Talk:United States Marine Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star United States Marine Corps is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has had a peer review by the United States WikiProject, which has now been archived.

If you have served or are currently serving in the USMC you are welcome to add these userboxes to your user page.

This user is proud to have served in the United States Marine Corps.
This user is proud to be serving in the United States Marine Corps.





Archive

Archives

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

Contents

[edit] 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: [1] —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)

[edit] 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.[1]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[2]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[3] (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.[4]
  • 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.[5]
  • 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.[6]
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[7]
  • 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.[8]
  • 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).[9]
  • 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. [10]

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)

[edit] 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)

United States Marine Corps

Major Commands
I Marine Expeditionary Force
II Marine Expeditionary Force
III Marine Expeditionary Force
Marine Forces Reserve
MARSOC
Headquarters Marine Corps
Major subordinate commands
Infantry divisions
Aircraft wings
Logistics groups
Structure
List of battalions
List of aircraft squadrons
List of weapons
List of expeditionary units
List of bases
List of famous Marines
Other
Marine Corps history
Marine Corps uniforms

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)
United States Marine Corps

Major Commands
Organization of the Marine Corps
I Marine Expeditionary Force
II Marine Expeditionary Force
III Marine Expeditionary Force
Marine Forces Reserve
MARSOC
Headquarters Marine Corps
Personnel
Commandant
Officer Insignia
Enlisted Insignia
Uniforms
Famous Marines
Structure
Battalions
Aircraft squadrons
Expeditionary units
Bases
History and Traditions
Marine Corps history
Marine Hymn
Marine Band
Marine One
Marine Flag
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.169.90 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_Marine_Corps_401c.html"