Talk:Officer Candidates School (United States Marine Corps)

message: Is this the same page as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_Candidates_Class
Maybe the page listed above should be re-directed to this page?
Also, the proper name for the US Marine Corps officer training is "Officer Candidate COURSE," not "Officer Candidate SCHOOL."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.127.214 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 January 2007
*See the official website .  It is entitled "Officer Candidates School." — ERcheck (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: This entire page basically regurgitates Marine Corps propaganda/recruitment literature, and reads like an advertisement.  If that is the point of the Marine Corps portal, this should be stated.  Some of us actually went through Marine OCS, did the Marine thing, then returned to the world and have perspective/criticism.  If the format is wrong, please correct it.  But the tone lack of perspective with which this article is written would not be acceptable anywhere else on Wikipedia.  The OCS program is highly flawed, there have been a number of published, and well respected critiques out there. "One Bullet Away" by Cpt Fick being probably the most notable example.  The "training" and grading at OCS were totally arbitrary, and in almost no way reflect or screen for the attributes and skills needed by officers in the fleet.  The Marine Corps continues to do itself a disservice by screening candidates in this manner.  That of course is opinion based off of experience.  Please feel free to make your own, but the facts are the physical,"leadership" and "academics" the candidates are put through are "Barney style" easy: everyone is brainwashed to think a three mile 18 min run is something impressive (for example).  I witnessed some of the best candidates get dropped for no reason (near the top of their class in graded events) or minor injuries, while candidates who failed multiple events from all three categories skate through: the screening was arbitrary.  What is the appropriate way to referenced this for an article?  This is pretty common knowledge for anyone who has been through the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Απόλλων (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 August 2009
:You should read WP:NPOV, WP:REF, and WP:OR. Your edits thus far have done nothing but add unreferenced opinion and origional research into the article. I've kept gone through and weeded out a weasel words and slightly POV adjectives.
:Regarding the criticism, you should read also Wikipedia:Criticism. For the most part, it seems as if you had a bad experience at OCS and have an axe to grind, but Wikipedia is not the place to voice such things. If you want to re-add some criticisms, you should first find some very good published reliable sources, primarily third party ones. The best place to look would probably be the outlets for community voices, such as the Marine Corps Times (they have a history of publishing editorials that raise concerns like this and aren't associated with the Corps in any way) and similar publications. I haven't read the book you mentioned (though I recall Fick was central in Generation Kill, which was a fine book), but it would also be a good start.
:However, keep in mind that criticism should be sparse and balanced, meaning that a two-paragraph rant like you had earlier isn't appropriate at all. And I'll mention this because new editors have a tendancy to misunderstand: I'm discussing the article itself, not the practices that go on at OCS. It's a distinction lost on many.
:Lastly, please sign your contributions to talk pages by using four tildes: ~~~~. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the book referenced, and while a good book, does not support what you say. --Conor Fallon (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finally read One Bullet Away, and Fick's stance does not seem to agree with the harsh criticism you offered. He does have some criticisms about the way the Corps does (and did) certain things, but not much for OCS. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV allegation

message: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drill_instructor_at_the_Officer_Candidate_School.jpg
That kind of silliness still go on at the OCS? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of silliness do you mean? Are you asking if this picture is legit?  Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wondering if that "yelling to correct fault" is still tolerated. This image and its placement in the article on the OCS seems to celebrate it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting an edit or just adding a commentary? What do you mean by "celebrate it"? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am asking if this image, which presents the stereotypical portrayal of a tough Drill Sgt, is still the norm at the Marine OCS? I ask because I went through another county's OCS and this get all up in people's faces yelling is seriously frowned upon. It is considered unprofessional, counter-productive and could be considered harassment. I certainly don't want to begin a debate whether these opinions are valid or not. If the Maries still do it old school that is fine. Just want to know if indeed they still do it old school. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Your comment above was about silliness as portrayed in a picture, and IMHO I see nothing silly about the way Marine Corps Drill Instructors screen future leaders for the difficult and often deadly mission at hand. It's a picture and you can interpret it any way you want.  Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact or Fiction?