Talk:United States Army Basic Training

Weeks

If you'd like to help create the remaining sections for individual weeks of BCT, information can be found at this URL:

• http://www.goarmy.com/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile=

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AIT List Deletion/Overhaul

U.S. Army AIT is for enlisted personnel, so Engineer School should not link to the Engineer Officer's Course. Also, Air Assault school is not a part of IET. The list of AIT's should lead to the correct articles that exist, or be deleted. Dirteater13 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You should make the pertinent edits if you see something wrong. As for the red links though, I was hoping to encourage people to start articles for the missing schools. I just finished a massive cleanup of the TRADOC template in which I removed all red links, so that all the training articles wouldn't have them. But if a few individual articles have them, maybe thats not such a bad thing? I don't know...

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just updated the list with locations of training and source links to the specific schools. Also added a couple that were missing. However, I strongly disagree that a school needs an article to be listed. The information is relevant to the topic and should be included. If you want to delink the ones without articles, fine. But deleting them just because someone hasn't taken the time to write an article on it isn't a valid reason to remove the information. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Advanced Individual Training into this article

The Advanced Individual Training article describes a part of US Army Basic Training, and is a stub. I feel it would better serve as a section of this article.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed. Also merged OSUT stub article. Advanced Individual Training and OSUT now redirect here.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

06:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I have no idea where the idea of separate hourly "Fire Guard(s)" came from, but the USArmy uses the CQ for the fire guard during the BCT/IET/AIT phases. The CQ does hourly rounds which includes the duty of fire guard, and there is no "waking" of another guard as each hour ticks past. This reference should be deleted if noone else can recall it's current supposed "usage." Please disregard this notation if it's specific implementation has occurred universally in the last few years I am not aware of. If the practice is MOS specific, it should be listed here by MOS reference...separate hourly "Fire Guard" is not a part of the Fort Sam Houston AMEDD series IET/AIT MOS duties. In addition, CQ was the reponsibility of 1 soldier under the supervision of the Drill Sergeant/Platoon Sergeant, not 2 as listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren99 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Funny, you're talking about it being a "recent change". When I went through basic training and AIT in 1987, fire guard was totally seperate from CQ and changed fire guards hourly. And when I was on drill duty, it was the same. If anything, the lack of hourly fire guard duty sounds like the more recent development. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was in service 96-99, so my experience is much more current than yours. Also please note I do not state "recent change" ever in my comments, you have chosen to insert the reference. In addition, I specifically state that "MOS specific" differences may exist, and should you have had a different experience it would be to your advantage to state it, and not postulate. In particular the Combat Arms (infantry, etc) most likely follow a separate protocol than the Med Corps; listing the disparities would help to establish your opinion vs my own. The most beneficial result would be the merging of these differences, but that cannot be effectively achieved until everyone reports in their own experiences. Your experiences are not universal, nor were mine; as such a convergence should be explored.Ren99 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Um, the "recent changes" is in the title of the section. Further, I never said my experiences were universal, nor did I imply that they were. You complain that I took something from the title and incorporated it into my response, but feel it's ok to read some crap into what I said and make it look like I needed a lecture from you? Whatever. I went through training at one post and conducted training at another one. Both used it. Take that for what it's worth. Also, please learn to put your responses where they belong, not at the top of the disucssion. BTW, do you know when I got out of the service? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your term of service is not the matter. We appreciate your service. The title of the section was not the matter, I referred it to my response only. I served at many different stations, including overseas; where you served was not the matter, I stated the various arms may well function differently. That you took offense is your issue, and was not the matter of statement here. The Army is a professoinal organization; if you can't take the input vs what you feel is correct is not my concern and is your matter. If you don't want to participate in discussion, don't say anything at all as you are NEVER always correct; nor am I. That you cannot take criticism as a matter of learning is your matter, not mine. This is Wikipedia, an online informational open source format; write your congressman if you don't like it.Ren99 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I asked if you know what I got out of the service is because you made the declarative statement that you were in from 96-99 "so my (your) experience is much more current than yours". I wondered what fact you based that statement on. Where you served is not relevant, unless it was a training base. If you were on active duty, you should understand that difference. I have never tried to use my personal experience as a basis for anything in the article. Your implication that I am attempting to do so is dishonest. I used my personal experience to make an observation about the discussion at hand. Further, your statement that I can't take criticism is not only wrong, but not WP:CIVIL, just like your statement that I'm not "officer material" You have nothing to base your opinion on except for this exchange, ehich you've done nothing but mischaracterize. Don't lecture me on what Wikipedia is. You've got a whopping 10 edits under this account. Somewhere over the last 13,000+ edits, I've figured out the glaringly obvious; that this is an open source format. What it appears you haven't figured out is the skill of reading comprehension. Had you mastered that skill, you wouldn't have said half the things about me that you've said. I have a better idea. Instead of trying (and failing miserably) to tell me what I am saying, doing or have done, why don't you comment on the topic. Here is a better idea: Why don't you produce a reliable source showing what the current state of fire guard duty is? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How about how it's getting softer? Like how recruits can have cell phones and cd players now? Perhaps under a "Recent changes" section? Just a thought. Parsecboy 12:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, maybe under a "Criticism" section. Although we would need good sources for info like that. I went through basic training just a couple years ago and if they found a cell phone or CD player on you, G-d help you. If that's changed then it must a very recent change, like in the past 3 or 4 years.

Edit: I just took a short look look around and did find some stories about cell phones. From what I found they give them back for AIT, which makes some sense since AIT is more of an education period, and less of a mental breaking-down than BCT. Not to mention it can last a long time depending on the MOS. I only found forum threads so far though.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the same for me in early 2004, I think it's a pretty recent change. Here is where I heard about it. It's a Youtube of a Fox News segment about it. I'm sure there are suitable text sources, we'll just have to track one of them down. Parsecboy 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just watched it. That's pretty crazy. They tuned down the yelling to only when necessary? Jesus... I'd bet that's to get more people to join, so basic sounds less scary than it used to. I think a Fox news video is fine for a source, regardless of the clip being on youtube.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably to get more people to join, and less to quit once they get there. You're probably right about the clip being a reliable source. If at somepoint someone objects to it, it probably shouldn't be too hard to find something else. On a side note, I've heard some rumint that you don't even have to pass the PT test to graduate anymore, and that you can finish your push-ups on your knees. Who knows how much of that is exageration, though. Parsecboy 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that too. If you have a source for it feel free to put it into the article. For now I'm concentrating on the Overview and Phases sections.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it has, especially in the co-ed. There was alot of infighting between drill sergeants, people who did pass basic should not have, that includes myself. They just wrote down any pt score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.146.202 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got back from Fort Benning. I don't know about the other Basic Training forts, but we aren't allowed to have anything like cell phones or CD players during any phase of training. When I read that, I thought it was a joke... also, I don't think we had a "Fat Camp" at reception, and we were at reception for more than two weeks. Getting an ELS, even if you were suicidal, took months, and they were very reluctant to do it. We actually had a few privates try to commit suicide, and one in another platoon actually did. It may be getting softer, but we sure don't have anything like cell phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.97.26 (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BCT is not the same as IET. BCT in the USArmy is 9 weeks long. This is your boot camp training/basic combat training. Failure to pass BCT results in dismissal from the military. IET is training for your initial MOS and includes both BCT and AIT. Failure to pass IET results in reclassification of your MOS. These are important differences to consider when making statements concerning training environments.Ren99 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) AIT is also for soldiers who just completed basic and are qualifying for a MOS. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I just revised my prior listing for accuracy.Ren99 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Victory Tower/Teamwork Development Course

The Victory Tower we used at Relaxin' Jackson did include rope ladders and rope bridges, as well as the single rope you had to lie down on and slide on. Can't remember what that's called, I'm on 24 hour staff duty at the moment, and am a bit tired :) Thanks for fixing those misspellings. I blame it on being tired too ;). Parsecboy 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember that rope thingy, and the other stuff. Is that all called Victory Tower? I don't remember exactly. I thought the 50-foot rappelling wall was Victory Tower, and was separate from all the rest of that stuff. I could be wrong. Actually now that I think about it, Victory Tower is that tower with 3 levels, where you have to climb/pull each other up to get to the top. Seems like that would be partof the teamwork course. The rappelling wall might be separate. I really can't remember. Feel free to change it to whatever you think it is. No problem on the spelling. I've been up for a while myself.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

09:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

At least the one we did it was all one big tower, and it was all the same day. The teamwork course was separate, and had obstacles like an approx 8' wall, with a couple of small wooden platforms (a few inches by few inches), and another wall past that. we had a couple wooden planks and maybe a length of rope to get everyone on the wall and then accross the platforms and over the 2nd wall. I've noticed you've been up a while. Where are you stationed? I'm at Fort Bragg. Parsecboy 10:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We did a bunch of separate things (clearer now that I've slept). Victory Tower was the 3-level thing, but I think Victory Tower referred to everything that resided in that facility, which included the rope that you hang from and climb down, the log you run and roll over, etc. Then, as you said, the teamwork development course was something completely different, done on a different day. The rappelling wall was, for me, just a wooden wall with a ladder going up the side, and that may have been in the same facility as Victory Tower but I don't quite remember. I'll work on the wording in the article so that it can apply to either of our situations.

I'm actually not in the Army — I got out during Basic on a medical discharge, for pain associated with flat feet. Or at least that's what it says on my discharge papers.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For us, the rappelling wall was the "main event" of the Victory Tower. It was part of the whole tower structure. Your idea to reword it to be a bit more ambiguous sounds good to me. I'm sure plenty of people have had different experiences than both of us, too.

Oh, ok. I'm getting med boarded myself. I broke my back a little over a year ago, and they've decided that since I can't deploy, I don't really need to stay in. Parsecboy 17:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

its identical????

to say that jackson and benning are identical is just false. benning is much harder than jackson. no doubt. i went to jackson and the guys who went to benning told me of things that we never, unfortunately, endured at jackson. benning is harder no doubt, but the army as a whole is easier than it used to be because the recruit you get isnt as hard as he/she once was. i will say this thought, and that is that dicipline and being a good soldier is a choice. no drill sgt is going to make you a good soldier. you make that choice and i know this because although fort benning is harder, the biggest shi*bags came out of benning. they all claimed to be "real" soldiers, but they had no dicipline whatsoever and didnt live up to the army values for the most part. Ethmegdav (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure which statement you have a problem with. Could you paste a statement from the article that you feel needs to be changed?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:23, 12/15/2007

• Personal opinions aside, BCT is not identical at every location. Some posts use a different order and length. I've reworded to reflect such. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here but if you completed training and perform your duties as they are expected of you then you are a "real "soldier" regardless of where you went to BCT and AIT.Jersey John (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

wake up

daily, especially in the beginning, wake up is anwhere from 3 am to 4 am because tow the line is around 4am or 5 am.Ethmegdav (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Schedule and other aspects of the experience depend largely on where you train and who's training you. I therefore chose to just post the official schedule, which in my experience was generally followed with a few exceptions (and I was at Benning). If you want to add a small disclaimer that the schedule is not steadfast and can change depending on the whims of those in charge, you are welcome to, but I wouldn't go changing the schedule based on your personal experience.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:22, 12/15/2007

• I've revised the table and posted a SOURCED schedule. The occasional deviation from the norm based on conduct etc. shouldn't be used as an encyclopedic entry. On a personal note, I never woke my recruits up at 0300- 0400. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Occasional deviation? I think it is more accurate to say that this is a common practice and the article should reflect that. --Jmbranum (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Then source it. Otherwise, what you "think" isn't going to fly. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Barracks area

I don't know about other Basic training site but I just got back from Fort Leonard Wood and our barracks were one building with each platoon having a floor to themselves. The way this article describes them it sounds more like each platoon had there own building. I don't know about other BCT sites but thats what I experienced at Fort Leonard Wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeman177 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably using Jackson as an example. Besides for the temporaries I stayed in, most of Jackson is full of "Starships" which are huge buildings with plenty of room. Jersey John (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the differences between the US armys basic training and the United Kingdoms basic training (for the regulars)

I was curious about the training of the US army and the British army and how they differ both in length and difficulty? I thought that someone here may know the specific details. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.76 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, what's to stop you from researching them on your own...? I know firsthand about the US Army, but not a thing about how it's done across the pond...Jersey John (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a special way to "line up" in military?

Do people in army line up in a more efficient way? I looked up the article about Queue and I can't find how or why people in army line up. 118.169.96.88 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was an MP (Military Police) for 9 years from 1995-2004; completed my OSUT at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. I think what you mean by "lining up" would best be answered as "Dress Right Dress"; everything, soldiers included is "lined up" "Dress Right Dress". Hope this helps. Hooah. (Or as we said back in my basic training days, "kiiiiiiiiiiil!". Hooah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dressing is only one part of the process. Regardless, the posters question is ridiculous and that's why nobody answered it for nearly a year. Don't feed the trolls, it just makes them come back. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MOS training

A curiosity popped into my head. I'm wondering in regards to AIT. How does it work out. So, once a recruit finishes basic training, they go on to more weeks of training for their MOS. Most new recruits are usually college age. So for serviceman attending college, how do they find time do their AIT? I guess they'd have to put it off until summer. But say they're at a college that has summer courses, like a community college or other 2-year schools. I guess they'd have to put it off until they graduate. There's the time issue and their AIT may take place at a base far from where they live. How do they get time to do it, and is their a limit to how long it can be put off? --71.214.245.4 (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think putting off AIT is possible, generally. You don't have much of a choice, if any, as to when you do your AIT. It's not like college courses. There's slightly more freedom in AIT versus BCT, but it's still part of Basic Training. You don't need to "find time" for AIT, cause the Army basically tells you when you're going, and you have no particular say in the matter. People who go into basic training generally need to plan to put off any college courses or other life plans until after both the BCT and AIT phases are complete. Equazcion (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me good sir but I believe you may be mistaken. It is common for ROTC recruits and early entry soldiers to have their BCT and AIT split between two consecutive summers. 67.247.234.225 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct, AIT can be delayed. This is actually not uncommon among National Guard and Reservists. I don't, however, remember that happening for active duty soldiers, which is where I think the confusion here is coming in. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree. There is difference between an active duty obligation and reporting for active duty. Early entry and ROTC carry an obligation but they have not yet reported for active duty. After reporting for active duty they are full time for their term. Yes? 67.247.234.225 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reservists, National Guard etc are considered on active duty while attending basic training and for AIT. Their service record indicates those periods as active duty service. It's necessary that they be on active duty so that they are subject to all applicable regulations and the UCMJ and to ensure all trainees have the same chain of command structure. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No history

Why is there no history of basic training? It has changed quite a bit during the years. This is especially true regarding physical contact and so called abusive language. 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.234.225 (talk)

Basic training changes

Recently the US Army has released some major changes to the BCT system. A good source can be found at http://www.military.com/news/article/army-news/the-top-ten-basic-training-changes.html?ESRC=army-a.nl, I hope someone is watching this. Sadads (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy vio?

Obviously the entire article isn't a copy vio, so if the editor who decided to tie up the entire article with a copyvio notice, then fail to state what part is the problem, would like to be specific, perhaps we can get the article fixed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'tie up the entire article', I did what is standard procedure in the case of such violations. Most of this article (and by 'most', I literally mean the overwhelming majority of the article -- i.e. the entire intro as well as 90% of the article that follows) was merely cut and pasted from the website listed in the template (which, as you correctly noticed, is not a government website, and is copy-written). In order to fix it, the entire article will essentially need to be re-written. Because as it stands right now, this was a private firm's verbiage, which was used -- extensively -- without permission. You can see for yourself at the website. I got suspicious after I read it closely -- it looked a little too polished, and without enough citations compared to most Wikipedia articles I've read and/or edited, so I Googled large sections and they all came back to that site, word for word. That's blatant plagiarism at the very least, and a violation of various copyright laws at its worst (which is a BIG wiki-no-no to put it mildly) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• The entire article is now unavailable because of this. Spare me the lecture on plaigiarism and copyvio, I'm not new. Much of this could have been handled with some rewording and better cites. Instead, you placed a vio notice, taking the article completely out of use, without having the common courtesy of even posting a word about why on the talk page. The article was using 34 references, so it clearly wasn't unreferenced. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As you were. Spare me the condescending tone, as I'm not new either to Wikipedia either. I did exactly what is standard procedure according to Wikipedia guidelines -- and according to those guidelines, this is how it's supposed to go down. If that's an inconvenience to you, well, I don't know what to tell you. Take it up with the Wikipedia Copyright Violations policy if you feel as though this was unfair -- and FYI, anyone can arbitrarily plug in citations they found wherever they want. The bottom line is that most of the article was cut-pasted from somebody else's work. That's why the template is on there, and it's now subject to the findings of the investigating admin to determine what to do about it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I was? Oh, weren't you the one telling me that I must not have served? Clearly you didn't do your homework before making that ridiculous assertion. It doesn't "inconvenience me". I've been through basic training, I don't need the article to tell me about it. You fail to grasp what I'm talking about. There is a way to handle these. If there is a copyvio, fine, we deal with it. What you failed to do was tell what the vio was before rendering the article completely unusable. From the policy: "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active.". This article is reasonably active. That should have been step 1. "The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text." Did you? Not until I gave up waiting for you to do what you are supposed to do and started the thread for you. Instead, you threw a blanket over the whole article and gave no explaination for it at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First off... it's not a matter of me not doing my homework -- the template info (see: here) isn't that detailed. It doesn't say anything about discussions. I saw the clear violation, followed the instructions listed there, slapped the template on the article and called it a night. The template itself is a lot more detailed than the directions on how to use it are. Second -- You gave up waiting for the URL? The URL you are referring about is clearly listed on the template which now covers the article page. You didn't see that?

Look, I think you might be the one that is failing to grasp something here: the article was almost a complete copyright violation in and of itself. What exactly would you have proposed discussing? It was like a house that needed everything but the windows replaced. Seriously. And considering (after the fact) that you yourself were hasty enough to make the snap decision to revert the article by removing the template (until you realized that it wasn't a .gov website... something I did look into myself before I made the call BTW) and going with my gut on interpreting your own snap judgement, do you think my bet would've been on a reasonable discussion had I even known to bring it up here first? And for the record, it wasn't my intent to leave anyone in the dark -- I was trying to leave a link and a note in the editing comment when my hand hit 'enter' right after that colon at the end of the word see: in the edit summary. The see: that I was going to direct concerned editors to was this.

And lastly, doing my homework before my 'ridiculous assertion' about your not having served? What, you think I'm a wiki-stalker that goes and checks up on who is who before I make a comment? When I went through Benning back in 1990, we called it 'chow' and the 'chow hall', and when we called meals breakfast, lunch or dinner, we did pushups. So apparently it's not a standardized regulation put out by TRADOC and/or enforced universally by Drill Sergeants. Maybe we've both learned something... or maybe not. Maybe we can continue arguing about it, or maybe not. That part is up to you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's not stalking, it's recon. It will keep you from saying things like "you didn't serve" and being dead wrong. I never said it was standardized. I said that it was a colloquialism. It doesn't belong in a chart like that. It does belong in the body of the article (and it was already there). I self reverted because I thought you'd said all of it was a copy vio. All of the article is NOT and a number of the sources are govt. sources. But of course, it's moot now since the whole article is lumped under your blanket complaint. I just said URL because it was shorter than the whole explaination about the policy and that you should be specific about what part you feel is the copyvio. Just saying "this site" doesn't complete it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue could have been fixed with a little bit of discussion, and a little bit more citations. Instead, someone had to escalate it to a whole new level. It is not a copyright vio. This shitstorm could have been avoided. A research paper without quotes is plagiarism, a paper with quotes is research. The job of armybasic.org is to provide information to the recruit. The job of this article is to do the exact same thing. Nate1028 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly, it could have been fixed with some discussion first. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the article came up for review today I've been looking through it and judging from the introductory section it looks like a reverse copyright violation - i.e., they copied from us. The structure of the intro has remained largely the same for years, but in this diff, there's some evidence of evolution:

Basic Training is designed to be extremely intense, and individuals who have experienced it generally consider it to have been the most challenging experience of their lives.

becomes

Basic Training is designed to be highly intense and challenging.

and

This is where individuals learn about the fundamentals of being a soldier, from the proper way to respect a superior officer to the correct way to fire weapons

becomes

This is where individuals learn about the fundamentals of being a soldier, from combat techniques to the proper way to address a superior.

Both of these changes are reflected in the text at usarmybasic.com. I didn't check through the whole article, so if there's still a concern that some particular subsection of text may have been copied from there, please let me know. From what I've looked at so far there's no copyright problem here so I've removed the blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm honored -- I wrote most of this article including those lines. What is it they say about flattery? The site's since been hacked by muslim fundamentalists though. Oh well. PS. "Basic Training is designed to be highly intense and challenging" -- this was my original wording, someone else later added the "and individuals who have experienced it [etc]" part. The site just copied an earlier version of this article. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:56, 14 Apr 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate links

It's not just a matter of forcing people to look an inch over; rather, since people don't necessarily already know which Army bases are located where, they have to skim through the rest of list to find the link they want, instead of being able to click it when they've already found the item that interests them.

Eg. List of bus routes in London has everything linked, even duplicates located just a few items apart (Hammersmith, for example, has a duplicate just two items down).

This is more intuitive for a list because a list is a reference, rather than a linear narrative like paragraphs are. You generally read a paragraph from beginning to end, so seeing the same word linked multiple times can be obtrusive. There's no reason to avoid that in lists, because they are more often used by skimming for a particular item and clicking its related links, rather than reading through. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:38, 28 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• Another article overlinking isn't justification for this one to do it. There ARE reasons not to do it and they are found in the MOS section addressing WP:OVERLINKing. Look at ones you are talking about anyway? For example, the Ft. Leonard Wood link would repeat on the very next line. The list is short (11 deep) and only two columns wide. If this were an extensive list and covering a lot of space, you might have something to point at, but needing to have over 25% of a mere 22 entries be repeats just doesn't wash.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you point out one of the reasons it should be avoided here? I don't see any on that style guide page that apply here. I see "it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value", but once again, in a list this wouldn't apply, since it's not a narrative where an important word needs to stand out. It's a reference. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:59, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• Could you point out a reason why the MOS should be ignored that isn't linked to your subjective personal opinion that it's "intuitive"? Again, a short list doesn't need 25%+ duplication. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, we are told to ignore all rules in favor of reason. Again, in the particular application of a list, the reason we tend to avoid duplicate links doesn't actually apply. We're not trying to highlight important terms in a list so they stand out, but make it easy to use as a reference. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:17, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• IAR is frequently misused and, I believe this would be another misuse. As the overlinking guide previously mentioned, creating a "sea of blue" doesn't help and it can create problems for readers with certain visual impairments. Further, expecting a reader to shift his gaze a mere line or two isn't exactly a lot to ask. Lastly, especially when the school itself has an article of its own, a redundant link to the base, which will be linked again in that article, seems doubly redundant. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• You asked why we should ignore the MOS, rather than presenting an argument, so I felt the need to point out that the existence of a rule is not reason alone. That's exactly what IAR is there for. I see nothing there about a sea of blue or readers with visual impairments, and don't see either of those being an issue. Realizing full well that overlinking is usually frowned upon and veteran editors are used to steadfastly cleaning them up (I know because I do it often), in this particular application, again, it would actually be better. Lists often do this on Wikipedia, whether or not there's a rule that specifically states it. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:57, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• As a veteran editor who also frequently cleans them up, I don't see any compelling reason to disregard the MOS. As for the "sea of blue" etc, those were both long-tme reasons in the MOS before it was trimmed down for brevity. They still hold true, even if not currently displayed. Again, there is not need to prove a reason to follow a rule, there is a need to show why an exception should be made. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I gave you reasons that an exception should be made. The reasons for the rule don't apply here, and a list is better served by ignoring it. A reference is better served by linking everything so that people don't need to go searching once they've already found what they're interested in -- Lists are references, and whereas we usually avoid duplicate links because we want to highlight important terms, that's not the case with a list. This is the general practice with lists, whether or not a rule is written. There is a need to show why an exception should be made to THAT, from where I'm standing. You haven't really explained your steadfast resistance to this, and I think you're just doing what you're used to rather than actually reconsidering your reasons they should apply here. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:13, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you haven't really given a reason that extends beyond your personal opinion that it's "intuitive". Using some other list in an article as an example isn't really valid since a) it has nothing to do with this and b) the list in that case is extremely long compared to this short list. BTW, in that same list you used as an example, there are short tables where repeat links are not duplicated. This "types of service" table [1] has 8 lines (much closer to the 11 we are talking about here). "Central area" is listed 3 times, but only linked once. The other lists are each a HUNDRED deep and 3 columns wide......hardly comparable to the list were are talking about in this article. The MOS says you don't repeat. IAR doesn't relieve you of having to come up with a real reason, not just "I like it that way". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't remember saying "I like it that way". In my last comment above I just presented rather extensive reasoning, which you've not argued against yet (though you do continue to repeat retorts against my earlier "intuitive" comment, which is easier, admittedly). Equazcion ^(talk) 15:18, 30 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• The quotes, in context, are obviously not representing an actual quotation. Your reason is really a matter of you saying that you think it's "intuitive". Nothing more. Your so-called "extensive reasoning" have never really gone much past that. Further, I've explained my reasoning both with the MOS and by explaining the difference between this article and the article you used as an example. In the end, I've rejected your subjective opinion that it's "intuitive" as being a valid reason to ignore the MOS and you've just decided that the MOS can be ignored because...well, because you said so. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) We're having an argument in which we're both expressing subjective opinions and we've both stated reasons. Claiming my reasoning is subjective while yours is objective is pretty arrogant, and classically fallacious when you're debating someone.

My reason is that duplicate links make navigation easier in any event, list or no list -- we just tend to avoid them in paragraphs because they serve double duty as highlighting important new terms that need to stand out, whereas in a list there is no reason to do this.

Your reason is that it causes "too much blue" (not a direct quote)? So it might bother people with... eye problems? What else was there? Oh right, "There's a rule and it agrees with me, so I get to say we default to it."

I've tried to respect your side of this, but haven't gotten that in return, so here we are. Which of the above sounds more like "I like it that way" to you? Equazcion ^(talk) 13:42, 31 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, you actually believe all that, don't you? My stance that the MOS should be followed isn't subjective. IAR does not agree with you and it doesn't even make sense in this case. And now you want to start personal attacks? Whatever sunshine. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing above was a personal attack. You pigeonholed my arguments as subjective nonsense and I responded in kind. If you'd care to get back to the facts I'd be fine with that. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:06, 31 Jan 2012 (UTC)

• You responded in kind, but it's only me being "arrogant"? Once again, whatever sunshine. Your "reason" for ignoring the rules isn't persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)