Talk:3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:3rd Battalion 3rd Marines)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2010.

GA status[edit]

Please remove this article from GA status for the time being until the two sections with the expand tags can be updated. Really can't give it a serious look when the article has two big holes in it. It is well on its way but it is still too soon.--Looper5920 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm currently in this battalion. I'm trying to get my command to help me expand the article, especially the post-Vietnam section, but need to get at least GA status before I can talk to them. Palm_Dogg 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Americas Battalion" Stuff Needs Reworking[edit]

I think the "Americas Battalion section and related content needs to be reworked and consolidated.

More specifically: I don't know why the "General Charles Krulak, the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps served as Battalion Commander from 1983–1985 and is credited with giving 3/3 the nickname "America's Battalion" in the notable 3/3 section isn't in the "Americas Battalion section. I'd also like to suggest that certain traditions be treated as traditions as opposed to credible facts without some sort of independent verification and I don't think a marine museum employee relating a conversation with a General at some previous time is exactly research grade work. Perhaps the material could be proffered as "a possible source of the name". --Nogburt (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 General Krulak told me, personally, that he was on board and naval vessel off Beirut in 1983. The terrorist group that blew up the barracks sent him a letter stating that if come upon Lebanon soil they will be destroyed. The letter was addressed to "America's Battalion" and that is where the title comes from

GA hold[edit]

This is on GA hold for 7 days for these reasons: 1) lead does not summarize article, it's more of a brief history that also jumps from WWII to modern era, then back to other things. Make it a summary of the key points of the article. Remove "has" from the first sentence, 2nd para. The one MOH is a detail, not a summary 2) footnotes are should show more info. See Scouting for good ref fmt, suggest cite fmt for refs. 3)need fn on first para of WWII section 4)the 4 items in refs are not in same format 5) why is official website not a ref? 6) Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines. 7) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talkcontribs) 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. — ERcheck (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Addressed "has" and awards detail in #1, but still needs more concise intro. Moving official site to refs. — ERcheck (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Removed gallery. Will try and fix intro tomorrow. Palm_Dogg 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at the intro, removing "details". Still needs work, which I'm leaving to you Palm Dogg. I've been working the references. — ERcheck (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've completed reformatting the citations, but ran across a few possible discrepancies — which I've listed in the section below. Also, the citations were to websites and I didn't go back and add original access dates. (Palm Dogg, are you game to do this?) — ERcheck (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Much better! But, 1)first para WWII still has no ref, 2) first para 1991-2004 has no ref and it should as it list several details, 3) only a couple web refs have retrieve dates, you need consistency here. Fix these and I'll promote it.Rlevse 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. — ERcheck (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation questions[edit]

Citation question #1

The following citation:

is used. However the actually points to a review of the book:

  • Leo J. Daugherty III. "Review of Otto J. Lehrack, America’s Battalion: Marines in the First Gulf War". International Journal of Naval History. 

Is the citation for the book review or for the book itself?

  • The citation was for the book, page 205. It was originally for the review, but I have since acquired the book. Palm_Dogg 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the url from this citation and added the page number. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Citation question #2

Citation [13] is for:

However, the url points to

Is this an error in URL, or is it something referred to in the above text?

ERcheck (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That's an error, but it looks like you've fixed it. Thanks. Palm_Dogg 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Since you meant the Admire article, I found the correct citation. It is not readily available online; only from the Gazette archives, which requires a paid membership. Here is the citation that I added:
BGen John H. Admire (August 1991). ""The 3d Marines in Desert Shield"". Marine Corps Gazette. 75: 81–84. 
ERcheck (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all the citations, references, and external links have been made more specific, per reviewers suggestion above. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 1st Marines[edit]

I served with 3rd Battalion 1st Marines, which was replaced by 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, and we were the ones who took over the three cities that 3/3 occupied. We set up the Forward Operating Bases. We were the ones who started working out of the cities as opposed to the Haditha Dam. This took place when we conducted Operation River Gate in October 2005.

current deployment[edit]

they're back in Anbar. Shouldn't this be added to the current history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I needed to wait for an official Marine News article so it wouldn't be OR. Palm_Dogg 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

I note that there's inconsistency in the formatting, which would be cleaned up at the same time. Tony (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

TFA request[edit]

  • 1. Can someone double check the recent changes to the 10 deadlinks now fully contain the relevant information on the sources, ideally.
  • 2. The images have no alternative text, see WP:ALT. It is standard that FA articles have alt text on images now.
  • Added alternative text. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Much better. Still the streamers to do. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Streamers done! Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 3. Is the part about 'deploying to Afghanistan in 2010' WP:CRYSTALBALL? Is it 'almost certain to take place' being the critical part of that policy. I have no idea whether it's crystal or not, just asking for consensus on it. By the way is it deploying or redeploying?
  • Negative, that was from a press release by the I Marine Expeditionary Force on what units would be participating in the Afghan War for the year 2010. Yes it is deploying (redeploying is when we come home). Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that had now been removed.  Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 4. The sections are labelled (or maybe structured) illogical. Table of contents section '2 History', yet a subsection is '2.9 Afghanistan (II)' which being future is definitely not part of history. My first thought is that history is not a good section heading and having a sequence of events is perhaps not the most engaging way to present the information. Maybe check how other similar FA articles are structured.
  • There is only one other FA military unit article I found, Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment, which wasn't much help. The standard military unit article is organization, history and awards. However, I've removed the history category and just moved everything to a lead section. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Quite an improvement.  Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 5. The lead; there seems to be no mention of the section "America's Battalion" which according to WP:LEAD is an issue. The award and Notable Marines also doesn't sit nicely in the lead, which maybe related to the structure above. So lead wants a good checking. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Took a whack at it. Does that work? Palm_Dogg (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Made major cuts per WP:Recentism. The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly greatly improved. Await to read opinion of others. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion,3rd Marines Deployed for 1956 Suez Crisis![edit]

Gentlemen: Although it was long ago, the summary of the 3rd Marines in 1956 is incorrrect. You say we were "alerted' for the 1956 Suez Crisis. Since I was in the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines and Lt. Colonel White's radio Operator, I can remember, with many of my mates being hurriedly rushed aboard the USS Telefair (an APA) in late October 1856 and leaving in convoy with an AKA and an LST. We steamed from Yokuska Japan the entrance of the Red Sea before holding station there. We stayed on station in Indian ocean for about a month and slowly steamed back to Japan, arriving back in late January, 1957. We wer designated as "BLT 3/3" or Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. In those days, expeditionary Marine Forces, with supporting tanks and artillary were designated as "BLT's". Your data is incorrect--I hardly think that spending 3 mos afloat awaiting orders to go ashore constitutes an "alert" as described in your coverage

James S. Underwood Sgt USMC 1955-1959 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sgt Underwood. The reference cited is the official history of the 3rd Marines Regiment, which says, "During the Suez crisis in late 1956, BLT 3/3 was alerted [italics mine] for possible employment in the Suez Canal area, but it only cruised in the Southeast Asian waters, "showing the flag" in Borneo's Brunei Bay, Bombay, Karachi, and Singapore, and then returned to Japan." However, I have attempted to reword it to conform with your personal observations as much as possible. Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Ign'r'nt question: Why, when discussing individuals, is "marine" often capitalized, but "sailor" and "corpsman" (for example) typically are not? It seems very inconsistent. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out Marines: must it always be capitalized? Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tet and Its Aftermath (1968)[edit]

Since it appears to be commentary, I moved the item below from the end of the Tet and Its Aftermath (1968) section. I was also unable to confirm the source by title alone. Please supply author, title, publisher, year and whatever else you can, ISBN, web link, etc. Thanks --Dual Freq (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Mike 3/3 did not "blunder" onto the 325th NVA Division. This was a planned assault against what was thought to be an NVA batallion but turned out to be a NVA regiment. The battle lasted all day into the early evening with accurate and adjusted artillery from the NVA and air strikes from Marine and Navy aircraft. 'Another Viet Nam Retrospective' page 60" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:36, March 19, 2015‎