Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Marine Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] United States Marine Corps

After a month of work on cleanup and citations, I feel this article is ready for FAC. I self-submit this article and welcome comments. While long, it is a major subject and currently has over 5 spin-off sections that are summarized here. --Mmx1 05:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sometimes when referring to the Corps vice individuals, you say "Marines". Suggest using "Marine Corps" in those cases as most of the time you say "Marine Corps", should be consistent. Per the portal tag guideline (see template page and its talk page), portal tags go in See also. Rlevse 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Moved the portal, though the talk page indicates that it is possible, though not particularly liked, to have the portal at top when the portal and article have the same name.
• Regarding the use of "Marines", my understanding of grammar is that the definite article "the" makes the phrase "the Marines" a reference to the organization, as under AP style "Marines" is a proper noun. For example, "the Spanish", "the English". My understanding is that it would be appropriate in describing actions of individuals operating on behalf of the Marine Corps; e.g. "The Marines developed amphibious warfare", however, its use in the intro "Only the Coast Guard is smaller than the Marines" should be replaced by "Marine Corps". The line here gets blurry and is a matter of taste. The term "the Corps" is also used interchangeably with "the Marine Corps" for brevity and word variety where apropos. E.g. ,in the intro (revised) "...smaller than the Marine Corps. The Corps is nonetheless larger than...." Thoughts? Have cleaned up the instances where "The Marines" or "Marine Corps" are preferable.--Mmx1 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have some criticism:

• "The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many major nations; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces.[4][5]"

Since when is Israel a major nation with 7 million people? OK, they bristle with weapons, but this does not qualify.

• "At its founding, the Marine Corps was composed of infantry serving aboard naval vessels, responsible for the security of the ship and its officers by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and maintaining order aboard ship."

Defending ship and officers only? What about the sailors?

• "The close integration of different Marine units stems from an organizational culture centered around the infantry. Every other Marine capability exists to support the infantry. Unlike most militaries, the Corps has been immune from visionaries proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently. For example, Marine Aviation has always been focused on close air support, and remained largely uninfluenced by airpower theorists who proclaimed that strategic bombing could singlehandedly win wars[10]."

If strategic bombing can win wars or not depends on what are the specific objectives. That it is considered no useful tool is another point. Proposed rephrasing:

Unlike many militaries (most militaries are in Africa and they laugh at such ideas), the Corps stayed conservative against theories proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently (this way the reader judges whether it is a good thing). For example, Marine Aviation has always been focused on close air support, and remained largely uninfluenced by airpower theories, proclaiming that strategic bombing could singlehandedly win wars[10](no personal attack on airpower theorists, just stating USMC rejects their ideas).

• "This focus on the infantry is matched with the notion that "every Marine is a rifleman", emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All enlisted Marines receive training first and foremost as a rifleman; all officers receive training as infantry platoon commanders. [11] The value of this culture has been demonstrated many times throughout history. At Wake Island, when all the Marine aircraft were shot down, their pilots continued the fight as riflemen, leading supply clerks and cooks in a final defensive effort[12]."

Broadside against airforce and army? Could do with some rephrasing. State that the Marines emphasize their training as riflemen, even when occupied with other duties. (all soldiers know at which end to fire a gun)

• "Though the U.S. Army now maintains light infantry units capable of rapid worldwide deployment, they cannot match the combined-arms integration of a MAGTF, nor the logistical train that the Navy provides[2]."

Does this refer to the ability of Army soldiers? suggest rephrasing:

The U.S Army now maintains light infantry units as well capable of rapid worldwide deployment, though they do not match the combined-arms integration of a MAGTF, nor have the logistical train that the Navy provides.

Wandalstouring 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've nixed the "major" from "major nations". The intent of the "larger than IDF" is to convey that while it is a sub-service of the American military, it is still comparable to size to many national armed forces. Statement is intended to give perspective on relative sizes. Originally this stated the British Armed Forces, but this is no longer true (they have 10k more people); you could also state it's 30th in terms of manpower List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops, but that's borderline OR. Israel was chosen because it is fairly close in size and is similarly composed primarily of ground and air arms, and that it is fairly well-known (among those close to the Marine Corps in size). Given Israel's abnormally high per capita ratio of troops (23/1k versus 4/1k for the U.S.), I don't think it's population is relevant. Another commonly used phrase is "the Marine Corps operates the 5th largest airforce in the world".

Israel is no major nation (nation = population -> population very relevant, military power not) and is likely never to be one any time soon. Israel is a great military power (major nation no, major military power yes). Why don't you compare it to Spain with ~170,000 professionals, while Israel has a citizen army? or use "significant military powers" instead of major nations, there are some other oversized militaries. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it now states "The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many nations; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces" so "major" is a moot point. I would shun the comparison with Spain specifically because it's not as well-recognized as a modern military power; you typically try to compare to things that are well-known, not obscure. I'm having trouble even verifying its size (the Spanish Armed Forces lists 77k; the list of armies stats 150k. I'd accept "significant miliary powers" instead. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressed with use of "entire militaries of many significant military powers." --Mmx1 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• "ship and officers": A primary duty of marines in the age of sail (as general doctrine by Western countries) was to protect officers from mutiny; their responsibility was primarily to the ship and officers.

Ok, than make it perhaps clearer that protecting officers against mutiny (discipline, Navy sailors hired for short terms, like on merchant vessels, and were quite international) and the ship (ship + crew) against boarding were the objectives. Otherwise one really wonders about the US Navy sailors. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worded that way for conciseness; thinking about how to incorporate both brevity and your concerns. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection against mutiny is a role of military police. Perhaps this can help. Wandalstouring 09:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressed. Now states "At its founding, the Marine Corps was composed of infantry serving aboard naval vessels, responsible for the security of the ship and her crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions, and defending the ship's officers from mutiny"--Mmx1 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good rewording of the airpower/new theories para, I incorporated it.
• "every Marine a rifleman" is a core meme of the Marine Corps. The Corps can do so because of its size and that it offloads much of its logistical requirements on the Navy. It's not necesarily "better", just "different".

Sure, from a Marine perspective this sounds OK. Real infantry combat units usually have a lot more gun practice than maintenance units and others, but as far as I know, all soldiers do have frequent training as riflemen. That is the point, could you research a bit what the training standards in other branches of the US military are (especially for soldiers who do not serve among the combat infantry)? This way we can simply compare shedules, numbers or memes, etc. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Will have to do some research on specific numbers, but one obvious indicator, as stated in the article, is that basic enlisted and officer training is unsegregated by specialty. In the Army, enlisted basic training separates combat arms from other specialties[1]. Prior to this year, so was Army officer training, though they are now instituting a common curriculum called BOLC II for all newly commissioned officers(emulating the Marine Corps's TBS), specifically to introduce the "every soldier a rifleman" meme.[2] It is, however, still 7 weeks as opposed to 6 months in the Marine Corps, before officers diverge to their occupational training. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bingo, numbers. Perhaps telling it with these numbers and the organization of training, things are more sound. Wandalstouring 09:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the objection is. The "Capabilities" section is not a place to compare numbers on the length of training; nor really anywhere in this article. The institutional philosophy of "every Marine a rifleman" is well cited and documented; it manifests itself in various ways, most clearly in the manner of initial training; the specific length and nature of that training is discussed where appropriate. I am trying to resist the common urge to place the Marine Corps in a side by side comparison with the U.S. Army. As discussed later under "initial training", all officers regardless of specialty or source of commissioning receive common training as infantry platoon commanders; I will clarify the length there. I am aware that the Navy and Army both put professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, etc) through a sort of "military familiarization" course rather than boot; and the Navy specifically has a distinction between unrestricted line (capable of taking command) and restricted line officers (aforementioned specialists, scientists, etc); all Marine officers are considered to be officers of the line in Navy parlance, though I've been unable to source that statement. --Mmx1 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Army light units". That statement was intended to acknowledge that recently, the Army has enacted units capable of rapid deployment, while at the same time distinguishing the capabilities of these units from Marine capabilities. Incorporated the rephrase.--Mmx1 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please fix your refs. Sandy 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed placement w.r.t. punctuation; any issues with location?

• Support, a very nice article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like the objections above (some of which were shared by me) have been addressed. Stability may still be an issue, but it's generally on minor points and there haven't been any edit wars for quite a while. Well cited and comprehensive. Kafziel 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I read it through, and I've found that it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. Good job! --The monkeyhate 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it defenitly fits criteria for FA. Great job, cleaning it up! Hello32020 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written, well cited, well worth the time to read. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Auto peer review found quite a few things that can be fixed. The APR is on the articles talk page. Most are easy and should help make the article more readable. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressed on article talk page. --Mmx1 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses on talk page. My main problem is that the article is just too long. It's not intersting to the reader who isn't hardcore into the subject becuase it goes into too much detail. How many readers will make it to "famous marines" in its current state? Not many... -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is 82 Kb. I donot think this is too long. A FAC recently passed was over 100 Kb, most of which prose.--Yannismarou 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is huge, but it is quite necessary given the importance of the subject. I made the remark myself during the PR, but after going through the article for a second time, there is IMHO no way to shorten it further. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support but couldn't there have been an infobox for such an article... I think an infobox would serve well since it gives basic information and quick wikilinks to branching/similar articles. - Tutmosis 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's actually one being discussed on the talk page. Kafziel ^Talk 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Looks good, hope you guys put it in. - Tutmosis 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)