Talk:1st Battalion 1st Marines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

[edit] Motto -- is it correct?

Is "First a foot" correct? I always thought it was "First of foot", but maybe I just inferred some moderization of an antiquated phrase. Rhetth 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added details about OIF

I'm going to add some stuff that has been taken out, hopefully writing it in a more encyclopedic tone. I'll add some stuff about the training involved before the unit left for their first and second OIF deployment, and some more details concerning the wounded marine from 2004. Rhetth (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is too much information. If anything think about starting an article on pre-deployment training for Marine units heading over to Iraq. That way almost every battalion could have an article linked to it. To put it in an individual battalion's page is too much information. Then we would be looking at the same for every conflict and the page would be too long and unreadable. The operational history of the unit is sufficient. As for the casualty...again too much inofrmation. A number per deployment is sufficient. Are we going to list the individual circumstances for every 1/1 Marine injured or killed at Peleliu? Probably not an option so we shouldn't be listing 1 WIA here either.--Looper5920 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Here are some reasons why I think this information would be a good addition to this article:

Regarding too much information: I agree that, if every unit page includes the same level of detail, then yes, this would be too much information. But what I'm proposing is that we include information that is important relative to this unit. That only one Marine was injured during the 2nd OIF deployment is a notable event. If 200 were injured, then detailing every one would not be important, it would be more appropriate to describe in broad strokes what happened, which other unit wikipedia pages have done (see the Army's 3ACR). In addition, considering the history of the unit, this injury represents a part of that history as a watermark for the volitility during the deployment. In addition, the wikipedia page is a living thing, and should change according the individualities of each topic. What is notable in one page is not necessarily notable in another, I believe.
Regarding predeployment information: If you started a page detailing predeployment training, it would most likely include how different units trained. For instance, a mountain division would train differently than an airborne one. In the case of 1/1, part of the notability of the predeployment training information is how the commanders made the decision of how to train. They received real-time information about events in Iraq and Afganistan and adapted their predeployment training to the particularities of what training opportunities were afforded them. Not all units train the same way, and even if they wanted to, physical, time, and resource constraints would not allow it. This individuality makes the predeployment training information unique and notable.

These are my reasons for including this information. What do you think? Rhetth (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'm going to reinstate the information and organization from previous page, including sections for specific OIF tours, training, and specifics to certain missions. If you're thinking of just reverting everything back to the original because you think it's not notable or it's uncited, please be bold and lets discuss things first. Rhetth (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War Crimes

Shouldn't the war crimes done by this unit be included in the Vietnam War section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.209.171 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)