibious warfare prior to WWII, however. I think that might be what the writer meant to say.

Oh, and to answer your question about the island-hopping doctrine, it depends on who you ask. Technically it was the Navy who thought it up, but remember that "Navy" still included the Marines at that time. I'm a Navy man myself, so I'm not unbiased in this debate, but if I were to step back and be impartial I would have to admit that it was a Department of the Navy, rather than a USN, strategy. --Raulpascal 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly disagree with Narson more. The operation at Gallipoli is famous not for being the largest amphibious operation up to it's time but for being one of the most colossal blunders in all of modern warfare, hardly bringing great credit to it's planners and leaders. D-Day is indeed monumental in the history of amphibious warfare and distinctly notable for it's lack of U.S. Marine Corps participation on any level. Only the lessons learned by the Marines and Navy experimenatlly before the war and, much more importantly, in the laboratory of actual combat allowed D-Day to be pulled off so brilliantly. If you doubt this, compare Operation Torch and the Italian campaign landings to Normandy and you will see that the allied forces involved we're more than smart enough to learn from the successes and failures of battles at Tarawa, Guadalcanal and dozens of other operations throughout the Pacfic theater.

As to the island hopping campaign, the idea was most certainly devised by the Navy staff which used it's ships to transport it's Marines to the fight and it's Marines to do the fighting (not to overlook U.S. Army units attached to the operation.) Remember the Marine Corps was a part of the Navy for the entire war so asking whether it was the Marines or Navy who came up with the plan is pointless. It was the Marines who landed on the beaches over and over again. I believe I was(mis)quoted in reference to the Marines being like a "hospital unit." I was referring to the status of the Hospital Corps, which is not at all relevant to Narson's argument. The Marine Corps in World War II was composed of six full divisions and five combat wings altogether totalling nearly half a million men.

To determine the truthfulness of the Marines being the "dominant" practitioners of amphibious warfare in the first half of the twentieth century is not an issue of POV. Simply examine the advances made in the theory of amphibious warfare before the war and count the hundreds of thousands of men put ashore on beaches throughout the Pacific and it's obvious that no other organization made greater use of amphibious warfare. Gallipoli supposedly proved once and for all that amphibious assault was impossible in the modern age. The senior Marine leadership didn't believe that to be true and proved their beliefs. "The Atomic Age" also supposedly rendered amphibious assault obsolete but Gen. MacArthur (no personal fan of the Marine Corps) used it to brilliant effect in the Battle of Inchon. An objective eye will see that the U.S. Marine Corps is not only the most massive user of amhibious tactics in the first half of the twentieth century but, indeed of all time. --PvtDeth 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So you say the Galipoli landings (Largest landings until that point in history) occured and then that the marines took no part in D-day (A fact I didn't acctually know about. I'd assumed they'd taken some part. Learning is why we are all here to some degree I'm sure) and then go on to argue they were still dominant practitioners in the early 20th century? If someone tries and fails, they are still a practitioner and I would argue its impossible to say that the Marines were the foremost /practitioners/, being that they weren't acctually putting much theory into practice until the end of WW2 in the middle of the century. There is also the vagueness of the phrase 'early 20th century' which I believe the article mentions. If 'early' cuts off before WW2, then what amphibious assaults could the marines cite?

This article is obviously a great article, full of some quite interesting facts, its just the little things that irk and make it read occasionally like a Kitchener poster, and unless there is some way we can prove some of the hyperbole it should be pruned for the good of the article. I am not arguing that the Marines were not prominent thinkers or prominent theorists on amphibious warfare, but I simply don't believe they put these into mass practice until the pacific campaigns Narson 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Capabilities

The lead sentence of this section reads:

"While the Marine Corps does not employ any unique combat arms, as a force, the unique ability to rapidly deploy a combined-arms task force to almost anywhere in the world within days."

I don't see a verb in there anywhere. I expect it should read something like

"...as a force it possesses the unique ability..."

but I don't feel that I know enough about the subject to make that change myself. Can someone else confirm this? --Wayne Miller 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone fixed it. Good job, whoever! --Wayne Miller 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps in popular culture

There doesn't seem to be such an article, at least not a link to one if it exists.

Obvious mentions for such an article:

• Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. (television series), starring Jim Nabors
• Shoe (comic strip) - young Schuyler, for a few years, kept finding himself in the Marine Corps boot camp instead of an ordinary children's camp

GBC 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Such an article is a good candidate for an AFD. There are users on Wiki who despise pop-culture articles, and they will nominate it for deletion without prior notice. Think carefully before creating such an article, and make sure EVERYTHING has verifiable sources attesting to each item's notability. Even with all that, these AFD-nazis will probably still put it up for deletion, but if your ducks are lined up, it might survive. Even then, I would recommend against such an article, or even such a section in this article. - BillCJ 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support this article. Marines, such as myself, and their families are fanatical in their devotion to their organization. Because of this they tend to eat up any pop culture reference to the Marine Corps. Gomer Pyle, Full Metal Jacket, Major Dad. All have fans within the Marines and because of it. --PvtDeth 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone somehow edited it to "Serious Business" while it was on the front page; I reverted it. Ninjarrr 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone also posted an obscene picture. I'm no fan of the military, but you guys didn't deserve that. I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigger955 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 April 2007 UTC

Good job, thanks. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section

Some people think this article should have a criticism section. Discuss. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it may be hard to write a criticism section that adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, but it is certainly possible and should be attempted. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's "some people"? I'm not flat out opposed to the idea but where is the need? Criticism sections should grow organically, not because some people think including one is "fair". I'm just not really aware of a substantial body of criticism directed directly or primarily against the Marine Corps in specific and that doesn't also include the rest of the United States military, goverment or forign policy. NeoFreak 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not every page needs a criticism section. This page should be the structure and history of the U.S. Marine Corps. It is an organ of the U.S. government and as such criticism should be directed at the U.S. government or particular administrations. --PvtDeth 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, true, unless there is some published criticism of the marines in particular. Mention of notable incidents perpertrated by marines might be within the article's scope though. Brentt 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Haditha killings and the Hamdania incident are mentioned in the article. I am sure this is what you are talking about since I'll guarantee your knowledge of the USMC does not extend beyond the current war in Iraq--203.10.224.59 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticize as much as you wish. Just remember... The FACT that you recently typed on your keyboard comes courtesy of the blood of former Marines. If you require a source for proof, follow this exercise: breathe in... now breathe out. Doesn't that feel good? You're welcome. For the record, the word marines, when referring to United States Marines, should always be capitalized. This is directed at any critics.

Criticisms section

Why is there no section/article on criticisms of the US Marines? Murdering and raping civilians in Southeast Asia and the Middle East should definitely be mentioned somewhere on this page. I feel that patriotism is keeping this page from being NPOV. Miserlou 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would ask you how many other militaries of the world you have checked to see if they have criticism sections, and if you posted messages like this there, but I think I already know the answer to that. - BillCJ 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that things such as that, unless there is some kind of big scandal directed at the marines, should be mentioned in the section about that campaign. Covered in a sentence or two (I am not familiar with any huge scandals involving the US marines in a general sense...IE: Major flaws in ROE or orders or oversight that has caused huge problems?) Narson 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's enough of that from everyone. Keep it civil or keep it to yourself, this is a place to discuss the idea of adding a criticism section. NeoFreak 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Marines have never done anything wrong, and when they have done anything wrong, it was under the auspices of the USMC, so it couldn't have been wrong. Therefore all criticism would be POV, because NPOV==Right POV==USMCPOV==God's POV. QED, get back to your satan worship and leave this article alone commie.Brentt 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! That's so funny? Did you write that yourself, or did John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam, help you? Best laugh I've had all day! - BillCJ 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems that being on the main page has brought every Pomey wanker with a left-wing agenda to this page. I am always amazed at how these people view the world from their ivory towers. Kind of like the Hybrid car driving people on South Park who created the "clouds of smug" and go around sniffing their own farts because their shite does not stink. Must be nice--203.10.224.60 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I un-archived this. THe user asked a question (legitimate or not, and he got answers. I don't see any consensus here to that effect this is off-topic. Also, there have been lots of unjustified modifications or deletions of posts by those who did not write them (self-deletion is permitted, thpough strikeout are preferred), including by an admin. Some, including myself, have used sarcasm as a response to the original; question, but not of this has tured personal, or crossed uncivil lines. Let the discussion take its course, and if a few people make fools of themselves (possibly including myself), so be it. But the discussion of whether or not this article needs a dedicated criticism section is not off-topic, but is about the article's coverage of the USMC. - BillCJ 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It was actually me who archived the discussion, not User:203.10.224.59. I don't know why it shows the edit as his in the history (all the more odd because, unless his IP adress is randomly assigned, he appears to have a lengthy history of vandalism. My IP is no where near his, so it wasn't me not signed in either). But I did it because Deskana (an admin) deleted the discussion all together. I initially undid his edit, and was quite irked by the fact that he deleted it (and told him soon his talk page), but after seeing how it was just turning into a flaming with only one of the comments actually adressing the relevant issue brought up, I started to see his reasoning, and thought in-line archiving would be a good solution. Also since the relevant issue was being constructively discussed above all the flaming was a bit uneccessary and was threatening to get out of hand. (It would have been OK if, like the initial post, it was flaming mixed with possibly constructive opinions, but it was mostly just turning into a political flame.) Brentt 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're wanting to create a criticism section simply because someone associated with a particular unit has committed murder or rape, you'll have to include the same section for every organization that ever was, is, or will be. Particularly any military force. Robbskey 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah then, okay. Miserlou 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparing USMC training to Royal Marines

The section on Enlisted training compared Marine Corps recruit training to U.S. Army training and then to British Army and Royal Marines training (32 weeks). There was a {{citation needed}} tag on the British training, along with an embedded comment looking for a source and questioning whether these were really comparable. I've added citations from the Royal Marines website. A few differences are evident — the Royal Marines 32-weeks of training includes (1) advanced infantry training (akin to SOI) and (2) they have weekends off (none of that during recruit training for the USMC). I took out the reference to the British Army as it wasn't clearly a "comparable" service to the U.S. Marines, but rather IMHO, would be comparable to the U.S. Army. — ERcheck (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering that the USMC is larger than the Britsh Army, it's probably best not to compare them. USMC has 180,000 active duty and 40,000 reserve personnel, and the British Army has roughly 107,730 active members and 38,460 Territorial Army personnel. The Royal Marines are a much smaller force, though I couldnt find personnel size on wiki or the RM site. It is more of a speliazed force than the USMS, with most of the ofrce being in Commando units. - BillCJ 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

well i have done a bit of digging and going through a few books i got and you mention that the royal marines do specialist training as part of their 32 week course. i will admit now i am not fullyt familiar with the USMC SOI and MCT but from looking on the wiki article for those it seems to me that what the royal marines do may be concidered specialist training to the USMC, but the RM consider specialist training such as the artic warfare cadre etc come after their 32 weeks initial training. so if we are going to take into account extra training this may take the USMC up to 20 weeks, but then you must take the additional jungle or arctic etc etc courses a RM must take. it soes seem to me that the level of training for a RM is far above that of a USMC. though it is to be expected, look at the compartive sizes... Pratj 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but why does an article about the USMC need a comparison with the Royal Marines? They might have similar functions, but the training article seems to just take off rambling about who trains more and looks like one giant pissing contest. Why not take out the information and add in more info on the training experiance of Marines. If anybody wants to weigh the two against each other, they can read both the articles and make their own conclusions. If not, then let's just compare Marine training with Canadian Mountie training or with oranges. Flyboymb 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (sorry about that)

SIGN YOUR COMMENTS ^^^^

yeah, it does seem a bit silly to compare the RM and USMC. they are almost completely different units which just happen to have the word "Marines" in them. u could probably compare the RM to the Royal Dutch Marines as they are similar. Pratj 16:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

limitedgeographicscope maintenance tag

I've restored the limitedgeographicscope maintenance tag, after an anon edit removed it without discussion. Please do not remove the tag until we reach a consensus here on the talk page.

The tag is for the United States Marine Corps#Global war on terrorism section, and refers to the section title, not the content. The title has been controversial (see discussion earlier on this talk page), and I propose that the title is inappropriate because it is not how most of the English-speaking world (even most of the U.S.) refers to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rule in Wikipedia is to use the most common name. The most common name I've heard in English-speaking media for the Iraqi part is "The War in Iraq", and for the Afghan part, "The War in Afghanistan" or "The fight/struggle against the Taliban". These are also loaded terms, however, and might cause some bias. As I suggested above, maybe the most neutral title would be simple "Afghanistan and Iraq", referring to the areas where the Marines were deployed — these will be immediately recognizable to everyone. David 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GWOT is the official umbrella term used to define those military operations. Since the offical sources are used and that is the paradigm of the subject matter (the USMC) it is appropriate for use here. There is precedent both ways (Operation Restore Hope for the intervention in Somalia or Invasion of Grenada for "Operation Urgent Fury") but in this case it is as I've said an "umbrella" term. I'm not aware of a dingle alternate term that is as widely recognized to the average reader and that has the same scope. If those that are objecting to the GWOT tag could provide some alternatives that have the same inclusive scope and regognition then that would be a good place top start. NeoFreak 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the name: first, outside U.S. military circles, it could refer to a lot more than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts because it is so general; second, from a non-U.S. perspective, the conflicts are not part of the same war: Canada, for example, is fighting in Afghanistan but not in Iraq; third, it is not a name commonly used even in the U.S. media, much less in other countries; and fourth, the name presupposes that the invasion of Iraq was related to terrorism, which is a controversial point (and not one that we should try to decide in a section title). Here are my suggestions, in order of preference: "Afghanistan and Iraq", "Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts", "Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq", "Post-911 combat theatres" (I don't like the last one much, but I just wanted to introduce some variety). Maybe someone will be able to suggest something better, but neutral — governments name their operations for propaganda purposes, but that doesn't mean that they have to dictate article or section titles (after all, we don't call the Iranian Revolution the "Islamic Revolution", even though that's its official name according to the Iranian regime). David 22:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since GWOT is in official use in the U.S. military, in particular, in the United States Marine Corps, it is appropriate as a section title. However, to address the varying usages of the term and to explain the official usage (as detailed in the comments above), I suggest that a footnote could be used to provide such information. — ERcheck (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2007 UTC

But it's important to remember that the USMC is the subject of the article, not the audience; our audience is the whole English-speaking world, and we need to choose a title that is recognizable to them. David 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask again: can you offer a term that is both as inclusive in scope and recognizable as GWOT? NeoFreak 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but before I suggest any more, please comment on the four or five I've already proposed. I'd suggest that GWoT is not at all recognizable as a term specifically for the Afghan or Iraqi military actions (as opposed to a general struggle against terrorism), so it's not a very high bar to get over. David 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, those terms do not have the same scope as GWOT. GWOT includes all of OIF, OEF (which is larger than Afghanistan) as well as several other supporting operations. Do you have a term that has the same scope and recognition or not? NeoFreak 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In its current draft, the article mentions operations in only Afghanistan and Iraq. David 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<kerching> I emphatically agree with the 'most common name' argument and think the section needs renaming. Those names proposed above by David are all perfectly fine, but 'Afghanistan and Iraq' seems best to me. The section heading should sum up what follows (namely a discussion of US Marines engaging in Afghanistan and Iraq). This is distinct from the name used by the US military, and I think it's essential that the 'Global War on Terrorism' name and it's official military use definitely be mentioned within the section, since of course the name is notable. But earlier sections of this article haven't used official military names; for example, I'm sure the official name for an earlier period wasn't "Post-Vietnam and pre-9/11".--Vinoir 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. The section now mentions the standup of CTF-HOA, which was the start of a greater focus on instability in Africa and the imminent standup of Africa Command. Marines have also been involved in numerous joint antiterrorism training with partner nations around the world; though a list may be beyond the scope of the brief treatment here. --Mmx1 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're listing training exercises in this section though, are we? I bet there have been a lot of those in the past 200+ years, so it would be a long section. I don't know what the criteria are, but I'd guess that we need (a) a large number of marines involved and (b) casualties from hostile fire, or at least a serious risk of them. David 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Danger and casualties, while obvious, are not the only indicators of important events or contribution. The Marines suffered one MIA (Pete Ellis) in the development of amphibious warfare doctrine but it was extremely important. The development period was also largely "training exercises" if you want to pidgeonhole them as such, but that's a far too simplistic view of it. What's going on here are not merely "training exercises", but increasing security in the so-called "seam states" like Thailand and the Philippines by emparting our skills on partner nations and their militaries. Believe it or not, Jarheads can make contributions in other ways than just being bullet magnets. --Mmx1 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but my point is that if we include every activity like that from over 200 years of USMC history, we'd have a history section hundreds of screens long. We really need to hit only the most notable activities in a short historical summary, and I think everyone can agree that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are notable. The U.S. Coast Guard article, for example, does not list every single security and rescue operation in Coast Guard history, even though many of them resulted in danger or loss of life. David 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

HOA is not just a training unit. The CJTF-HOA also does humanitarian work, airtraffic control, and launches special operations forces around that entire AOR of CENTCOM. CJTF-HOA also was the springboard for the CIA and Special Forces units that deployed to Somalia to assist the Ethiopian military there. Check the parent article. Operations in the Philipines, Thailand, Yemen, Oman, Jordan and Uzbekistan are also under the Umbrella of GWOT and do not fall under the "War in Afghanistan and Iraq." If anything the GWOT section should be expanded with sub-sections. NeoFreak 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a suggestion: we separate the U.N.-led Afghan war and the U.S.-led Iraq wars into their own sections, since each is notable for its own sake, then we add a third section on "Anti-terrorism activities" or something similar with the operations you mentioned. In that section, we can also mention that the U.S. military uses the term "Global War on Terror" to apply to its operations in the Afghan and Iraqi wars as well as anti-terrorism operations. Any objections? My main goal is to make it easy to find the information on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which are also separate wars from a non-U.S. perspective). David 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I object. Now you are playing politics with an article about a military organization and its operations. The Global War on Terrorism is military operation and this article should reflect that. NeoFreak 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that it's sunk to the level of personal accusations between NeoFreak and me, I doubt that either of us has much more useful to contribute to the discussion. Let's hear what everyone else thinks about the issue, then maybe someone else can take the lead on making necessary changes (if any). The goal is to make sure that the section title doesn't promote anyone's political agenda, either the U.S. military's or the anti-war movement's. David 12:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear where I stand, you're making much ado over your opposition to a title that accurately describes a Military campaign undertaken in the last 5 years. Just because myself and others don't care to respond to your demands point by point doesn't mean our views have changed. Since you seem to be the only dissenter, I'm going to go ahead and remove the maintenance tag. The requested changes have been made and addition mention has been made of other GWOT operations. --Mmx1 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't want you to have the impression that I'm accusing you of anything inappropriate. I just think that you might not have the concept of the naming and scope of military operations as opposed to political naming conventions. I'm sorry if you took it as a personal accusation, I have no problem with you, you seem to be a good editor in good standing. We just have a understandable difference of opinion is all. NeoFreak 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The expansion/separate sections idea is more appropriate for the History of the United States Marine Corps article. For this article, a summary of the Global War on Terror operation of the Marine Corps, which mentions various aspects of the particular military operation, is more appropriate. I agree with Mmx1 that consensus has been reached and it is appropriate to keep the section title and remove the tag. — ERcheck (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. NeoFreak 01:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

GWOT section

I've added a intro paragraph and ref for the Global War on Terrorism and broke OIF and OEF into sections. I think that this is the best way to format the section and solve potential "geographic scope" issues. I'd like to see both the OIF and OEF sections expanded some but not so much as to need new sections or a break-off to the history section. Thoughts? NeoFreak 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance to me. An encyclopedia is supposed to infom, so a good explantaion of GWOT was needed, rather than tossing out the term as others have suggested. - BillCJ 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses

This article is filled with parentheses, often where commas would serve better. While from what I remember the usage of parentheses is not contrary to the Manual of Stlye but it still very unpolished and they should not be used in an encyclopedic article, esp a Featured Arrticle in my opinion. I was going to go through and begin to reword much of the areas that make use of them but I wanted to see what some others thought first. NeoFreak 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Issues

The article would benefit from a section on current issues. Wikipedia is really good for information on what is happening now so we should use that. However, it is clear that some contributors don't like certain subjects been raised so before I write the section I would like comments / contributions. The issues I would like to refer to are. Financial (particulaly the value for money debate), troop numbers, training problems, war crimes (murder, torture, rape), "civil" crimes (same list (especially Okinawa?), drug use by serving marines, homophobia, racism and religous prejudice. I would like to discuss problems with poor leadership and criticism of senior officers but as that would probably mean named individuals I don't think I will be able to do so. Everef 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What you're really asking for is a critisism and controvery section which was discussed above. You can add what ever you want, just remember to keep it relavent to the subject at hand, neutral in tone, totally verified by attributing all your assertions to reliable sources, avoid putting forth your own opinion and don't slander or liable any living persons per our policy on biographies of living persons. If you stick to what you can prove, keep it on topic and don't try and push your opinion here then go ahead and be bold. Don't worry, if you fail to do these things I will be more than happy to change it back. NeoFreak 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Commandant, Gen. Conway in Personnel section

It states: "As of February 2007, Marine Generals Peter Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and James E. Cartwright (Commander of the United States Strategic Command) are senior in time and grade to the commandant" ...However, Conway was commissioned in 1970 while James E. Cartwright was commissioned in 1971, how, then, would he be more senior? Mistake? --ProdigySportsman 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior in time and grade refers to time in grade? — General Conway was promoted from LtGen to Gen in November 2006. Pace was advanced to General in September 2000; I don't have that date on Gen Cartwright, but the date of his official bio is Feb 2006, at which time he was already General. 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Time in grade is more important then comissioning date JeremyinNC 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Forms of address correction, again.

It is neither considered appropriate, nor common, to refer to a Sergeant in ANY service as "Sarge." What actually sets Marine Corps forms of address apart from the Army and Air Force, is that it is not considered appropriate to shorten the USMC form of address to "Sergeant" from the full name of the rank (e.g., a USMC Gunnery Sergeant is always addressed as "Gunnery Sergeant," never just "Sergeant"). I am correcting the article to reflect this unique distinction. If someone wants to change it back to "Sarge" (again) then he should explain where he picked up the idea that that is a tolerated form of address in any service. --71.104.49.36 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned that it's frowned upon for officers to be addressed by their ranks, but what about by other officers, e.g. if a colonel were to address a lieutenant. Wouldn't it be ok for said colonel to say "Lt. So-and-so?".121.45.68.85 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is more frowned upon to have a junior or enlisted Marine adress an officer simply by his rank, but it is technically allowed as it comes in handy. For example if one were to walk up to a group of officers with the intention of speaking only to one of them saying "Excuse me sir" isn't going to be very productive. Instead "Excuse me, Captain Smith" would used. As for a higher ranking officer to another, junior officer, its technically correct ot address them by their rank or rank and then name. More often in private or amounst only officers first names can be used to address a junior officer. NeoFreak 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the term skipper to the article. It's not uncommon to use this term for a unit's C.O. and it does tie in nicely with the earlier comments about having many naval traditions.JeremyinNC 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms

this has been bugging me. The U.S army and marines have the american flag on their sleeves, however the flag is backwards. ie. the stars are at the top right corner, instead of the top left. WHY? Willy turner 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Marines do NOT have the flag on their utility uniforms (or any other) only the Army. The logic behind the reversal is that if a soldier is moving forward (on the attack) then the flag will be blowing in the "reverse" direction. It's just a rather silly "motovational" adjustemnt. Still, don't quote me as this is how it was explained to me by some soldiers, I have no relaible source that I can point to in order to back it up. NeoFreak 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrone Power

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Marine_Corps&curid=32088&diff=139375379&oldid=139355058 I'm not so sure that Tyrone Power is famous enough to for the short list in the article. Reading his article it doesn't appear that he is famous for being a Marine nor does it appear that he was one with lasting fame. Mikemill 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FA?

I think that this article should be nominated for Featured Article-- what do people think?

Uhm. It /is/ a featured article...? Narson 19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Didn't see that.

SemperFi501

Once a Marine, always a Marine

Noted the fact in the Fedex article. Feddhicks 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

In the article, under the conflict section, it said the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit was involved but wasn't it the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit? 71.145.191.237 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

saying United States Marine

I've notice a few of you calling it the United States Marine when it should really be said the United States Marine Corps (USMC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okita Soshi (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Initial Officer training

In the Initial Training section it states that officers " ... are commissioned mainly through one of three sources: Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC), Officer Candidates School (U.S. Marine Corps) (OCS), or the United States Naval Academy (USNA)." Since NROTC have to go to OCS in Quantico through a near identical indoc as OCC, but it is with other NROTC Mids and called Bulldog. Because Bulldog, OCC, and PLC are all under OCS wouldn't it be more correct to say there are only two commissioning sources, OCS in Quantico and USNA? --ProdigySportsman 01:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ROTC is a vastly different program than PLC/OCC and involves much more than the bulldog session. Technically you could make the distinction between the latter, but to the lay person the breakdown is:

• USNA
• 4-year ROTC program
• 10/12 weeks at OCS.

Moreover, for the purposes of the Marine Corps, your commissioning source is USNA/NROTC/PLC/OCC. For the purposes of this article, we blur the distinction between PLC and OCC as it's not significant to the lay reader.--Mmx1 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Civ-Mil Relations

I've just about finished re-reading Thomas Ricks' Making the Corps after picking it up for some cross-country flight reading, and while the nominal topic of the book is the experience of a particular platoon of young recruits going through Parris Island, much of it is devoted to a perceived cultural divide between the Marine Corps' traditional outlook and those of the society it serves, as well changes being implemented in Marine training and mission outlook in the post-Cold War environment (Commandant Gray and the 'every Marine a rifleman' doctrine). This article, I notice, has very little to say about the interaction between the Marines and broader society (there is a list of famous Marines, but no examination of broader demographics), which I think tends to reflect the common view of warfare as its own separate province, devoted essentially to battles and materiel.

I'd like to try and add some of the material from Ricks' book — the "Culture" section seems to be the most obvious place for it, although maybe there is a better — but am hesitant to immediately do so on account of the featured status, the potentially controversial subject matter, and the fact that at the moment I only have the one source, which is now 10 years old (the recruit class profiled is graduating in '95). If anyone could recommend (or contribute) another book or two on the politics and sociology of the Marine Corps, perhaps we could improve this article even further. Thanks, -- CJSC // Contact 13:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sea

The first opening states: The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States military responsible for providing power projection from the sea,[1] utilizing the mobility of the U.S. Navy to rapidly deliver combined-arms task forces. Since the Marine Corps works alongside U.S. Naval forces, it is part of the Department of the Navy for administrative purposes.[2]

But the Marines are specifically tasked to provide "power projection" on land, air, and sea, and is the only service with the specific mandate to do provide forces in all three realms. Isaac Crumm 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Article length

I'm noticing tha tthe article length is reading at 107 kb long. Seeing that there already is an article on the History of the United States Marine Corps, do we really need a 28 kb section on history in this article? I would like to propose merging the history section here with the main History page, and either eliminating it here altogether, or keeping the section VERY brief. (See the Royal Navy article for an axample on how this was done a few months ago.) There may be aother sections that we can fork out too, as this page should really only be a summary. - BillCJ 07:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had to edit the article and revert some vandalism, but I got a lot concerned with the 115kb of text. It really needs some summary. Samuel Sol (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

USMC's MySpace

Why was my adding of the USMC's MySpace reverted without explanation? It is an official site, which means it should be included as stated by the very first rule Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked and adding it does not constitute spam or vandalism, as the incompetent editor who reverted it falsely stated. Furthermore, it used Template:MySpace, and what's the point of having an external link template if its use is considered vandalism? An explanation from anyone who can provide one would be appreciated. 69.234.151.19 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Marine special Force Battalions

Can someone explain it ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be referring to the former Det 1, now called United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. This is a recently formed unit made of senior reconnaissance marines who do missions directly from the pentagon, vs. USMC headquarters (although they work within Marine units logistically). Within this unit is the MSOB, or Marine Special Operations Battalions, and within them are MSOC, or Marine Special Operations Companies. Rhetth (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Placement of TOC

Where would it be best to place the table of contents, considering its size, and the relatively large template in the beginning? I'm thinking, but can't think of anything better. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best where it is, although I've added a maxwidth so that it doesn't cramp the content too much. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:30, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Looks freakishly cramped. What say we place the toc far right, and to its left the template? Or one over the other, template first, toc second? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki?

Just wondering, but would there be an independant wiki about this? Thought I'd ask, because this is the kind of thing that would merit one. A Marine Wiki? 125.238.88.132 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"gross mismanagement"

100s of Marines killed. Worth a mention? Seems more notable than the rape material that is being pushed. Maybe just because its current? --68.9.117.174 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently added claim

I removed the following which was added anonymously in an inappropriate place, making the article somewhat unreadable, and arguably unbalancing the coverage. Could those involved in this article please evaluate it, and put it in the right place if it is deemed appropriate?

A U.S. Marine was arrested on Monday on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old girl in Okinawa Prefecture, drawing immediate outrage from the governor that is spreading across the prefecture. Similar incidents have been happening frequently since U.S. occupied Japan in 1945. In 1995, three U.S. servicemen, U.S. Navy Seaman Marcus Gill and U.S. Marines Rodrico Harp and Kendrick Ledet, all from Camp Hansen on Okinawa, raped a 12-years-old schoolgirl by turns.

References: New York Times and CNN

Thanks. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the IP address on the person who added the arrest coverage. It is from Japan. I can understand there are hard feelings, but there are places for this material, just not on this article. mkohtz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.243.128 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is a frequent thing and sources say that, it might come under a 'criticisms of the marine corps' section or somesuch. However, until they are found guilty or whatnot, or if there are wider repurcussions from it, it is likely not that notable to the corps. Narson (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only about three incidents since 1945, if my memory serves me right. One, as mentioned above, not even involving Marines. This sounds like a resentful Japanese.-TMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.22.213 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion about the USMC and the SOF

Maybe could be a good idea to put in thia article a link to the SOF of the USMC, in this case the Force Recon article.--A. Dupin (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Army and Marine Corps

As a foreigner (ie, non-US), perhaps it would be worth a mention as to the relationship between the US Army and the Marine Corps, with potential benefits from such rivalry, the problems with it (funding?), and what would the experiences be like for a young yank deciding which to choose? Differences in culture/equipment etc, between the two arms might be best described using an example of a potential recruit to compare and contrast perspectives so as to be less confrontational. Would the Marines be a better place for someone interested in aviation for example (given they have fighters through to small transport helicopters, whereas the army is limited to fling-wings), or would Army be better for an armour-minded recruit given they have a wider amount/array of tanks, or whatever. How do people with skills that would be useful in both arms choose between them (like mechanics? surgeons? lawyers?). This sort of thing would be of interesting note for an outsider like myself, though i am less sure whether it pertains to the article or not. 58.7.187.79 (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your view, I can see a few difficulties with adding it to the article in a manner that would be up to par. For one, a quick search didn't yield any suitable references on the topic. Two, a lot of the information you speak would be subjective at best, and not quite encyclopedic. Lastly, any sort of comparison with the Army would draw vandals like a magnet (not to say that should preclude an entry, but it should be mentioned).

That said, I suppose I can add this to my to-do list. I can do a bit of research and let the references catch up later. bahamut0013♠♣ 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be most appreciated. I hesitate to do it myself as i know so little about either topic (hence the question). Thankyou kindly. 58.7.187.79 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the Relationship with other services section. It may not be eexceptionally well-written, but it gets the point across and others can always improve it. It's mostly things I've observed or seen second-hand, so I don't have any references. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New reference for NCOs and SNCOs

Echo5Mac (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC) In the book 'Corps business: The 30 Management Principles of the U.S. Marines' the author David Freeman introduced me to a new term 'Enlisted Officer' when referring to NCOs and SNCOs. This brought attention to the positive achievements of the enlisted personnel who have demonstrated leadership and command qualities and performance, etc.; as opposed to the negative implication of what they do not as yet possess, which is a commission.

It is from these ranks that the Warrant Officers are promoted and occasionally Commissioned Officers as well.

I do not know if the author coined the term or if it has been introduced into Corps parlance, however it does seem worth consideration.

I've never heard the term before. While I understand the thought process, it doesn't match too well with most mentalities I've encountered. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Prune

This article is huge. While Wikipedia:Article size does not set a limit, it suggests that articles greater than 100,000 kilobytes should be split up. Right now, USMC is hovering at 125,000, and most relevant topics have already been split off into thier own articles (just about every section has a template:main tag). I'd like to go through the article and prune off some of the content that is duplicated, and move some of what would be more properly kept in the sub-topic articles. For example, the history section is roughly a quarter of the total article size, and could be reduced some. Does anyone have any objections? I'd like to start sometime next week, around the 31st. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you--Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Some suggesions:

• Uniforms could use some pruning - will do within a few days
• "forms of address" has ballooned and should be deleted wholesale
• Culture - nix swords and drill, or, better, spin off into (yet another) subarticle, rewrite as a cohesive 1 or 2 paragraphs.
• I really don't see the point of the Further Reading list, and if anything, it's poorly chosen (POV, one reason not to keep it anyway). I recognize a lot of sources I used, but that's already in the bibliography (which, incidentally is also a reason the article's huge). I cited damn near everything to get it FA'd.
• Links need to be pruned. Links to affiliate organizations (Heritage Foundation, MCA, etc) aren't relevant to this article.--Mmx1 (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant to remove anything from the references section, to include further reading and external links, simply because I recognize that some of the info on the article is from them, just not properly cited. Of course, duplicates must go. I've already added a scrolling function to the notes, and we can encase everything else similarly or hide it with a collapsable table.

I'll probably move most of the "forms of address" to the article on ranks... seems like the best place, as there is already a sizable section about them there. Maybe we could combine the officer and enlisted ranks into a single page...

I think I'll just mention the swords under the unfiform section and leave it at that.

The history section is probably going to take the biggest cut.

It is unfortunate that a large amount of the traditions and culture exist only on this page. Perhaps that could be spun off to its own page? bahamut0013♠♣ 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Culture- certainly, the spinoff seems like the best idea. If the "further reading" are already footnoted, there's no point in duplicating them. I don't see the external links as a reference at all (MCA/Heritage League are not sources). What do you think of nixing links to all but the official pages(usmc.mil/marines.com/USMC myspace)? Also, the observation about footnotes was simply that the byte size isn't necessarily an accurate article size (except for dl speed), because of the large amount of code devoted to footnotes. I'm more concerned about the eclectic focus of the article and its inconsistent level of detail than any arbitrary byte size.--Mmx1 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point about the external links... We can possibly link them in the future "culture" article, but I do feel we should keep those official links on hand. I do agree without about the level of detail, and I think the majority of that is from Marines and former Marines who aren't normally editors finding the article and impulsively adding details, not knowing that they are duplicating info found elsewhere. That's why I value adding template:main and template:see also whenever possible, and having the broad navbox. I do feel some consistancy is important as well, and think this kind of review should be periodic on such an oft-edited article. I think I will begin pruning now. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is so big that AWB keeps timing out on me when loading it. Can somebody go through and make sure that my changes don't have any spelling/grammatical/disambig errors? Thanks for catching that piped link (colsul/expeditionary warfare]] mistake, I was copy/pasting like a madman! bahamut0013♠♣ 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do, may have also been my concurrent editing at the time--Mmx1 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've pruned a little more, I'll hammer out the "culture" article when I get off this afternoon. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that User:BillCJ has removed the rank tables, we are finally below 100kb. I think pruning is done for now. We should remain vigillant, however, because many good faith editors will attempt to expand the subject matter on this article instead of the more appropriate one(s). bahamut0013♠♣ 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On the rank tables, we could put them all into templates, which would use up less space on the page. I think it's redundant to have them both here and in the rank ariticles, but I know some people liked having them in the main article too. - BillCJ (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need, but if several editors absolutely insist on having them, I could make an image of a chart for simplicity. Your point about redundancy rings true with me.bahamut0013♠♣ 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)