Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 2

message: I am thinking there needs to be a section that speaks about HQMC, TECOM, MCCDC, the Warfighting Lab, etc.... and how all of these units interact in regards to doctrine, procurement of new equipment and personnel management.  Any thoughts?  To much info for this page?  Just a paragraph with other more in depth articles splintered from it?  Interested to hear thoughts.--Looper5920 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on D.C /non-fleet units 

message: In sympathy with the above...
Perhaps the real issue is deciding what a person coming to this page on the USMC needs to learn. I think we contributors need to approach this page from the point of view of a total newcomer to the subject of the USMC.  Like all sister services, in addition to operational and war-fighting units, the Corps has a vast collection of supporting establishments starting with HQMC, Marine Corps Districts, Recruiting, Reserve Forces, Basing, depots and the like which go into the entire mix.  
I suggest we almost pretend we're giving a presentation on the US Marine Corps at a high school, a college or in front of some group that asks simple questions like, "are you in the Pentagon?"  "So that guy, your Commandant tells generals in wars what to do?"  I'm not suggesting over simplification here but too often in Wikipedia, subject matter experts are victims of their own expertise.  In the case of this article, for example, we can almost "Semper Fi" and "MAGTF" ourselves to death if we're not careful.  As some others have suggested, starting with this "cover story" article, perhaps a family or collection of individual articles.  Such as 
*Marine Corps History,
*Marine Corps Organization,
*Marine Corps Women and their Role,
*Marine Corps Culture 
*Marine Corps Bases,
*Marine Corps Reserve,
*Marine Corps Geography,
*Marine Corps Schools and Education.
You get my point...Things like that...  
SimonATL 12:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Approach Should Contributors Take to This Article? 

message: Added comment in LOgic's page that I created
"Your childish "Join the Marines" additions interpersed throughout the article, while cute, from a four year old child's perspective, are of no interest to people seeking information on Marines.  The site is for information purposes.  The Marine Corps has more than an adequate budget not to need Wikipedia for recruiting.  Thanks" SimonATL 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks [[El C]] Vandalization Defense 

message: Ladies and Gents....  There is so much that needs to be done under this topic that I went and got ahead of myself and created a portal.  It can be found at Portal:United States Marine Corps.  I think I may have bit off a bit more than I can chew and ask you all for some help in anyway.  I believe I have some great ideas and there are a ton of topics to be covered but my knowledge of how to do it is not where it needs to be.  Once again any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.  Thanks.--Looper5920 10:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of USMC Portal 

message: My main source for adding detail to the history section until after the Civil War is  "Report on Marine Corps Duplication of Effort between Army and Navy" 17 December 1932. Its available in scanned TIFF format from the archives of the Marine Corps University. Jmosman 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed History 

message: I removed the portion of this article regarding Mess Dress.  The proper term is Evening Dress.  I will add a portion regarding Evening Dress as soon as I take a look at the official regulations.  There is a difference between Mess Dress and Evening Dress.  In the interenst of accuracy please do not add anything regarding Mess Dress to this article.Bunns USMC 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess Dress 

message: I must say that I agree with the additon of the "too long" tag.  It is probably a good time to start forking off some of the longer sections and just leaving a synopsis on this page.  The first edits that stand out to me as being easily made are to branch off the history section to a History of the United States Marine Corps and then remove all of the equipment at the bottom since they have a separate page already created for that.  Interseted to hear other ideas.--Looper5920 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening this article 

message: What struck me very odd while reading this entry is that suddenly in the appearance section, the article turned into not much more than a compare/contrast of Marine/Army uniforms. I found it odd that someone just picked the Army to compare the Marines to, seems like the section should stand as a description of Marine appearance only, perhaps if someone thinks that there is value of a comparison of the branches that could be made into a separate article comparing all of the military branches. I do not have the knowledge on this subject to rewrite it myself to be standalone Marine only (or at least mostly), perhaps someone else does? Katrianya 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance section 

message: I just reverted the article to the state it was in on 07:03, June 16, 2006 with the last edit by Furrykef — the version just prior to the beginning of a removal of operational names.  It is clear that there is an issue here, on which there is not a consensus — evidenced by the reverts.  So, I restored the page to the state that it was in before any of the changes were made.  Please, let's discuss it here before making any more reverts.  —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda names should be avoided wherever possible, this is an encyclopedia. Furthermore, you should not revert when this causes unnecessary redirects. There is a reason why the articles are not under the propaganda names. Añoranza 05:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had fixed the redirects ... I also think the article should contain the operation names as that is what the military participates in, the operation names are also used to distinguish between different phases of a conflict often. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The operational names are appropriate in this context.  The colloquial names should also be given to ensure the reader understands exactly what we're talking about but the operational names should be the primary reference in this article.  --ElKevbo 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, operational Names are needed ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational names - discuss here 

message: Since when does this type of soldier exist in the USMC? --89.58.6.254 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designated Marksman 

message: As promised, the summary section is done at User:Mmx1/USMCHistory and submitted for approval
Notes:
*The guideline was United States#History.  The idea was to construct a brief synopsis of Marine history that would introduce a complete novice to the subject and give an overview of the Marine Corps from 1775 to the present. There'll be a spinoff full article History of the Marine Corps to explore all issues in depth, so it's not necessary to mention every name, unit and event in the synopsis. There's barely enough space to mention key battles, and I think Vietnam and WWII still get short shrift; they might be worth another paragraph each.
*The headers are not meant to describe all the content that follows but rather as placemarkers for major sections of the Corps's history.
*It does need more photos; when the Marine Corps History Division finishes revamping their website I'll upload some of the art they have.
--Mmx1 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary Done

message: I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page  for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. TheGrappler 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg]] 

message: Have now finished the Mission, History, and Uniform rewrites; I will copyedit and cite those in the coming days (but FYI, the references have been largely "Marine Officer's Guide" for Mission, Simmons for history, and the regs for the Uniforms).
I intend to group the Commandant, rank structure, and Initial training under a new Personnel section, in order to create a neater hierarchy. That would leave as top level sections:
====To-Do====
(In General)
Copyedit, source
*Mission
*History
:(needs citations but honestly, it's all from Simmons; footnotes would look odd having 10+ carets in front of Simmons).
:I still think this section needs to be shortened. Compare to United_States_Navy#History or United States#History. This page is already at 80k and there's a bit of expansion left in other sections. A good source I've found is USMC history division's "brief history of the Marine Corps. I'll start cutting once I've incorporated the new structure back into the USMC History page.
*Organization
:Flesh out Air and Supply sides a bit more
:Move SOCOM discussion to a section under ground.
*Reputation of the Marine Corps
:I'm at a loss as to what to do with this. In its current form, it's a list of loosely-tied together historical events. Of course, any treatment of "Reputation" preferably needs a source to guide it along. I may have to go back to the library and dig out some more popular-interest books (Lawliss's Marine Book, or Rick's Making the Corps) that would deal with something like "reputation".
*Personnel
:Create, place and expand Commandant, Rank Structure; place initial training
*Uniforms and Appearance
:Utilities description is a bit haphazard; could use rewrite.
*Culture
:Needs citations
*Martial Arts
:I feel this should fall under "something", I just can't put my finger on it. Moved under culture
*Equipment
:Will flesh out into prose
*Relationship with the U.S. Navy
:There is orphaned material under "organization" ("participation in joint operations") about relationship and tension with other services. Should this become "Relationship with other services?"
*Miscellaneous
:(will be gone as soon as I figure out where to put the Academy Awards section) - Perhaps replace with Famous Marines paragraph and link to the List??
*Famous Marines needs an intro paragraph.
--Mmx1 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Stage

message: (In General)
Copyedit, source
*Mission
*History
:(needs citations but honestly, it's all from Simmons; footnotes would look odd having 10+ carets in front of Simmons).
:I still think this section needs to be shortened. Compare to United_States_Navy#History or United States#History. This page is already at 80k and there's a bit of expansion left in other sections. A good source I've found is USMC history division's "brief history of the Marine Corps. I'll start cutting once I've incorporated the new structure back into the USMC History page.
*Organization
:Flesh out Air and Supply sides a bit more
:Move SOCOM discussion to a section under ground.
*Reputation of the Marine Corps
:I'm at a loss as to what to do with this. In its current form, it's a list of loosely-tied together historical events. Of course, any treatment of "Reputation" preferably needs a source to guide it along. I may have to go back to the library and dig out some more popular-interest books (Lawliss's Marine Book, or Rick's Making the Corps) that would deal with something like "reputation".
*Personnel
:Create, place and expand Commandant, Rank Structure; place initial training
*Uniforms and Appearance
:Utilities description is a bit haphazard; could use rewrite.
*Culture
:Needs citations
*Martial Arts
:I feel this should fall under "something", I just can't put my finger on it. Moved under culture
*Equipment
:Will flesh out into prose
*Relationship with the U.S. Navy
:There is orphaned material under "organization" ("participation in joint operations") about relationship and tension with other services. Should this become "Relationship with other services?"
*Miscellaneous
:(will be gone as soon as I figure out where to put the Academy Awards section) - Perhaps replace with Famous Marines paragraph and link to the List??
*Famous Marines needs an intro paragraph.
--Mmx1 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To-Do

message: What is the proper place to discuss the reality behind many commonly Marine traditions? E.g.
*Robert Mullan was not commissioned until 1776, a year after the Continental Marines were created and two companies raised by Nicholas, hence not technically the "first Marine recruiter", nor Tun Tavern (owned by the Mullen family) the first Marine recruiting post. Simmons postulates that the first recruiting post was more likely a Nicholas family pub.
*The bloodstripe was a common fashion of the time and adopted prior to Chapultapec. This does not detract from its symbolism, but it's not true that the Corps adopted the bloodstripe as a result of Chapultapec.
*No records indicate that the term teufelhunden was ever used by the Germans.
*and a few other minor ones 
Simmons and Chenoweth/Nihart are the source for these. Delving into it on the history page at the appropriate chronological place, does it make sense to collect them? I'm not keen on making the culture section into a snopes; legends have value even if they're inaccurate. --Mmx1 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on debunking? 

message: Did the Marines see any action in the European Theater in WWII, or were they just assigned to the Pacific Theater? jengod 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Q for you military history experts 

message: I'm removing the "JAG leads ambush counter-attack" bit. I've heard this story several times and it's a great illustration of the "every Marine is a rifleman" concept, but I can't for the life of me find a reference on google news, google, or MCNews. Removing until it can be sourced, or a similar example provided. Perhaps the Wake Island example is sufficient. --Mmx1 02:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also requesting a citation for the withdrawl of Marines as security detachments from Navy ships. --Mmx1
Note regarding reversions of recent history
As this is a history subsection, I'm trying to keep the section headers to a minimum as there's already too many. Grouping OIF and OEF under GWOT is an editorial decision; as this is about Marine history, the term used by the Marines is apropos here. Similarly, my editorial decision is that Gulf War doesn't warrant a section title. Also reworded out the POV "central to" and "combat conditions seen only rarely since the Vietnam War". Geez, more Marines died in Lebanon than the Gulf. New wording sticks to facts of a) Marines forming brunt of initial Desert Shield forces (could be worded better), and liberating Kuwait. That they pinned down Iraqi forces by their presence strays a bit into POV and while not inadmissible, concern for length makes it redundant. Again, direct all clarifications and full explanations to the main History article.--Mmx1 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation requests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Marine Corps ball/birthday celebration traditions? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I just took yours and reordered some of the entries. Here it is below --Mmx1 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just fixed a capitalization.  I like this one and am in favor of adding it.--Looper5920 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naval Installations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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) 22:07, November 1, 2006
: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  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  One big ad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Official website 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oohrah 

message: 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)
replies: text: As usual I appreciate your help. NeoFreak 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I've made the changes. NeoFreak 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changes look good. --Looper5920 11:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MARSOCOM justification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV assertion 

message: 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
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Excellent.  That's what I was envisioning when I made the above suggestions.  --ElKevbo 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Material 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  UNIQUE COMBAT ARMS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  U.S. Embassy Guards 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capabilities, Redux 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forms of address Correction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Teufel Hunden 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seal visibility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: He was accepted as a sniper, was he not? They have very high standards. I'll go check Lee Harvey Oswald. --Hojimachongtalk 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oswald's Marine Training. He barely qualified (scored 191). --Hojimachongtalk 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Famous Marines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1812 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  United States Marine Corps in popular culture 

message: Someone somehow edited it to "Serious Business" while it was on the front page; I reverted it. Ninjarrr 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, thanks. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Comparing USMC training to Royal Marines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GWOT section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parentheses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Time in grade is more important then comissioning date JeremyinNC 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commandant, Gen. Conway in Personnel section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Added the term skipper to the article. It's not uncommon to use this term for a unit's C.O. and it does tie in nicely with the earlier comments about having many naval traditions.JeremyinNC 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms of address correction, again. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tyrone Power 

message: I think that this article should be nominated for Featured Article-- what do people think?
User:SemperFi501
Uhm. It /is/ a featured article...? Narson 19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: Noted the fact in the Fedex article. Feddhicks 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once a Marine, always a Marine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  saying United States Marine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Civ-Mil Relations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sea 

message: I'm noticing tha tthe article length is reading at 107 kb long. Seeing that there already is an article on the History of the United States Marine Corps, do we really need a 28 kb section on history in this article? I would like to propose merging the history section here with the main History page, and either eliminating it here altogether, or keeping the section VERY brief. (See the Royal Navy article for an axample on how this was done a few months ago.) There may be aother sections that we can fork out too, as this page should really only be a summary. - BillCJ 07:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had to edit the article and revert some vandalism, but I got a lot concerned with the 115kb of text. It really needs some summary. Samuel Sol (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Why was my adding of the USMC's MySpace reverted without explanation? It is an official site, which means it should be included as stated by the very first rule Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked and adding it does not constitute spam or vandalism, as the incompetent editor who reverted it falsely stated. Furthermore, it used Template:MySpace, and what's the point of having an external link template if its use is considered vandalism? An explanation from anyone who can provide one would be appreciated. 69.234.151.19 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USMC's MySpace 

message: Can someone explain it ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be referring to the former Det 1, now called United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command.  This is a recently formed unit made of senior reconnaissance marines who do missions directly from the pentagon, vs. USMC headquarters (although they work within Marine units logistically).  Within this unit is the MSOB, or Marine Special Operations Battalions, and within them are MSOC, or Marine Special Operations Companies.  Rhetth (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine special Force Battalions 

message: Where would it be best to place the table of contents, considering its size, and the relatively large template in the beginning? I'm thinking, but can't think of anything better. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best where it is, although I've added a maxwidth so that it doesn't cramp the content too much. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:30, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks freakishly cramped. What say we place the toc far right, and to its left the template? Or one over the other, template first, toc second? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of TOC 

message: Just wondering, but would there be an independant wiki about this? Thought I'd ask, because this is the kind of thing that would merit one. A Marine Wiki? 125.238.88.132 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki? 

message: 100s of Marines killed. Worth a mention? Seems more notable than the rape material that is being pushed. Maybe just because its current? --68.9.117.174 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "gross mismanagement" 

message: I removed the following which was added anonymously in an inappropriate place, making the article somewhat unreadable, and arguably unbalancing the coverage.  Could those involved in this article please evaluate it, and put it in the right place if it is deemed appropriate?
A U.S. Marine was arrested on Monday on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old girl in Okinawa Prefecture, drawing immediate outrage from the governor that is spreading across the prefecture.  Similar incidents have been happening frequently since U.S. occupied Japan in 1945. In 1995, three U.S. servicemen, U.S. Navy Seaman Marcus Gill and U.S. Marines Rodrico Harp and Kendrick Ledet, all from Camp Hansen on Okinawa, raped a 12-years-old schoolgirl by turns.
References: New York Times and CNN
Thanks.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added claim 

message: Maybe could be a good idea to put in thia article a link to the SOF of the USMC, in this case the Force Recon article.--A. Dupin (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion about the USMC and the SOF 

message: Echo5Mac (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard the term before. While I understand the thought process, it doesn't match too well with most mentalities I've encountered. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reference for NCOs and SNCOs