Talk:United States Marine Corps

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

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

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

Archives

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

Marine Corps ball/birthday celebration traditions?

Is there an article on the Marine Corps ball/birthday celebration traditions? Probably this wouldn't warrant its own article, but maybe some additions to this article. —Kenyon (t·c) 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Reference: [1] —Kenyon (t·c) 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It could certainly in time do with its own article; but for now I'll put in a paragraph under the culture. --Mmx1 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • is considered
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Replies:

• Relative time periods. It is used in this article in the context of "Most recently, " as a transition to finish the timeline detailed in the history, not as a replacement for an indication of time, which is also given. This statement may be made obsolete if/when Bush decides to invade another country, and it can be updated then, but it is good practice to provide transitions rather than clinically stating years - this is, after all, prose, not a list. Quality of prose trumps attempting to accomodate future changes.
  • There are several sports where "currently" is not needed at all, and a few more where "as of 2006" could be used instead. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you really want to pick nits, there's only one use of "currently" remaining, to describe the current event of Conway's promotion to Commandant. "As of 2006" indicates some doubt that his billet will change prior to his promotion. --Mmx1 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Concise Captions addressed
• No apropos infobox for military services (as opposed to militaries). There is a nav box in the works. User:Mmx1/Sandbox (started by Looper).
• WP:MOSNUM addressed
• Date links addressed
• Interlanguage Links addressed
• Long TOC This is a long article.
  • The personell section has several very short pargraphs under headers, can this be refactored?
• Summary Style Already done. There are 11 Main articles which are summarized here. 12 if we make the Commandant a link.
  • Re-read what summary style is. The history section should be shortend. If there is an article on it than only 1-2 paragraphs should be in this article. To me this article isnt currently compelling because some sections are so big, you get bored and exit.

Nowhere does it say that a summary needs to be 1-2 paragraphs. It states "several", and for history, it is difficult to summarize so generally without running afoul of the "synthesis" portion of WP:OR. The precedent is for lengthy "summaries" of history, e.g. United States. Could the history be shorter, yes. But length is a guideline, WP:OR is a policy. --Mmx1 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weasel words All uses are cited, not in dispute, and clear from the sentence context (in all cases, the USMC is the subject of the verb). The ommission is merely for the sake of smoother prose.
• Footnotes addressed.
• Redundancies and Copyediting I've read Tony1's exercises.--Mmx1 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

I have put this template together for use on some USMC pages but before I use it I wanted to make it available for all to see and make any appropratie changes. Please add, delete, hack or whatever as you see fit, and once we come to a consensus I think this will be a good addition to a few USMC pages. Cheers--Looper5920 12:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I like templates like this better when they're set up horizontally. When they're vertical like this one, they have to go either on the right or left side of the article, and the placement tends to screw with section headers and leave a lot of blank space in the text. When they're horizontal, they can go at the bottom of the page without disturbing anything. Kafziel 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If setup in the top, it would go alongside the whitespace along the ToC. The intro would be crammed a bit, but not significantly. So far the biggest problem is the length of "Marine Forces Special Operations Command", which sets the width of the box. I'm tempted to break with convention and just turn it into an acronym. --Mmx1 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It would fit well at the top of this one since the TOC is so huge, but I assumed it was intended to be used on other USMC articles, too. Not all of them have that much white space. For example, if used in Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, which has a short TOC, it would create a big gap and throw off the pictures that follow. Or if used in I Marine Expeditionary Force, which already has a big infobox, it would either show up next to the other one and squash the text, or create a lot of white space at the end. If it's laid out horizontally, it can go at the end without disrupting the other sections. Kafziel 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was really only thinking of using it here because of the huge ToC. I do like the idea of a template at the bottom of the page if anyone if willing to take a crack. This was just something to try. If no one likes it then no worries, scrap it. I am not trying to jam this down anyone's throat. --Looper5920 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Any way to stick Flag of the United States Marine Corps? into this since it uses the flag. Also what about the seal? - Tutmosis 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what you're seeing, but this template is using the flag as the header image. It's not so much an infobox as a navbox, and I think it could go under the seal. Or we could go the U.S. Navy route and use the seal in place of the flag. --Mmx1 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1...I thought I saw another version of this template in your sandbox. Any chance of getting that one up here. I remember it being much better than this one?--Looper5920 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took yours and reordered some of the entries. Here it is below --Mmx1 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

I just fixed a capitalization. I like this one and am in favor of adding it.--Looper5920 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mmx1 but I ment shouldn't there be the link to Flag of the United States Marine Corps in this template? seems pretty relevant to me. - Tutmosis 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I see no reason to not convert this into a template and start inserting it into articles. - Tutmosis 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections (I'll give it a day or so) I'd like to put the template on the page using the USMC seal and replace the stand alone seal that is currently there. I also made a few changes to clean it up a bit. Let me know.--Looper5920 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Converted to template, Template:US Marine Corps. --Dual Freq 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Naval Installations

I removed the portion that stated Marines guard naval installations. The Navy has it own guard force and in many times hire civilian guards to provide security for their bases and stations.Bunns USMC 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The info should be put back into the article as it was correct. Marine Corps Security Forces guard Naval Installations such as the nuclear sub bases in Bremerton, Washington, Rota, Spain and Kings Bay, Georgia. --Looper5920 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Marine Corps do guard some naval installations. "SOME, NOT ALL." So no the statement needs to stay out of the article.Bunns USMC 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article didn't say they guarded all naval installations, just that they guard naval installations. Which they do. Kafziel ^Talk 15:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Warrant officers

I'm a PFC fresh from MOS school... Maybe I just don't rate it yet, but my platoon commander at MOS was a CWO3, and we always addressed him as "sir", along with a sharp salute when appropriate, and so did the NCOs and staff NCOs. Never as "warrant" or "warrant officer". I talked to a few fleet Marines doing lat moves while I was there, and they said they hadn't head of this, either; they said warrant officers and CWOs are treated the same as officers, e.g., we call them "sir" and salute. (Pardon if I'm editing in the wrong place, on my sidekick at the moment, limited functionality here.) --216.220.208.233 Cuervo 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We saluted them and said "sir" usually, but did say "warrant" or "warrant officer" in the workplace. Joe I 07:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It goes along with calling GySgts Gunnys and all that. There is the proper greeting, which would be sir for a warrant officer, and the informal greeting, with the most common one being Gunner.(Even though they WO/CWO isn't actually a Gunner.. One of my peeves actually.) Warrant Officers in any branch of the US Armed Forces rate the same things as regular officers. They go to the Officer's Club, vice the Enlisted Club. The go to the officer's Birthday Ball, vice the Enlisted Birthday Ball, etc. hope that sort of clears things up devil.Gelston 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at this again, I think what it means is that warrant officers are called such by those that outrank them in a formal environment. (As a captain would call a 1st Lieutenant, Lieutenant.) Lower ranking would , formally, call them sir. This should probably be cleared up a little in the article.Gelston 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to go, that makes more sense. Thanks --Johnny (Cuervo) 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Warrant Officers, I've added WO1 back into the rank table. Someone took it a few edits ago, with no explaination. This is still a rank which exist within the USMC. Gelston 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One big ad

And no one feels this whole article feels more like a huge advertisement for joinning the marines rather than an actual article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.169.90 (talk • contribs) 22:07, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 11:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that this article is a Wikipedia:Featured article. As such, it has been extensively reviewed. Any major changes to the article should be discussed on this talk page, and consensus should be reached on such changes. — ERcheck (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy 231st

Happy Birthday from Iraq. Semper Fidelis. Gelston 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for spam, please restrict this kind of drek to your own userpage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.131 (talk • contribs) 02:27, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Thanks! Gelston 07:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Marine. USMCAirstrike 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

GWoT?

I noticed someone recently changed the Global War on Terrorism section to Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts. Is there any actualy consensus on what this section should be called? They DO both fall within GWoT (Budget-wise and politically wise, and before the individual campaign ribbons for both places, there was only the GWoT- Expeditionary.) Gelston 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

GWoT is only an all encompassing PR term that has been used since pre 1950s, campaigns were Afghanistan and Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.131 (talk • contribs) 02:26, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the GWoT Wikipedia page. Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters within a overall campaign, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism_-_Theaters_of_operation. You may consider it a PR term, but I think we'll need a consensus before we can go with a specific name. I'm going to revert it back to its original name in a few days if no one else replies to this. Gelston 12:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest that article has only the most tenuous grasp on truth(just look at the Iran segment), remember just because something is on wikipedia doesn't make it truth. Despite it's name, the 'war on terrorism' is term of policy, not an actual war(and incidentally nothing to do with terrorism either). Both the Iraq & Afghanistan campaigns may be affiliated with this policy but they are clearly seperate actions. To say otherwise is POV(this means Point Of View) due to pandering to the white house PR(Public Relations) line relating to that term of policy. 81.152.196.46 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Seriously, it's extremely difficult to understand what you're trying to say when you use inconsistent capitalization, unexplained abbreviations, and poor/incorrect grammar. Please consider using grammatically correct standard English if you're going to communicate with editors in the English version of Wikipedia. Apologies if English is your second (or third or fourth...) language (but I don't think that's the case)! --ElKevbo 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is all your own opinion, therefore POV. Even the money from the USMC to pay for the war in Iraq come from GWoT funds. It may SEEM like a PR term, but that is still what its called. Gelston 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry elkevbo, English(UK(United Kingdom) variant) is my fourth language actually. I'm guessing that you might be American so I'll simplify this for you; the 'War on Terrorism' is government policy, whereas the occupations of Afghanistan(this is a country in Central Asia, east of Iran) and also of Iraq, are military action. Although goverment policy is a stakeholder in military action, they are two clearly seperate events. To confuse the terms of government policy with those of a military action, is to conform to the POV(Point Of View)of the government policy and thereby not being NPOV(Neutral Point Of View) & encyclopaedic as wikipedia aims to be.

Although 'GWOT' does have precedent set in other articles so maybe it's for the best. I suppose you just have to decide which is more important for wikipedia, NPOV or consistency. 81.152.196.46 14:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point and I think it's completely valid. We've had many discussions about the use of the phrase "War on Terror" and related phrases/concepts such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If I recall correctly, there was even an RfA filed in relation to an edit war related to these topics and the use of these terms. I think the general consensus was to use the terms that are most commonly used and the ones most specific to the topic at hand even as we acknowledge that there could be some political issues involved in or conjured up by those terms. This is particularly true when those political terms are also used as the terms for specific and limited combat operations or other operations/events with more clearly defined boundaries.

In summary, I understand and empathize with you. But I do think that (a) consistency is important and (b) there is no clear-cut NPOV solution to this dilemma. I think using the most common terminology is the best we can do. --ElKevbo 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Military action is government policy. It was the government's policy to send troops to both of those places as part of their policy on the Global War on Terrorism. Gelston 09:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A portion of the reasoning for the start of OIF put forth by the Bush Administration contained elements of combating terrorism. The US's continued occupation of Iraq revolves heavily around terrorism. Both OIF and OEF fall under the US goverment's umbrella term "Global War on Terrorism". Regardless of wether or not a person belives that either OIF or OEF have anything to do with the combat of terrorism on a global scale or the term is aplicable in a literal sense it is still the offical operational term used and therefore appropriate for use in an encyclopedic context. That's not to say that there is not a place for cited and sourced concerns about the term's political or military contextual accuracy in another article, just that it's mention doesn't really belong in an article devoted the the United States Marine Corps. NeoFreak 14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the GWoT section to the names of the individual Operations (Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom). GWoT is a political term used by the executive branch-- neither houses of Congress endorse this term; however the names of the Operations are the official terms used by the military. Also, the section does not address operations in Somalia, the Phillipines, ect. that would fall under the category of the GWoT. --Cjs56 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is used pretty regularly, including by the Secretary of the Navy [http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/searchview1?SearchView&Query=global%20war%20on%20terror&SearchOrder=3&SearchMax=&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=FALSE. The section should mention more about its other global operations; for that and the reasons stated above GWoT is going back. --Mmx1 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Secretary of the Navy is a political appointee of the President. But that fact aside, I went and looked at the GWoT article, and I grudgingly concede that it is a potentially appropriate title for the section. I'd still like to see more info on the Corps' involvement in other theatres of operations (not that I'm volunteering myself) in order to make the title less inappropriate, but I won't revert. --Cjs56 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Han indeed shot first.

What I haven't seen in this discussion is the fact that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. GWoT is not a term heard much outside the U.S., and even in the U.S., it's not what you usually hear or see on the news — typically, it's "Afghan conflict", "Iraq war", or similar. We need to choose a title that is more specific (most people might think of embassy security or port security as much as Afghanistan or Iraq when reading that heading. I suggest just "Afghanistan and Iraq", without any use of "war/conflict" to avoid getting into a political fight — the use of simple place names is clear without bringing in any bias. David 20:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Official website

There is no need to keep reverting the official link from marines.mil to usmc.mil or vica-versa. Both addresses point to exactly the same server and provide exactly the same content. However as the site refers to itself as marines.mil that should probably be the address we use. Mikemill 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will have to respectfully disagree. The site does not refer to itself as marines.mil. What you are refering to is a banner for another link. The official site is usmc.mil. Take a look at www.defendamerica.mil (Another DOD site) and then put your Cursor on the USMC link and see where it points too. The official USMC site is www.usmc.mil --Looper5920 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On another note, you can Google United States Marine Corps and take a look at what pops up as the first link and what the descriptive paragraph says.--Looper5920 10:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. They both go to the same site with the same info. They are both the official sites maintained by the USMC.Gelston 11:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looper go to www.usmc.mil and look at the title for the page. It says marines.mil. Now I really don't care which it points to, but the constant changing of that link is getting annoying. Mikemill 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

grammar - capitals

In general use, the English language reserves the use of capital letters to proper nouns and to adjectives associated with such nouns and does not use initial capitals for common nouns
ie: Headquarters Marine Corps & a Marine Expeditionary Force vs 200 marines - otherwise, nice article --Danlibbo 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again thanks for the lesson but people who watch this article will spend the rest of their time reverting back to capitals if you make that change. Anyone familiar with the Marine Corps will revert it back. I hear what you are saying but Marines always capitalize the "m" and I believe in this one instance you can let it go. Save us all the hassle. Thanks--Looper5920 09:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Then too there is common usage. Most news agencies such as the AP for instance also capitalist the word Marine. NeoFreak 10:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• fair enough (I'm Aussie and don't read American press) - but i expect you guys to then stay out of the Australian and New Zealand-related pages when we use ss instead of zs and put us in all over the place - have fun --Danlibbo 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if ya'll want to misspell words in articles about your country then you're more than welcome to do so. :)

I don't think that counts as misspelling, unlike NeoFreak's use of the words "too" and "capitalist". - Matthew238 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You leave my fat fingering alone :P NeoFreak 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Danlibbo, I understand your logic, but you need to look at the exceptions more carefully. The Marine Corps formally capitalizes its members, e.g. Marines, similar to many organizations. Case in point: a member of the baseball team L.A. Dodgers is known as a "Dodger," not dodger. After all, a Marine refers to a member of the highly effective fighting force, the United States Marine Corps, not a generic term for an amphibious troop. I hope this clears up any doubts in the punctuation preference. Semper Fi. - USLeatherneck 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oohrah

I removed a recently added entry about Marine Raiders and Submarines that an IP added. Please give a cite for this info and I'll add it back. Thanks. Gelston 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

MARSOCOM justification

In the "Special Warfare" portion of the "Organization" I found the following quote regarding the Marine Corps resistance to SOCOM: However, resistance from within the Marine Corps dissipated when Marine leaders watched the Corp's "crown jewels"—the 15th and 26th MEU (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)s)—sit on the sidelines during the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom while other special warfare units led the way.

This is not just of a POV tone and nature but is also factually incorrect. The first troops into Afghanistan outside a small group of Special Forces and CIA paramilitaries was an 800 strong group of Marines from a MEU. If anything there was quite a bit of displeasure within the Army Ranger (part of SOCOM) and Army airborne communites. The given source for this statement is the Marine Corps Gazette which is a unoffical publication that carries a large amount of editorial work. Does anyone have this issue of the Gazette on hand and would there be objection to this being removed? NeoFreak 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have the article at home. Give me a day to take a look and see if it jives. I agree with what your saying but would be hesitant to remove sourced material without providing other sources. --Looper5920 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual I appreciate your help. NeoFreak 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article, my impression is that it is good to go. While the Marines were the first conventional forces ashore, they lingered in the Indian Ocean for a month and a half while SOF were the only ones on the ground. This after being the first ones in theater. Then when they were used it was piecemeal and not as they normally would. More as a gap filler for SOF. --Looper5920 07:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I'm assuming this was an editorial written by the Major and not a stated Marine Corps position? How do we include it without going down the "some poeple think" road? NeoFreak 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gazette is a professional journal and I believe worthy of being used as a reference. While there are some examples of the "some people think" articles (e.g. the HF is dead crowd), for the most part the articles are well researched and worthy of using as references. Might be best to take every ref on an individual basis. There are references in some of the Fallujah articles that absolutely drive me nuts. Where reporters for CNN just mindlessly say the US is firing artillery and cluster munitions into the city and A-10s are strafing, and once it is printed it is considered fact because CNN is a reputable company. Despite the fact the reporter had not stepped foot into the city to confirm what he was reporting and also that everyone knows A-10s have not been in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. I'll spare you the rest of the rant. Ultimately, talking it through and taking each reference on its own merit should suffice. I am not one to qoute the rules of Wikipedia so I'll just leave it at that.--Looper5920 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Gazette as well and think it is more than acceptable as a source. I was just concerned about the claim that resistance from within the Marine Corps dissipated when as it makes it seem that was the only cause. The "crown jewels" phrase is a little...questionable as well. Even if that was the exact phrase he used language doesn't always translate to encyclopedic format. NeoFreak 07:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agrred. I think the " crown jewels" should be removed or reworded. There are more neutral and encyclopedic terms that could be used. The other ascertion could be constured that way as well but I tend to agree with it.--Looper5920 08:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made the changes. NeoFreak 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes look good. --Looper5920 11:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV assertion

Despite its featured article status, the first citation under "capabilities", from a Marine Corps-POV source, asserts an opinion as fact regarding "combined forces" capabilities and "jointness". While that may be true in some scenarios, it is not true in all scenarios, and probably not true in most scenarios. No need to weasel word it, but the statement is an opinion, not a fact, and should be re-worded.--Buckboard 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to disagree with your statement and do not feel that the wording needs to be changed at all. For one, the Air Force and the Navy do not have any large scale maneuver units so they are not applicable to the argument. Thus it comes down to the Army v. the Marine Corps as to who has the "ability to permanently maintain integrated multi-element task forces under a single command provides a smoother implementation of combined-arms warfare principles." Just by logic one would have to say the Marine Corps because the service has all of the necessary assets organic to itself. The Army relies on the Air Force for FW support and this has caused friction at times. For a good read please check out this article from Air Force Review. Also the Army employs their organic helicopters much differently from the Marine Corps. Their main role is not necessarily in providing close air support to the grunt on the ground. Many times these squadrons are ceded portions of the battlespace to themselves precluding there need for coordinate with ground troops. Bottomline is that because the Marine Corps has all of these assets organic to itself, trains with them and religiously adheres to the combined arms doctrine, "as a service", they are better at the "implementation of combined-arms warfare principles."--Looper5920 11:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As an army combat veteran with experience working jointly with the Marine Corps in Iraq, I have to agree with Looper's assessment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Material

In November 2006 Court proceedings proved that Marines had acted in the organised murder of at least one Iraqi civillian. I added a section to the article. The section gave full details of what happened as the item is controversial and it relates to current activities. I took great care to provide sufficient details. That entry has been repeatedly removed. A similar problem has occurred on the pages relating to the SS where references to crimes against civillians are removed. Such vandalism is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everef (talk • contribs) 17:34, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary: this is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Please stop accusing other editors of vandalism.

I can't speak for anyone else but as someone else who reverted your edits noted in their edit summary the primary issue I have with your addition is that it's way too long and gives undue weight to this incident. I'd be perfectly happy if you or someone else added a brief mention of this incident and pointed readers to the specific article about this incident for the full details. This article is not the place for full details or lengthy explanations of almost any event in the long history of this organization. --ElKevbo 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. No where in the entire article are individual accounts from any war or battle spoken of. Why should we allow this so this guy can push his agenda? Also, why should the paragraph on this incident be longer than what is written for the entire Vietnam War? I'm sorry, the incident is more than well covered on it's own page and this guy is here solely to push an agenda.--Looper5920 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion-- add a link to the page that covers it under "See also" in lieu of the paragraph here. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned both incidents in a one line edit that is much more appropriate for their scope. I think this is a sufficient compromise. --Looper5920 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. That's what I was envisioning when I made the above suggestions. --ElKevbo 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

History

Shouldn't this article be fused with the article "history of the United states marines" (may not be an exact quote, laughs. There must be some info that we can add to this article, and there IS a LOT of info from the american civil war that we could put in here, or under uniforms in this article. I won't do something without at least one person in agreement.D. Farr 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. IIRC, that material was broken out from this one not too long ago as this article was growing too long. --ElKevbo 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Info that the individual wants to add is an incredibly long list of very detailed information about uniforms from the civil war. It really has no place in this article or the "USMC history" page for that matter. It would need to be severely edited to even be on the "Uniforms of the USMC" page.--Looper5920 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true that it's an understatement to call it wordy, but it got deleted from the History of the US Marine Corp page anyway. Still upset that the 5 marines pic got deleted too. Going to put that on here if it isn't already. I will paraphrase the paragraph and put the piece in us marine corp uniforms, and possibly put in an internal link for this page. That accomidate everyone?D. Farr 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the info is as detailed as Looper5920 alleges and it's well-sourced information why not just make a new article? --ElKevbo 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. How's about I make a new subtopic or a internal link to a new article for the piece? By the way, Article in Question, so you can take a peek at it. Now what do you think?D. Farr 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing "Vietnam was the longest war for the Marine Corps; at its end, 13,091 Marines were killed..." ^[30] points to a link that does not coincide with the Virtual War Memorial casualty statistics. This shows the USMC lost 14,837 of its members. The NARA Public Archives Combat Area Casualties Current File (Southeast Asia) database is used to populate the VWM website records. I am curious as to what would cause such a large discrepency in reported numbers between Navy Records, and the National Archives. --216.209.218.110 Vandel 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

TOC goes too deep

TOC should perhaps be revised to levels deep rather than 3 since it is now too large and takes up over a screen worth even in relatively high-res - PocklingtonDan 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's some pretty nitt-picky stuff. With the amount of info offered and the fact that the template on the right makes it so the TOC is never the only thing on the screen I really don't see it as an issue.--Looper5920 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. PocklingtonDan is right. The TOC needs to revised. It might help if some of the padding were sent to other pages eg badges of rank.Everef

IMO it is not too deep. However would something like this work? Mikemill 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

UNIQUE COMBAT ARMS

I'm interested to know what is meant by the statement that the Marine Corps does not employ "unique combat arms". A reasonable interpretation would be that the Marine Corps does not have weapons which are "unique" to that particular service, a position which is clearly not supportable. (By "unique" I mean among the United States military services.) Thanks ahead of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taloranger (talk • contribs) 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The Marine Corps does not employ any type of combat arms not utilized by another service (though you could make a case for AAVs) - what makes the service unique is not the type of combat arms it employs, but the manner in which it employs them. By contrast, the Navy and Air Force are easily distinguished in the public eye by the unique types of combat arms each employs.--Mmx1 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Marine Corps is the only service that uses the Super Cobra, F-35B and the F/A-18D, along with the AAV as already mentioned. Should the section read "small arms"? When you get into nitty gritty variants of diffrent weapons platforms esp aircraft you will always find unique models. NeoFreak 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence "types" and not just particular weapons systems. We aren't talking equipment, but doctrinal divisions of combat capabilities. A Cobra and Apache both constitute attack aviation, and from an operational standpoint, are interchangeable. The Navy uniquely operates naval combatants, the Air Force uniquely operates strategic bombers and transport (Naval Aviation and SSBN's do overlap their other functions), the Army....I'm sure the Army does something unique. There is no one combat arm of the Marine Corps that isn't duplicated in another branch, what is unique is how the Marine Corps employs them, not their hold on any one particular aspect of the combined arms spectrum.. --Mmx1 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I think you should consider changing your terms. The term/phrase "unique combar arms" isn't helpful because the reader will not know that you mean "doctrinal divisoins of combat capabilities." I also think your explanation is great -- "I'm sure the Army does something unique" is also not helpful as support for your position that the Marine Corps simply duplicates all other braches. If you have a source for this proposition, please cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taloranger (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

No, the terms are quite correct. I see where the misunderstanding lies. The term "combat arms" does not denote weapons, it does mean "doctrinal divisions of combat capabilities". "Arms", in this context, does not mean weapons, but divisions, i.e. "executive arm of the federal government". Infantry, for example, is a combat arm - we are not talking about the various small (and not so small) arms that the infantry uses but a particular branch of the Army (or Marines). There is no argument that the Marine Corps "duplicates" the other branches, the statement contrasts the duplication of combat arms with the unique integration of combat arms not found elsewhere. --Mmx1 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I see this now -- though I did a little outside research. There are a number of web pages which make it clear that "combat arms" are in fact military fields of operation -- infantry, aviation, etc. You might cite to or link to some of this. I spent a number of years in the Marine Corps and didn't automatically pick up on the meaning of that term. Just as an aside, and I may have missed this in law school, don't we have BRANCHES of government rather than ARMS? Taloranger 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy Guards

Can we somehow add Marine Security Guard to the listing of tradition or duties or something....I feel they have been left out, and feel they need to be included in this article SOMEWHERE, as they are the only U.S. service to guard U.S. Embassies in the modern age.Rob 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already there: United States Marine Corps#Mission

By authority of the 1946 Foreign Service act, Marines of the Marine Corps Security Guard Battalion (MSG) provide security for American embassies, legations, and consulates at over 110 Department of State posts overseas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Capabilities, Redux

On review, the Capabilities section could use a rework - the organizational philosophy of the Corps, for example, is more apropos under "Culture" than "Capabilities".

I propose redoing the section to discuss the six MAFTF core competencies: Expeditionary readiness

Combined arms readiness

Expeditionary operations

Sea-based operations

Forcible entry from the sea

Reserve integration (Globalsecurity treatment of it). The "every Marine a rifleman" bit can be shifted down to culture, and the last paragraph can be reworked into "sea-based operations" and expeditionary operations.

The bit about maneuver warfare doesn't fit so neatly into one of the 6 core competencies and should be be treated separately, but probably under the same heading. It should also be updated with a mention of distributed operations --Mmx1 23:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Forms of address Correction

In the forms of address section, it states "All ranks containing "Sergeant" are always addressed by their full rank and never shortened to simply "Sarge", as has been common practice in the Army". I speak from experience when I say it is not, nor has ever been to my knowledge, a common practice for soldier in the Army or Army Reserve to call an NCO "Sarge". Even if an NCO didn't mind this title him or herself, other NCOs would quickly correct the soldier who used such a term. Is it possible some use it occasionally? Perhaps, but it not a common practice at all. I am going to delete that last part of the sentence, unless a significant number of soldiers write in to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.106.69.216 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Teufel Hunden

If the Germans spread the rumour, that US Marines were calling them for DevilDogsn (Devil Dogs in plain English), every English-speaking person would surely classify DevilDogsn as a German manufactured story.
In German: "1 Hund" = "1 dog", "2 Hunde" = "2 dogs", so "Hunden" with an extra 'N' must be "dogsn" with an extra 'N' (not dogs'n'devil). In German, terms are in one word, opposed to English, were two words can describe one term: aircraft carrier (Flugzeugträger), police officer (Polizeivollzugsbeamte), space shuttle (Raumfähre), weather satellite (Wettersatellit) etc. There is a jungle of rules, how to connect two words in German, but here an 'S' is used; Teufelshunde.
A German reader might figure out that Teufel Hunden is suppose to mean Teufelshunde, like an English reader will figure out that "DevilsDogsn" is suppose to mean "Devil Dogs". User:Buckboard changed "DevilDogsn" to "Devil Dogs n" but the whole idea is to literally translate into incorrect English, so it catches the eye. DevilDogsn looks as incorrect to an English reader as Teufel Hunden looks to a German reader. Devil Dogs n doesn't violate as many grammatical rules as DevilDogsn and "Teufel Hunden". Necessary Evil 11:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seal visibility

I can't see the SVG marine corps seal in the infobox. It appears to be completely transparent, despite being fine on its image page. I'm running Firefox 2.0.03 on Windows XP SP2 — Jack · talk · 00:17, Tuesday, 17 April 2007

Same here, same config. It's not displaying on IE either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I purged it so it seems to work now. --Dual Freq 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the Navy Argument AGAIN

The U.S. Marine Corps is a part of the U.S. Department of the Navy. The United States Marine Corps is not "Part of the U.S. Navy" and has not been since the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947. Before that time, the Marine Corps had the same standing as the Hospital Corps or other communities within the Navy. From 1947 onward, the Marine Corps has been a separate service having equal standing with The Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Commandant of the Marine Corps serves as one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Because of the above I changed "within the United States Navy" to "within the United States Department of the Navy." If you doubt the correctness of this, reference the National Security Act of 1947.--PvtDeth 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the Marine Corps ROTC and I can clearly see that the Navy uniform is alot different from the Marine Corps uniform. -Okita Soshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okita Soshi (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone did a careless merge and changed DoN to USN. I still like the original wording better where it stated in a separate sentence "Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the United States Department of the Navy". --Mmx1 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we change it back to that? I will pending no objections.--PvtDeth 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the culprit. I changed it because while I was in the Marines, we were part of the Navy. By that I don't mean that we both went to the same 'boot camp', wore the same uniforms, or even had the same commandant. By that I mean that our chain of command went like this: President, VP, SecDef, SecNav, Commandant, etc. Per the National Security act:

SEC. 206. (a) [50 U.S.C. 409(b)] The term "Department of the Navy" as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire operating forces of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the reserve components of such forces all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases, installations, activities and functions under the control or supervision of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pursuant to law.[2]

The Dec. 2005 II MEF Augmentation Command Element welcome aboard package states their chain of command on page 21 as having the Secretary of the Navy directly above the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Hey, maybe then Commanding commanding Brigadier General Andrew B. Davis got it wrong? Maybe no one in his chain of command under him missed it, too? If you like, you can call them up at 910-451-8950/51.

Thirdly, it friggin' says "Department of the Navy" on the seal of the Marines. So maybe I'm wrong. In this case, I apologize. If not, it seems weird to state "alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the Department of the Navy." At least to me. Rhetth 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking of the Navy as everything in the Dept of Navy under the SecNav. But the Navy itself is a military organization within the civilian Dept of the Navy. It is in that sense that they mean the USMC is alongside the Navy in the Dept of Navy. As you pointed out, the COmmandant reports directly to the SecNav, who is a civilian, not a naval officer. - BillCJ 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The current sentence sets the context - USN and USMC both operate under DoN. --Mmx1 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mmx1 — I'd like to see the wording "Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the United States Department of the Navy" reinstated. — ERcheck (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that I was mistaken. When I said that the marines were a 'part of the navy', I meant ot say, the marines were 'part of the dept. of the navy'. Still, to state Alongside the US Navy, the Marines operate under the DoN sounds strange to me. If the Marines operate under the Dept. of the Navy, isn't it redundant to say that they operate alongside the Navy? The sentance lends itself to misunderstanding to laypeople who aren't intimate the pecularities of the National Security Act. If there is going to be a comment about the Naval integration of the Marines, it should provide more context as to the relationship, instead of a vague notion of proximity (alongside) to define the command structure, which has a long history and plays a part in the function, lineage, and mission capabilities of both the Navy and the Marines. For example, the recent investigations into Marine conduct in combat areas are done by the NCIS, a naval organization (which nevertheless employes marines in the unit). So, with this in mind, I propose a wording similar to the one used in the DOD article:

"The Marine Corps remained a separate service under the Department of the Navy after President Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947."

Rhetth 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:RFC is still up on the main board, sorry I didn't see this sooner. I'm also sorry to disappoint those who believe the USMC is a separate branch of the military, they are under the Secretary of the Navy. Here are a couple of references, one a brief history of the corps which mentions nothing about them becoming an independent branch circa 1947 which I'm sure they'd mention. The US Army, USAF, and DOD recorded that event. The second is a DoD leadership chart, you'll notice that the three branches are Army, Navy, and Air Force with the USMC under the Navy. (That's what a Marine is, they are very well trained shipboard security AND the Navy's landing force.)

A Brief History of the USMC from

usmc.mil

Department of Defense

from army.mil DoD public records.

They do have a spot on the JCS but this doesn't change the fact that there is no Secretary of the Marine Corps. Anynobody 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Secretaries are not military memebers, they are civilians appointed to run their respective Departments, not officers promoted to run branches. So no, the Marine Corps is not its own "Department" but no branch is a "Department". Departments are civilian organizations and different branches fall under them. For this reason both the Naval and Marine Corps branches of the United States military fall under the civilan Department of the Navy. This is why no Marine falls under the Comand of any Sailor, they are seperate branches both under the legal and administrative authority of the same Executive Department, in this case the Department of the Navy. The highest ranking member of the Marine Corps, the Commandant, does not fall under the authrority of the highest ranking Naval officer, the Chief of Naval Operations. In no govement publication or budget will you see the Marine Corps labled as falling under the same "branch" as the Navy. To say that IRS and the Secret Service, back when it was still Department of the Treasury, are the same branch of goverment because they both fall under the same Department is obviously incorrect. The same could be said of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior. They have seperate missions, seperate chains of command; they both just fall under the same civilan govermental department for administrative and budgetary reasons. NeoFreak 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So maybe we can come to some concrete conclusions here.

• The Marine Corps do not fall under the Naval military command (they are not a part of the Naval military command).
• The Marine Corps does fall under Naval administrative command (they are a part of the Naval administrative authority).

Of course, in my opinion, administrative authority supercedes military authority, because they frame the environment in which military decisions are made. Administrative authority is another word for political influence, such as when the administration wants more 'maneuver' warfighting, they budget more decentralized weaponry, more research towards that goal, and support the promotion (both literal and figurative) of those ideas and those people with those ideas. Alternatively the administration can depress an 'attrition' style of warfighting by the same methods. This power of administration can and will indirectly influence the military authorities decisions, as can be seen by the Walter Reed scandal. Can we use this information to better eludicate the wikipedia article readers? I can see how the current sentance "Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the Department of the Navy", but this explaination assumes the intimate understanding of the administrative and military authorities. While the sentence implies that the U.S. Navy (meaning U.S. Naval forces, not administrative 'forces') operates alongside the Marines Corps (meaning the entire Marine Corps organization), but then it says that the Marine Corps (meaning the entire organization) operates under the Dept. of the Navy (meaning the administrative authority). So it's sort of a logic game, where you have the fill in the blanks. U.S. Navy & Marine Corps are mutually exclusive _and_ the Marine Corps is dependent on the Dept. of the Navy _and_ U.S. Navy may or may not equal the Dept. of the Navy. We could use a little clairification here, so I propose this sentance: "Independent of U.S. Naval forces, the Marine Corps operates under the administrative authority of the Department of the Navy." Rhetth 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion against this move, so I made the changes. How does it sound? Rhetth 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Wouldn't it be better if citations from books in the footnotes included the page where the info cited can be found? That would make footnotes easier to verify since it wouldn't be necessary to check a whole book in order to find specific information. --Victor12 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous Marines

Surely Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine. That's why he was such a good shot, according to Full Metal Jacket at least. Dr Spam (MD) 08:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I don't remember what branch he served in (I thought it was Army, but I could be wrong), but I do remember he rated very poorly in marksmanship. Insert your favorite conspiracy theory here...--Raulpascal 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that he was a poor shot /is/ the conspiracy theory Raul :) As far as I am aware he was acctually a very good shot (though there are questions as to the quality of the rifle used etc). Adding him in would certainly qualify in that he is famous and a marine. But....he certainly shouldn't be added if there are people who are equally famous for being marines. Best famous for being a marine than famous and a marine in my book :) Narson 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He was accepted as a sniper, was he not? They have very high standards. I'll go check Lee Harvey Oswald. --Hojimachong^talk 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oswald's Marine Training. He barely qualified (scored 191). --Hojimachong^talk 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That score is still very good: that page goes on to cite witnesses who stated that Oswald was above average for a Marine, and an "excellent shot" compared with civilians. Brianlucas 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Don Imus? He also served in the US Marine Corps. And he is really famous because of his non-PC comments. Dr Spam (MD) 08:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Famous Marines section is not meant to be a comprehensive list of Marines who have achieved fame. There is a list for famous Marines. Imus is on that list. — ERcheck (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1812

Just reading the 1812 section of this page and noticed that apparantly the war of 1812 was characterised by frigate duels. Surely it was infact characterised by a series of rather epic land battles? Most people's only real knowledge of 1812 seems to be New Orleans and the burning of DC.

As for US marines delaying the British....they were defeated in short order. 400 men with hand to hand weapons and pole arms provided little more than a 'speed bump'. A gallant and brave speed bump, but they hardly stalled the British for any length of time. It wasn't quite like the beserker story from Stamford Bridge or some epic rear guard action like Thermopolyae.....it seems its just there to 'bulk up' marine involvement in 1812. Narson 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Ignoring the whole 'prescient' thing, I'm not entirely sure how you can argue the US marines were the 'dominent' amphibious warfare practitioners of the early 20th century. Gallipoli was surely the most famous (And certainly largest) amphibious landing of the early 20th century, and that was planned by a certain First Sea Lord called Churchill. If we skip to the next large conflict, we have D-day...where a majority of forces were most definatly not Marines, and a majority of troops were not American. Obviously you had the varied landings in the pacific (though really more interesting in a strategical sense, the whole island hopping doctrine, then in the actual landings, at least to me), though as pointed out in the article, the marines were at that time, as was mentioned above by annother editor, equivalent in operations to a hospital unit or such. Did the island hopping doctrine come from the marines or the navy? Either way there are certainly not undisputed or 'dominent' in the field of putting amphibious warfare into practice in the first half of the 20th century. Narson 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true. They were important in the development of amphibious warfare prior to WWII, however. I think that might be what the writer meant to say.

Oh, and to answer your question about the island-hopping doctrine, it depends on who you ask. Technically it was the Navy who thought it up, but remember that "Navy" still included the Marines at that time. I'm a Navy man myself, so I'm not unbiased in this debate, but if I were to step back and be impartial I would have to admit that it was a Department of the Navy, rather than a USN, strategy. --Raulpascal 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly disagree with Narson more. The operation at Gallipoli is famous not for being the largest amphibious operation up to it's time but for being one of the most colossal blunders in all of modern warfare, hardly bringing great credit to it's planners and leaders. D-Day is indeed monumental in the history of amphibious warfare and distinctly notable for it's lack of U.S. Marine Corps participation on any level. Only the lessons learned by the Marines and Navy experimenatlly before the war and, much more importantly, in the laboratory of actual combat allowed D-Day to be pulled off so brilliantly. If you doubt this, compare Operation Torch and the Italian campaign landings to Normandy and you will see that the allied forces involved we're more than smart enough to learn from the successes and failures of battles at Tarawa, Guadalcanal and dozens of other operations throughout the Pacfic theater.

As to the island hopping campaign, the idea was most certainly devised by the Navy staff which used it's ships to transport it's Marines to the fight and it's Marines to do the fighting (not to overlook U.S. Army units attached to the operation.) Remember the Marine Corps was a part of the Navy for the entire war so asking whether it was the Marines or Navy who came up with the plan is pointless. It was the Marines who landed on the beaches over and over again. I believe I was(mis)quoted in reference to the Marines being like a "hospital unit." I was referring to the status of the Hospital Corps, which is not at all relevant to Narson's argument. The Marine Corps in World War II was composed of six full divisions and five combat wings altogether totalling nearly half a million men.

To determine the truthfulness of the Marines being the "dominant" practitioners of amphibious warfare in the first half of the twentieth century is not an issue of POV. Simply examine the advances made in the theory of amphibious warfare before the war and count the hundreds of thousands of men put ashore on beaches throughout the Pacific and it's obvious that no other organization made greater use of amphibious warfare. Gallipoli supposedly proved once and for all that amphibious assault was impossible in the modern age. The senior Marine leadership didn't believe that to be true and proved their beliefs. "The Atomic Age" also supposedly rendered amphibious assault obsolete but Gen. MacArthur (no personal fan of the Marine Corps) used it to brilliant effect in the Battle of Inchon. An objective eye will see that the U.S. Marine Corps is not only the most massive user of amhibious tactics in the first half of the twentieth century but, indeed of all time. --PvtDeth 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So you say the Galipoli landings (Largest landings until that point in history) occured and then that the marines took no part in D-day (A fact I didn't acctually know about. I'd assumed they'd taken some part. Learning is why we are all here to some degree I'm sure) and then go on to argue they were still dominant practitioners in the early 20th century? If someone tries and fails, they are still a practitioner and I would argue its impossible to say that the Marines were the foremost /practitioners/, being that they weren't acctually putting much theory into practice until the end of WW2 in the middle of the century. There is also the vagueness of the phrase 'early 20th century' which I believe the article mentions. If 'early' cuts off before WW2, then what amphibious assaults could the marines cite?

This article is obviously a great article, full of some quite interesting facts, its just the little things that irk and make it read occasionally like a Kitchener poster, and unless there is some way we can prove some of the hyperbole it should be pruned for the good of the article. I am not arguing that the Marines were not prominent thinkers or prominent theorists on amphibious warfare, but I simply don't believe they put these into mass practice until the pacific campaigns Narson 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Capabilities

The lead sentence of this section reads:

"While the Marine Corps does not employ any unique combat arms, as a force, the unique ability to rapidly deploy a combined-arms task force to almost anywhere in the world within days."

I don't see a verb in there anywhere. I expect it should read something like

"...as a force it possesses the unique ability..."

but I don't feel that I know enough about the subject to make that change myself. Can someone else confirm this? --Wayne Miller 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone fixed it. Good job, whoever! --Wayne Miller 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps in popular culture

There doesn't seem to be such an article, at least not a link to one if it exists.

Obvious mentions for such an article:

• Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. (television series), starring Jim Nabors
• Shoe (comic strip) - young Schuyler, for a few years, kept finding himself in the Marine Corps boot camp instead of an ordinary children's camp

GBC 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Such an article is a good candidate for an AFD. There are users on Wiki who despise pop-culture articles, and they will nominate it for deletion without prior notice. Think carefully before creating such an article, and make sure EVERYTHING has verifiable sources attesting to each item's notability. Even with all that, these AFD-nazis will probably still put it up for deletion, but if your ducks are lined up, it might survive. Even then, I would recommend against such an article, or even such a section in this article. - BillCJ 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support this article. Marines, such as myself, and their families are fanatical in their devotion to their organization. Because of this they tend to eat up any pop culture reference to the Marine Corps. Gomer Pyle, Full Metal Jacket, Major Dad. All have fans within the Marines and because of it. --PvtDeth 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone somehow edited it to "Serious Business" while it was on the front page; I reverted it. Ninjarrr 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone also posted an obscene picture. I'm no fan of the military, but you guys didn't deserve that. I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigger955 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 April 2007 UTC (UTC)

Good job, thanks. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section

Some people think this article should have a criticism section. Discuss. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it may be hard to write a criticism section that adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, but it is certainly possible and should be attempted. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's "some people"? I'm not flat out opposed to the idea but where is the need? Criticism sections should grow organically, not because some people think including one is "fair". I'm just not really aware of a substantial body of criticism directed directly or primarily against the Marine Corps in specific and that doesn't also include the rest of the United States military, goverment or forign policy. NeoFreak 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not every page needs a criticism section. This page should be the structure and history of the U.S. Marine Corps. It is an organ of the U.S. government and as such criticism should be directed at the U.S. government or particular administrations. --PvtDeth 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, true, unless there is some published criticism of the marines in particular. Mention of notable incidents perpertrated by marines might be within the article's scope though. Brentt 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Haditha killings and the Hamdania incident are mentioned in the article. I am sure this is what you are talking about since I'll guarantee your knowledge of the USMC does not extend beyond the current war in Iraq--203.10.224.59 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticize as much as you wish. Just remember... The FACT that you recently typed on your keyboard comes courtesy of the blood of former Marines. If you require a source for proof, follow this exercise: breathe in... now breathe out. Doesn't that feel good? You're welcome. For the record, the word marines, when referring to United States Marines, should always be capitalized. This is directed at any critics.

Criticisms section

Why is there no section/article on criticisms of the US Marines? Murdering and raping civilians in Southeast Asia and the Middle East should definitely be mentioned somewhere on this page. I feel that patriotism is keeping this page from being NPOV. Miserlou 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would ask you how many other militaries of the world you have checked to see if they have criticism sections, and if you posted messages like this there, but I think I already know the answer to that. - BillCJ 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that things such as that, unless there is some kind of big scandal directed at the marines, should be mentioned in the section about that campaign. Covered in a sentence or two (I am not familiar with any huge scandals involving the US marines in a general sense...IE: Major flaws in ROE or orders or oversight that has caused huge problems?) Narson 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's enough of that from everyone. Keep it civil or keep it to yourself, this is a place to discuss the idea of adding a criticism section. NeoFreak 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Marines have never done anything wrong, and when they have done anything wrong, it was under the auspices of the USMC, so it couldn't have been wrong. Therefore all criticism would be POV, because NPOV==Right POV==USMCPOV==God's POV. QED, get back to your satan worship and leave this article alone commie.Brentt 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! That's so funny? Did you write that yourself, or did John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam, help you? Best laugh I've had all day! - BillCJ 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems that being on the main page has brought every Pomey wanker with a left-wing agenda to this page. I am always amazed at how these people view the world from their ivory towers. Kind of like the Hybrid car driving people on South Park who created the "clouds of smug" and go around sniffing their own farts because their shite does not stink. Must be nice--203.10.224.60 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I un-archived this. THe user asked a question (legitimate or not, and he got answers. I don't see any consensus here to that effect this is off-topic. Also, there have been lots of unjustified modifications or deletions of posts by those who did not write them (self-deletion is permitted, thpough strikeout are preferred), including by an admin. Some, including myself, have used sarcasm as a response to the original; question, but not of this has tured personal, or crossed uncivil lines. Let the discussion take its course, and if a few people make fools of themselves (possibly including myself), so be it. But the discussion of whether or not this article needs a dedicated criticism section is not off-topic, but is about the article's coverage of the USMC. - BillCJ 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It was actually me who archived the discussion, not User:203.10.224.59. I don't know why it shows the edit as his in the history (all the more odd because, unless his IP adress is randomly assigned, he appears to have a lengthy history of vandalism. My IP is no where near his, so it wasn't me not signed in either). But I did it because Deskana (an admin) deleted the discussion all together. I initially undid his edit, and was quite irked by the fact that he deleted it (and told him soon his talk page), but after seeing how it was just turning into a flaming with only one of the comments actually adressing the relevant issue brought up, I started to see his reasoning, and thought in-line archiving would be a good solution. Also since the relevant issue was being constructively discussed above all the flaming was a bit uneccessary and was threatening to get out of hand. (It would have been OK if, like the initial post, it was flaming mixed with possibly constructive opinions, but it was mostly just turning into a political flame.) Brentt 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're wanting to create a criticism section simply because someone associated with a particular unit has committed murder or rape, you'll have to include the same section for every organization that ever was, is, or will be. Particularly any military force. Robbskey 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah then, okay. Miserlou 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparing USMC training to Royal Marines

The section on Enlisted training compared Marine Corps recruit training to U.S. Army training and then to British Army and Royal Marines training (32 weeks). There was a {{citation needed}} tag on the British training, along with an embedded comment looking for a source and questioning whether these were really comparable. I've added citations from the Royal Marines website. A few differences are evident — the Royal Marines 32-weeks of training includes (1) advanced infantry training (akin to SOI) and (2) they have weekends off (none of that during recruit training for the USMC). I took out the reference to the British Army as it wasn't clearly a "comparable" service to the U.S. Marines, but rather IMHO, would be comparable to the U.S. Army. — ERcheck (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering that the USMC is larger than the Britsh Army, it's probably best not to compare them. USMC has 180,000 active duty and 40,000 reserve personnel, and the British Army has roughly 107,730 active members and 38,460 Territorial Army personnel. The Royal Marines are a much smaller force, though I couldnt find personnel size on wiki or the RM site. It is more of a speliazed force than the USMS, with most of the ofrce being in Commando units. - BillCJ 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

well i have done a bit of digging and going through a few books i got and you mention that the royal marines do specialist training as part of their 32 week course. i will admit now i am not fullyt familiar with the USMC SOI and MCT but from looking on the wiki article for those it seems to me that what the royal marines do may be concidered specialist training to the USMC, but the RM consider specialist training such as the artic warfare cadre etc come after their 32 weeks initial training. so if we are going to take into account extra training this may take the USMC up to 20 weeks, but then you must take the additional jungle or arctic etc etc courses a RM must take. it soes seem to me that the level of training for a RM is far above that of a USMC. though it is to be expected, look at the compartive sizes... Pratj 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but why does an article about the USMC need a comparison with the Royal Marines? They might have similar functions, but the training article seems to just take off rambling about who trains more and looks like one giant pissing contest. Why not take out the information and add in more info on the training experiance of Marines. If anybody wants to weigh the two against each other, they can read both the articles and make their own conclusions. If not, then let's just compare Marine training with Canadian Mountie training or with oranges. Flyboymb 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (sorry about that)

SIGN YOUR COMMENTS ^^^^

yeah, it does seem a bit silly to compare the RM and USMC. they are almost completely different units which just happen to have the word "Marines" in them. u could probably compare the RM to the Royal Dutch Marines as they are similar. Pratj 16:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

limitedgeographicscope maintenance tag

I've restored the limitedgeographicscope maintenance tag, after an anon edit removed it without discussion. Please do not remove the tag until we reach a consensus here on the talk page.

The tag is for the United States Marine Corps#Global war on terrorism section, and refers to the section title, not the content. The title has been controversial (see discussion earlier on this talk page), and I propose that the title is inappropriate because it is not how most of the English-speaking world (even most of the U.S.) refers to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rule in Wikipedia is to use the most common name. The most common name I've heard in English-speaking media for the Iraqi part is "The War in Iraq", and for the Afghan part, "The War in Afghanistan" or "The fight/struggle against the Taliban". These are also loaded terms, however, and might cause some bias. As I suggested above, maybe the most neutral title would be simple "Afghanistan and Iraq", referring to the areas where the Marines were deployed — these will be immediately recognizable to everyone. David 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GWOT is the official umbrella term used to define those military operations. Since the offical sources are used and that is the paradigm of the subject matter (the USMC) it is appropriate for use here. There is precedent both ways (Operation Restore Hope for the intervention in Somalia or Invasion of Grenada for "Operation Urgent Fury") but in this case it is as I've said an "umbrella" term. I'm not aware of a dingle alternate term that is as widely recognized to the average reader and that has the same scope. If those that are objecting to the GWOT tag could provide some alternatives that have the same inclusive scope and regognition then that would be a good place top start. NeoFreak 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the name: first, outside U.S. military circles, it could refer to a lot more than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts because it is so general; second, from a non-U.S. perspective, the conflicts are not part of the same war: Canada, for example, is fighting in Afghanistan but not in Iraq; third, it is not a name commonly used even in the U.S. media, much less in other countries; and fourth, the name presupposes that the invasion of Iraq was related to terrorism, which is a controversial point (and not one that we should try to decide in a section title). Here are my suggestions, in order of preference: "Afghanistan and Iraq", "Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts", "Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq", "Post-911 combat theatres" (I don't like the last one much, but I just wanted to introduce some variety). Maybe someone will be able to suggest something better, but neutral — governments name their operations for propaganda purposes, but that doesn't mean that they have to dictate article or section titles (after all, we don't call the Iranian Revolution the "Islamic Revolution", even though that's its official name according to the Iranian regime). David 22:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since GWOT is in official use in the U.S. military, in particular, in the United States Marine Corps, it is appropriate as a section title. However, to address the varying usages of the term and to explain the official usage (as detailed in the comments above), I suggest that a footnote could be used to provide such information. — ERcheck (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2007 UTC

But it's important to remember that the USMC is the subject of the article, not the audience; our audience is the whole English-speaking world, and we need to choose a title that is recognizable to them. David 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask again: can you offer a term that is both as inclusive in scope and recognizable as GWOT? NeoFreak 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but before I suggest any more, please comment on the four or five I've already proposed. I'd suggest that GWoT is not at all recognizable as a term specifically for the Afghan or Iraqi military actions (as opposed to a general struggle against terrorism), so it's not a very high bar to get over. David 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, those terms do not have the same scope as GWOT. GWOT includes all of OIF, OEF (which is larger than Afghanistan) as well as several other supporting operations. Do you have a term that has the same scope and recognition or not? NeoFreak 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In its current draft, the article mentions operations in only Afghanistan and Iraq. David 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<kerching> I emphatically agree with the 'most common name' argument and think the section needs renaming. Those names proposed above by David are all perfectly fine, but 'Afghanistan and Iraq' seems best to me. The section heading should sum up what follows (namely a discussion of US Marines engaging in Afghanistan and Iraq). This is distinct from the name used by the US military, and I think it's essential that the 'Global War on Terrorism' name and it's official military use definitely be mentioned within the section, since of course the name is notable. But earlier sections of this article haven't used official military names; for example, I'm sure the official name for an earlier period wasn't "Post-Vietnam and pre-9/11".--Vinoir 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. The section now mentions the standup of CTF-HOA, which was the start of a greater focus on instability in Africa and the imminent standup of Africa Command. Marines have also been involved in numerous joint antiterrorism training with partner nations around the world; though a list may be beyond the scope of the brief treatment here. --Mmx1 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're listing training exercises in this section though, are we? I bet there have been a lot of those in the past 200+ years, so it would be a long section. I don't know what the criteria are, but I'd guess that we need (a) a large number of marines involved and (b) casualties from hostile fire, or at least a serious risk of them. David 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Danger and casualties, while obvious, are not the only indicators of important events or contribution. The Marines suffered one MIA (Pete Ellis) in the development of amphibious warfare doctrine but it was extremely important. The development period was also largely "training exercises" if you want to pidgeonhole them as such, but that's a far too simplistic view of it. What's going on here are not merely "training exercises", but increasing security in the so-called "seam states" like Thailand and the Philippines by emparting our skills on partner nations and their militaries. Believe it or not, Jarheads can make contributions in other ways than just being bullet magnets. --Mmx1 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but my point is that if we include every activity like that from over 200 years of USMC history, we'd have a history section hundreds of screens long. We really need to hit only the most notable activities in a short historical summary, and I think everyone can agree that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are notable. The U.S. Coast Guard article, for example, does not list every single security and rescue operation in Coast Guard history, even though many of them resulted in danger or loss of life. David 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

HOA is not just a training unit. The CJTF-HOA also does humanitarian work, airtraffic control, and launches special operations forces around that entire AOR of CENTCOM. CJTF-HOA also was the springboard for the CIA and Special Forces units that deployed to Somalia to assist the Ethiopian military there. Check the parent article. Operations in the Philipines, Thailand, Yemen, Oman, Jordan and Uzbekistan are also under the Umbrella of GWOT and do not fall under the "War in Afghanistan and Iraq." If anything the GWOT section should be expanded with sub-sections. NeoFreak 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a suggestion: we separate the U.N.-led Afghan war and the U.S.-led Iraq wars into their own sections, since each is notable for its own sake, then we add a third section on "Anti-terrorism activities" or something similar with the operations you mentioned. In that section, we can also mention that the U.S. military uses the term "Global War on Terror" to apply to its operations in the Afghan and Iraqi wars as well as anti-terrorism operations. Any objections? My main goal is to make it easy to find the information on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which are also separate wars from a non-U.S. perspective). David 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I object. Now you are playing politics with an article about a military organization and its operations. The Global War on Terrorism is military operation and this article should reflect that. NeoFreak 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that it's sunk to the level of personal accusations between NeoFreak and me, I doubt that either of us has much more useful to contribute to the discussion. Let's hear what everyone else thinks about the issue, then maybe someone else can take the lead on making necessary changes (if any). The goal is to make sure that the section title doesn't promote anyone's political agenda, either the U.S. military's or the anti-war movement's. David 12:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear where I stand, you're making much ado over your opposition to a title that accurately describes a Military campaign undertaken in the last 5 years. Just because myself and others don't care to respond to your demands point by point doesn't mean our views have changed. Since you seem to be the only dissenter, I'm going to go ahead and remove the maintenance tag. The requested changes have been made and addition mention has been made of other GWOT operations. --Mmx1 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't want you to have the impression that I'm accusing you of anything inappropriate. I just think that you might not have the concept of the naming and scope of military operations as opposed to political naming conventions. I'm sorry if you took it as a personal accusation, I have no problem with you, you seem to be a good editor in good standing. We just have a understandable difference of opinion is all. NeoFreak 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The expansion/separate sections idea is more appropriate for the History of the United States Marine Corps article. For this article, a summary of the Global War on Terror operation of the Marine Corps, which mentions various aspects of the particular military operation, is more appropriate. I agree with Mmx1 that consensus has been reached and it is appropriate to keep the section title and remove the tag. — ERcheck (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. NeoFreak 01:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

GWOT section

I've added a intro paragraph and ref for the Global War on Terrorism and broke OIF and OEF into sections. I think that this is the best way to format the section and solve potential "geographic scope" issues. I'd like to see both the OIF and OEF sections expanded some but not so much as to need new sections or a break-off to the history section. Thoughts? NeoFreak 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance to me. An encyclopedia is supposed to infom, so a good explantaion of GWOT was needed, rather than tossing out the term as others have suggested. - BillCJ 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses

This article is filled with parentheses, often where commas would serve better. While from what I remember the usage of parentheses is not contrary to the Manual of Stlye but it still very unpolished and they should not be used in an encyclopedic article, esp a Featured Arrticle in my opinion. I was going to go through and begin to reword much of the areas that make use of them but I wanted to see what some others thought first. NeoFreak 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Issues

The article would benefit from a section on current issues. Wikipedia is really good for information on what is happening now so we should use that. However, it is clear that some contributors don't like certain subjects been raised so before I write the section I would like comments / contributions. The issues I would like to refer to are. Financial (particulaly the value for money debate), troop numbers, training problems, war crimes (murder, torture, rape), "civil" crimes (same list (especially Okinawa?), drug use by serving marines, homophobia, racism and religous prejudice. I would like to discuss problems with poor leadership and criticism of senior officers but as that would probably mean named individuals I don't think I will be able to do so. Everef 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What you're really asking for is a critisism and controvery section which was discussed above. You can add what ever you want, just remember to keep it relavent to the subject at hand, neutral in tone, totally verified by attributing all your assertions to reliable sources, avoid putting forth your own opinion and don't slander or liable any living persons per our policy on biographies of living persons. If you stick to what you can prove, keep it on topic and don't try and push your opinion here then go ahead and be bold. Don't worry, if you fail to do these things I will be more than happy to change it back. NeoFreak 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Commandant, Gen. Conway in Personnel section

It states: "As of February 2007, Marine Generals Peter Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and James E. Cartwright (Commander of the United States Strategic Command) are senior in time and grade to the commandant" ...However, Conway was commissioned in 1970 while James E. Cartwright was commissioned in 1971, how, then, would he be more senior? Mistake? --ProdigySportsman 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior in time and grade refers to time in grade? — General Conway was promoted from LtGen to Gen in November 2006. Pace was advanced to General in September 2000; I don't have that date on Gen Cartwright, but the date of his official bio is Feb 2006, at which time he was already General. 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Forms of address correction, again.

It is neither considered appropriate, nor common, to refer to a Sergeant in ANY service as "Sarge." What actually sets Marine Corps forms of address apart from the Army and Air Force, is that it is not considered appropriate to shorten the USMC form of address to "Sergeant" from the full name of the rank (e.g., a USMC Gunnery Sergeant is always addressed as "Gunnery Sergeant," never just "Sergeant"). I am correcting the article to reflect this unique distinction. If someone wants to change it back to "Sarge" (again) then he should explain where he picked up the idea that that is a tolerated form of address in any service. --71.104.49.36 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned that it's frowned upon for officers to be addressed by their ranks, but what about by other officers, e.g. if a colonel were to address a lieutenant. Wouldn't it be ok for said colonel to say "Lt. So-and-so?".121.45.68.85 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is more frowned upon to have a junior or enlisted Marine adress an officer simply by his rank, but it is technically allowed as it comes in handy. For example if one were to walk up to a group of officers with the intention of speaking only to one of them saying "Excuse me sir" isn't going to be very productive. Instead "Excuse me, Captain Smith" would used. As for a higher ranking officer to another, junior officer, its technically correct ot address them by their rank or rank and then name. More often in private or amounst only officers first names can be used to address a junior officer. NeoFreak 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms

this has been bugging me. The U.S army and marines have the american flag on their sleeves, however the flag is backwards. ie. the stars are at the top right corner, instead of the top left. WHY? Willy turner 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Marines do NOT have the flag on their utility uniforms (or any other) only the Army. The logic behind the reversal is that if a soldier is moving forward (on the attack) then the flag will be blowing in the "reverse" direction. It's just a rather silly "motovational" adjustemnt. Still, don't quote me as this is how it was explained to me by some soldiers, I have no relaible source that I can point to in order to back it up. NeoFreak 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrone Power

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Marine_Corps&curid=32088&diff=139375379&oldid=139355058 I'm not so sure that Tyrone Power is famous enough to for the short list in the article. Reading his article it doesn't appear that he is famous for being a Marine nor does it appear that he was one with lasting fame. Mikemill 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FA?

I think that this article should be nominated for Featured Article-- what do people think?

Uhm. It /is/ a featured article...? Narson 19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Didn't see that.

SemperFi501

Once a Marine, always a Marine

Noted the fact in the Fedex article. Feddhicks 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

In the article, under the conflict section, it said the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit was involved but wasn't it the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit? 71.145.191.237 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

saying United States Marine

I've notice a few of you calling it the United States Marine when it should really be said the United States Marine Corps (USMC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okita Soshi (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Initial Officer training

In the Initial Training section it states that officers " ... are commissioned mainly through one of three sources: Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC), Officer Candidates School (U.S. Marine Corps) (OCS), or the United States Naval Academy (USNA)." Since NROTC have to go to OCS in Quantico through a near identical indoc as OCC, but it is with other NROTC Mids and called Bulldog. Because Bulldog, OCC, and PLC are all under OCS wouldn't it be more correct to say there are only two commissioning sources, OCS in Quantico and USNA? --ProdigySportsman 01:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ROTC is a vastly different program than PLC/OCC and involves much more than the bulldog session. Technically you could make the distinction between the latter, but to the lay person the breakdown is:

• USNA
• 4-year ROTC program
• 10/12 weeks at OCS.

Moreover, for the purposes of the Marine Corps, your commissioning source is USNA/NROTC/PLC/OCC. For the purposes of this article, we blur the distinction between PLC and OCC as it's not significant to the lay reader.--Mmx1 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Civ-Mil Relations

I've just about finished re-reading Thomas Ricks' Making the Corps after picking it up for some cross-country flight reading, and while the nominal topic of the book is the experience of a particular platoon of young recruits going through Parris Island, much of it is devoted to a perceived cultural divide between the Marine Corps' traditional outlook and those of the society it serves, as well changes being implemented in Marine training and mission outlook in the post-Cold War environment (Commandant Gray and the 'every Marine a rifleman' doctrine). This article, I notice, has very little to say about the interaction between the Marines and broader society (there is a list of famous Marines, but no examination of broader demographics), which I think tends to reflect the common view of warfare as its own separate province, devoted essentially to battles and materiel.

I'd like to try and add some of the material from Ricks' book — the "Culture" section seems to be the most obvious place for it, although maybe there is a better — but am hesitant to immediately do so on account of the featured status, the potentially controversial subject matter, and the fact that at the moment I only have the one source, which is now 10 years old (the recruit class profiled is graduating in '95). If anyone could recommend (or contribute) another book or two on the politics and sociology of the Marine Corps, perhaps we could improve this article even further. Thanks, -- CJSC // Contact 13:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sea

The first opening states: The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States military responsible for providing power projection from the sea,[1] utilizing the mobility of the U.S. Navy to rapidly deliver combined-arms task forces. Since the Marine Corps works alongside U.S. Naval forces, it is part of the Department of the Navy for administrative purposes.[2]

But the Marines are specifically tasked to provide "power projection" on land, air, and sea, and is the only service with the specific mandate to do provide forces in all three realms. Isaac Crumm 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)