Talk:United States Marine Corps

Archived discussions

USMC/USN/DON

I reverted a one-line edit adding the sentence "In 2000 the Marines were amalgamated into the US Navy to form one efficient fighting force." Please read the archived discussion if there's any confusion on the issue, or please support that claim with evidence of this organizational change that we've managed to miss for the past four years. Fox1 16:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unarchived discussion

Dan Rather was not really a Marine. He failed out of recruit training for medical reasons. Chadloder 20:09 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

Reputation of the Marine Corps?

In my opinion, this article is not unbiased -- especially the section Reputation of the Marine Corps. I think that this part of the article is written from an US point of view. Internationally, for example in Europe, the USMC is not necessarily considered to be the "world's best elite fighting force" that some Americans want it to be. Some reasons for this: 1) The way the personnel are selected. Almost anyone can get in. There is not an aim to choose only the best and the most fittest for service. 2) Basic training is relatively short and contains primarily general military skills. For example, British Army and French Foreign Legion outweigh USMC in these areas.

Moreover, I would like to see examples to support the argument The Marine Corps' reputation often affects enemy planning and operations before and after combat. This sounds more like a legend than a fact.

My goal is not to undermine the fame of the US Marine Corps. It is an accomplished military force which has performed well in many war theaters. But I would like to see this article stripped of "marine lore" and (understandable) national proudness, which don't belong into an encyclopedia.

--oswd 00:30, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I would largely agree that the phrase "best elite fighting force" is hyperbole. Obviously it's subjective, but it also seems like vague language. "Force" is not, to my knowledge, any kind of quantifiable organizational type, which makes me question why the Corps would be place above even other U.S. elite units with higher entrance standards. The Corps is, I believe, the LARGEST "elite force" in the world. I've seen that factoid referenced in several printed publications (again, I recognize the rather hazy nature of both "elite" and "force").

--Fox1

Upon further reflection, I dislike this entire section, and I wish I had time to rewrite it. I removed the comment about actively recruiting 17 year-olds and "more aggressive" individuals after two days of looking failed to turn up any differences between the services in regards to recruitment age (not that I expected to find anything, since age is mandated across the DoD, not by the individual services). I think the article would be better served by dispersing information about differences in tactics and mentality across the other sections as appropriate IF they can be backed up. Otherwise, I see no reason to use the reputation section as a mask for poorly NPOVed information. Keeping the section would be fine, if there is at least an attempt to use real examples, instead of the author's own generalizations.

--Fox1

This section, and perhaps some parts of the other sections as well, have somewhat gone out of the hand. This article is not even near to an encyclopedia article, but a praise to the superiority, brutality and toughness of the US Marines. I am not the right person to rewrite this article, but I ask whoever edits this article to transform it towards an objective description of the US Marine Corps -- not a collection of stories telling which enemy fears the marines and how much.

--Oswd 20:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Second to What?

the aticle opens The United States Marine Corps (USMC) forms the second-smallest branch of the United States Armed Forces, with 170,000 active and 40,000 reserve members as of 2002. This leaves the reader wondering what is the smallest? Can this be clarified in the article please? Dainamo 00:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not try to strike the U.S. Coast Guard from the list of the U.S. Armed Forces. They are by law (Title 14) and by organization a separate armed force. GABaker 3 Sep 2004

Platoons

Platoon leaders in the Marines are known as "platoon commanders." It differs from the Army, which has "platoon leaders." [Moved comment from top of this page.]

Famous Marines

Moved list to own page. Maurreen 16:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

section order

I think the article could be better organized, but I'm not sure what order is better. Any thoughts? Maurreen 17:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More Casualties?

The sentence unceremoniously tacked on to the end of that section seems badly implemented and quite possibly untrue.

In fact, in the few times I've seen applicable comparisons, Marine Corps casualties have been significantly less, both in terms of Marine casualties and non-combatant ones.

That said, this also ignores the fact that Marine Corps and U.S. Army tactics and casualty rates may not be comparable in this way, owing to the superficially similar but technically varied nature of their respective missions. Fox1 30 Sep 2004

Infamous Marines

What is the disagreement with describing Lee Harvey Oswald, Clayton Lonetree and Charles Whitman as infamous former Marines? Is there any doubt? Maurreen 04:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed the wording when I added a third entry, to switch from dual to plural form. If you think there's too much validation wording there now, feel free to change. I had planned on adding Oliver North, with a disclaimer regarding him regaining (or maintaining) some legitimacy in the public eye. Ended up thinking it was better to leave him out.

The one question I would have is whether that sublist would serve better on the famous Marines page? Seems odd to put the INfamous ones in the main entry, and the less controversial ones somewhere else.

--Fox1 12 October, 2004

The famous Marines, in a good way, are too many to list on the main page. I did add Clayton Lonetree to the "famous Marines" list; the others were already on it. I think having some negative information on the main USMC page makes it a little more balanced. But I see your point. I won't argue if you take it out. Or another idea would be to list just a few of the famous ones here. Maurreen 13:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ranks

I made all the ranks lowercase. They are not proper nouns unless they are immediately before a name. Maurreen 05:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had used title/heading capitalization, but I could see how lowercase would be correct, depending how you looked at the structure of the list, grammatically. I thought it looked better in caps, but it could just be that that's how I'm used to seeing them.

On a related note, I was always taught that the noun "Marine" was always capitalized ("soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines." "He is a Marine."). This seems to be how this article has been handled, how it was practiced in reporting according to government style manuals, and in any official documents that I can find or remember, but I've had the capitalization changed to lowercase in other articles. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any references to the issue specifically in civilian style manuals (they lump all service titles together, from what I've seen), so I don't have anything to back my assertions up on this issue.

--Fox1 12 Oct, 2004

Associated Press style makes "Marine" uppercase; New York Times style makes it lowercase. There isn't clear consensus, but I'm used to AP. I see your point about capitalization in a list, but I think that might encourage people to capitalize the ranks in body copy, which I see a lot of. Maurreen 14:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infantry training

Isn't there an infantry school at Lejeune, also? Do people go from Parris Island to Camp Pendleton? Maurreen 16:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holy crap, I can't believe I didn't include that. Nice catch, now I have to go edit School of Infantry, too. Guess that's my Hollywood bias for ya'. Fox1 16:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

Also, it would be good for both articles if we could indicate when women started going. Do you have any ideas about that? I went to boot camp in 1980 and didn't even get to the rifle range for at least a few years. I was very disappointed. Maurreen 16:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done on this page, however, I'm starting to think the topic might deserve a subsection of its own. Especially since the Corps' slow adoption of limited gender integration has been thrown around by journalists and others as a cause for quite a few things, good and bad. Fox1 16:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're really quick. Maurreen 17:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Del link

I deleted the link to * Teufelhunden 1775 (http://www.teufelhunden1775.us/). It's only one page, and little there. Maurreen 06:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Code talkers

This was deleted: "Some high military officers have said the United States would never have won the Battle of Iwo Jima without the secrecy afforded by the Navajo code talkers."

I'm restoring it. If anyone disagrees, let's talk. Maurreen 05:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide the source? Jinian 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's in the third paragraph of Code talker. If the problem is giving too much credit, maybe there's another way. I just think the code talkers are worth mentioning here. Maurreen 15:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Umm, the code talker article doesn't provide a source either. It simply states it, without saying who said it or when it was said. See what you think of my change.

That's good. Thanks. Maurreen 05:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boots

Are the new boots really brown, or closer to tan?
Is Oct. 1, 2004, the date the black boots were declared obsolete, or the effective date of that declaration?

Maurreen 05:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should be the effective date, the declaration was, I believe, dated about 12 months prior. Also, they're a light brown or a tan... I'm not very good with colors, but either description would probably fit. Fox1 14:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bases

1MAW is listed as being in Okinawa, but its HQ is in Hawaii, so why not say it is in Okinawa and Hawaii?

Also, the list of Marine Bases needs help from someone at least minimally knowledgeable; it says MCLB Albany is in New York, which sounds like a joke...

I think where most of the unit is, is more important than the headquarters. But you can add the HQ info if you wish. Maurreen 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are there are a bunch of H-53 squadrons in Hawaii too -- and ASEK?

I think that is probably too much detail for this article. And what is ASEK? Maurreen 17:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You had said "where most of the unit is, is more important than the headquarters." I meant to point out that more than just the headquarters is in Hawaii; that is why I mentioned the H-53 squadrons and ASEK (Aviation Support Element, Kaneohe). I didn't mean they should be listed :) Here is a reference to both: http://www.combatindex.com/links/us_marines/usmc_cmd_marforpac.html. Anyway, thats enough for me, it was only a suggestion, not something I have religious feelings concerning.

"Soldiers"

I put "soldiers" in lowercase, as is standard. Maurreen 04:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Service uniform

This paragraph has undergone a few evolutions. So if anyone objects to what I'm doing, let's talk.

As of now it reads: "The Marine service uniform, roughly equivalent to business attire, is comprised of dark green trousers (or optional skirt for females) and a khaki shirt. The equivalent Army uniform is two different shades of green."

I'm going to change it. For one thing, the word "trousers" is inappropriate for women. And I doubt the skirt is optional, but I've been out for awhile, so I could be wrong. Maurreen 05:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The optional skirt reference was not so much right or wrong as ambiguous. Females are required to have both the skirt and the slacks, but, absent specific mention in the Uniform of the Day orders, it's at the Marine's discretion which to wear. So... it's not optional to have and maintain the skirt, but its wear can be optional for day-to-day dress. I suspect this is similar to what you experienced, but just letting you know in case it has changed. Fox1 19:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fox1, I realized I might have misunderstood whether your comments were just explanation or you'd prefer to change the current wording. Maurreen 06:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current wording seems fine to me, I was just pointing out what may have been the confusion of the word "optional."

However, is the army shirt really light green? As above, I'm not good with colors, but it always seemed a pale blue-green, maybe a teal or something similar. I would like to see a reference to the official name for the hue, but I can't locate one. Fox1 01:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found the Army uniform regulation here (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf), but it's not much help. On pages 91-92, they call it Army green shade 415. If you want to change it from "light green", that's OK with me. Maurreen 05:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Generals

I changed "general grade officers" to "generals." But maybe it should be "flag grade officers." Maurreen 05:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"general grade" is a correct, although not often used, term. Guess it's a style decision. Fox1 19:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CMC/SMOMC and capitalization

Another capitalization talk segment! Now, we've gone over the various capitalization issues here a few times, and I think we were pretty much in agreement so far, but I was surprised to see the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps' titles in lowercase. I understood the rationale behind de-capitalizing the ranks, but I was 99% sure that those two, as titles specific to a single high-ranking person (like POTUS), were capitalized. I checked the only document I could find specifically addressing the issue (the US Govt Printing Office style manual for 2000) and did a quick google news poll of usage of the term Commandant, and there was clear consensus for capitalization. I couldn't find enough instances of use of the title SMOMC in non-governmental press to get a good consensus, but combining hits for SMOMC and the Sergeant Major of the Army begins to show a fairly strong trend towards capitalization. I'll hold off on changing it to see what you have to say. Fox1 20:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am used to titles capitalized only before a name, which is supported by the Associated Press and New York Times style guides.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is not very clear to me, but seems to favor capitals only when referring to a specific person (that is, the person holding the rank at a given time).

But if you feel strongly about it, I won't argue if you capitalize them. Maurreen 04:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pockets

Is it really true that some Marines don't use their utility pockets whatsoever? Maurreen 06:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just speaking from personal experience, we certainly used our utility pockets in the field. However, while in garrison, the general rule was not to carry anything in the utility or blouse pockets which would affect the lay of the cloth and be visible. It occurs to me that I don't ever recall seeing this articulated in a written order, but it seemed to be universally done, nonetheless.

That said, I'm not sure that point merits inclusion in the list, as I knew individuals of all 3 cammie-wearing services (yes, I'm excluding Navy docs, seebees, seals and masters at arms) who sewed their pockets shut, cut out the back panel, etc in order to look sharper for garrison inspections, and I've never known any historical references to WWII or otherwise to be referenced. Fox1 01:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After reading over it again, I removed that bullet. None of the things referenced in it were really useful ways to distinguish a Marine from a soldier, which is the stated purpose of the list. Plus, they were all matters of custom or ettiquette rather than actual regulations anyway. Fox1 02:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedian category

I've created Category:Wikipedian military. Maurreen 06:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Does anyone agree with the recent change to the intro? [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Marine_Corps&diff=0&oldid=9073734)

Fouled Anchor?

For years I've thought that the Marine symbols were an eagle, globe and fouled anchor. Am I wrong on that last part? This article just says anchor. I know its not a big difference and I might even be wrong. KorbenDirewolf 23:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just happened to have hqmc.usmc.mil (http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Customes_Traditions/Emblem_Seal.htm) open. /Customes_Traditions/Emblem_Seal.htm says

In 1776, the device consisted of a "foul anchor" of silver or pewter. The foul anchor still forms a part of the emblem today. (A foul anchor is an anchor which has one or more turns of the chain around it). Changes were made in 1798, 1821, and 1824. In 1834 it was prescribed that a brass eagle be worn on the hat, the eagle to measure 3 ½ inches from wingtip to wingtip.

The emblem recommended by this board [in 1868] consists of a globe (showing the Western Hemisphere) intersected by a foul anchor, and surmounted by a spread eagle. On the emblem itself, the device is topped by a ribbon inscribed with the Latin motto "Semper Fidelis" (Always Faithful). The uniform ornaments omit the motto ribbon.

[In 1954] an American bald eagle replaced the crested eagle depicted on the 1868 emblem,

—wwoods 04:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Leatherneck magazine (http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/faq.htm), sometimes the anchor is fouled and sometimes it is not. Maurreen 04:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Of course, the official site given by Wwoods is a better reference. Maurreen 06:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Officially, the upper arm of the stock should always be fouled, the only time it would be shown unfouled is by artistic license (low resolution/someone can't draw). That said, in day to day speech I've never heard the fouling referenced, and the insignia is always referred to by the name "eagle, globe and anchor." The fouling is there, but it isn't considered one of the 3 major symbolic elements, in much the same way as other details such as the ribbon in the eagle's mouth or the north and south american continents on the globe. I certainly wouldn't argue against mention of these elements, but some separate reference to the iconic "E.G.A." should remain in its uncluttered form. Fox1 04:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fox1. Maurreen 05:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It probably would look better left as it is. KorbenDirewolf 02:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, thanks to everyone for replying to my question. KorbenDirewolf

Number abbreviations

For some Marine references, and also some Navy references, I've seen "2d" and "3d" for "2nd" and "3rd". Is one version incorrect, or are they interchangable, or what? Should we standardize on one--if so, which? —wwoods 02:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think "2nd", "3rd", etc. is more common in general. Maurreen 05:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Bull Run

The article is mistaken in claiming the Marines have never suffered a rout. At the First Battle of Bull Run they ran like the mighty Mississippi. I would make the change, but would prefer one of you Smart Guys on MC history would have better words than I. [[Paul, in Saudi 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)]]

I have to say, I think you're simply being contrary. The article currently reads "The U.S. Marines have never undertaken a full, large-scale retreat." It does not say "never been routed" or even "never suffered a defeat." There was only one battalion of Marines at Bull Run, and they were the last of the infantry screening that artillery battery to break. It's already been qualified with the note on the Chosin withdrawal, and this really doesn't merit further cluttering up the article. No change needed. Fox1 00:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belt

Is this true?

"Marines may wear a khaki "web belt" with a brass buckle with their utility trousers, but more commonly wear a colored belt, often referred to as a "rigger's belt", that is color coded to represent their specfic qualification under the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program."

Maurreen 07:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad joke to me. --Alexwcovington (talk) 09:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. Part of the aforementioned martial arts program, which is rather more holistic and far-reaching than just a hand to hand combat training program, by the way. I was only around for the very early stages of the program, but we had a few Marines earn their belts. Advancement in the program also influences promotion... but I'm getting off the point. Yeah, the belt thing is true. Fox1 01:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the bullet, here's a reference for you (ALMAR 043/01), with my emphasis added:

SUBJ/ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MARINE CORPS MARTIAL ARTS PROGRAM//

Rmks/1....2. The marine corps martial arts program, implemented in October 2000, is a natural extension of these basic tenets. Although it is a skill progression program offering martial arts training through a system of belt rankings from tan through sixth degree black belt, it is much, much more. It is a reflection of our warrior ethos that provides a vehicle for enhanced unit cohesion and increased self-worth.

There ya go, also, if anyone ends up being interested, Marine Corps Martial Arts Program is, as you can see, a red link. I might get around to it at some point, otherwise. Fox1 01:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us current. Maurreen 02:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marines: Semper Fi

Although i am not a Marine, i do know several things about the corps. First, the Marines differ from the regular US Army in that Marines are adept and ready to be the first ones to fight. The Marines are designed as an adaptable to any situation thrown in their way. Although the Marines may not be taught the same material as the Special Forces or any special operations detachment, they are probably America's best frontline force.

The Marines are trained in Land, Sea, and Air.

Goverments like to make the population think that they are well defended by their armed forces and that the budget is being well spent. This article already reads too much like a hagiography, with its odd attention to little details. I would like to see a more robust article that doesn't seem to pander to delights of US teenagers. Gareth Hughes 11:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the anonymous poster was suggesting be done with the article, or whether he was suggesting anything at all. That being said, your comment wasn't much better. If you have any more "robust" suggestions on what can be improved, feel free to voice them, or, better yet, make the improvements yourself. Otherwise you just look like an individual with a POV chip on their shoulder, who found a chance to use the word "hagiography" without it looking too absurd. Fox1 01:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Gareth, from your user page I see that you're apparently a priest, which causes your use of the word hagiography to seem a lot less contrived.... thusly, I retract the appropriate portion of my snarky reply. The rest stays. And remains snarky. Fox1 01:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reorganise

I think all of the pages - US armed forces, US Department of Defense, and all the services (US Army etc.) need to be reorganised, First so that there is not uneeded overlap, and Second so that Army, Navy etc. are all set out the same way (eg. similar headings and article structure, just with different content.)

and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.

Some of this could be good. But ... I'm wary of overstandardization, and I prefer "U.S." to "United States" in this context. Maurreen 06:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NCOs and Swords

I'd like to address this issue here on the talk page parallel with the discussion on the talk page of the IP editor who made this change: There has been some confusion about whether USMC NCOs are in fact the only NCOs authorized to carry a sword. There is a Naval Reg available that states that USN Chief Petty Officers are authorized to carry the (I think I remember the year right) 1890 issue cutlass. However, careful reading of this regulation will show that this is only the case for CPOs serving in the corresponding period uniform aboard the USS Constitution. Thus, this is not an authorized modern uniform, it is simply a special case for historical display purposes.

If I'm wrong, please find the reg that shows me to be so, because I really pored over them a couple months ago when this first came up, and the above was my conclusion. Thanks.

Fox1 11:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

former

Minor note on the Famous Marines section: see answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/former-marine). Using "retired" is more appropriate.

The issue I have with the "once a Marine, always a Marine" thing is that there's really no other way to accurately describe an individual who served as an active-duty or reserve member of the Corps, but left the Corps before being eligible to retire. I really can't think of any term that simultaneously covers that (rather common) eventuality while not violating the "once a Marine" ethos.

Fox1 16:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:United_States_Marine_Corps"