Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: USMC/USN/DON

message: 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)
thread_title:  Second to What?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  section order 

message: I deleted the link to * Teufelhunden 1775. It's only one page, and little there. Maurreen 06:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Del link

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you provide the source? Jinian 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Code talkers

message: *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)
thread_title: Boots

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Battle of Bull Run

message: 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.)
*United States armed forces
*United States Department of Defense
*United States Army
*United States Navy
*United States Air Force
*United States Marine Corps
*United States Coast Guard
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)
thread_title: Reorganise

message: 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)
thread_title: NCOs and Swords

message: There is a vote here to change "Military bases" categories to "Military facilities" categories. Maurreen 09:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bases

message: I've always heard the phrase as "Every Marine a Rifleman" so I took out the "is." I reworded the sentence and changed the quote a few months ago and the quote was changed back but my wording stuck so now hopefully the quote will stick, too.
:I'm not sure either way about the "is", but I always heard it as ending with "first", as in "Every Marine a rifleman first." Maurreen (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. I googled it and apparently had remembered incorrectly. Maurreen (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In a literal sense, yes.  But I've always heard the saying as "Every Marine a rifleman." PvtDeth 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every Marine a Rifleman 

message: Is that General Order 9 illustration of a UFO still around ? I've seen it in two places, one
in a USMC Boot Manual, the other, online. I was told that this was intended as a example
of the USMC protocol to handle unforseen situations, thus the UFO pixes.Martial Law 02:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that General 9 ............

message: Added a few misc. things in uniforms, any corrections or whatever, dig in.  Oh, by-the-by, the United States mint is coining(or has coined) a 225th year commemorative coin to celebrate the United States Marine Corps.  Stay tuned, I'll get something on it this week.  One side has the flag raising on Mt. Seribachi(if I spelled it wrong, just say Iwo Jima instead), not about other one. :)  Joe I 20:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about 225th, but I have this one:  --Kenyon 15:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW there is an article about this coin now: Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Silver Dollar —Kenyon (t·c) 04:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniforms 2

message: In my opinion it would look better to not present the Units(Wings Divisions and MLGs) in prose format.  It makes it difficult to distinguich.  Feel it would be look better either as they were or in some kind of table.  Wanted to check with the masses before making any change.  Yut--Looper5920 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of Divs, Air Wings and MLGs 

message: Is there nothing in here about navel security aboard ships?  Either in historical terms or mordern.  I know the Marine Corps still keeps security detachments aboard.  I tried addin something, but not a thing I'm totally sure on, or knowledgable about.  Joe I 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval Security

message: There's been some editing back and forth over whether the mess dress uniform is authorized wear, or was non-authorized as of 1992. I feel that there may be some confusion here. I've seen officers and SNCO's wear Mess Dress for formal occasions, such as the Marine Ball, into the 21st century.  By mess dress, I mean a uniform patterned after Dress Blues, a description of which may be obtained here.  I know that a white colored mess-dress uniform was phased out in the 1990s. Any comments?
Tommythegun 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess Dress

message: "At the brown belt level, a Marine must be at a minimum an instructor in MCMAP" - does this mean that only instructors are rated brown belt of black belt, or can any Marine be ? - Matthew238 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Martial arts program

message: I took my first big cut at the Mission section.  I really believe this can get streamlined a lot more.  THink there should also be a mention of the 1948 National Defense Act and the guarantees set aside for the Marines and their mission statement  "At the President's discretion" is actually the last mission assigned to them.  The biggest reason for the reshuffle of paragraphs was that it was bouncing back and forth between ideas.  Hopefully it flows a little better now.
I also got rid of a few digs at the Army and some of the qualifiers in front of certain statements.  There is also a very random section that seems out of place.  It should not go from high level units such as MEFs and Divisions and then be followed up solely by Recon.  
Love to get feedback from all of the regular contributors to this page--Looper5920 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission 

message: An additional comment on the claim that the USMC is the only branch of the Armed Forces that allows enlisted personnel to carry swords.  I don't know about the Navy or Air Force, though I'm pretty sure the Navy has provisions for carry, the Army and the Coast Guard both allow senior NCOs to carry swords--specifically a sword for the Army and a cutlass for the Coast Guard.  Maybe the author was referring to the Marine Corps being the only service to allow junior NCOs to carry swords.  I know that in certain ceremonies junior NCOs and soldiers in the Army are allowed to carry swords in honor or color guards, but this is not in the regulation, though it is covered in the Drill and Ceremonies Field Manual.
I believe the point was that the marines are the only branch of the armed forces where the sword is an official part of every (dress) uniform.--Cptbuck 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every dress uniform, Non-NCO's do not carry swords.  Also not only dress uniforms.  Swords can be worn or carried with service uniforms as well, the only change being the frog (sword "holster.") PvtDeth 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCOs and Swords 

message: Article could use a paragraph on women in the Marines.  Are they allowed in any combat roles?  Tempshill 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a link to Women in combat would be more appropriate than a separate section here. Also, if anyone wants to help clean that one up, it could use it. Or a separate History of Women in the Marine Corps, might make sense. Jinian 13:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women