Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive

Archives

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

Contents

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.[citation needed] 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 contribstalk→ 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:

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, 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_Marine_Corps_Archive_2_bb75.html"