Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Scrolling lists

Per WP:REF#Scrolling lists:

Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.

I hope that makes clear why I've removed the scrolling list from the References section. - BillCJ (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware. It's a shame though, It really helps the structure of the page without degrading the use of references. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I do wish there was another way, and they may yet figure out a way to do it that get's around the legitimate issues such as copying and printing. - BillCJ (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO printing is a non-issue as you can set the CSS to only display scrollbars on the screen media. When you go to print the full list would appear. Any browser that wouldn't display it properly probably doesn't handle media types so it'd most likely just degrade to showing the full list. But I guess this really isn't the place for a discussion on it :P Mikemill (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You should probably take that up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. It's possible they haven't considered that solution. Most of the stated objections to using scrollbars are technical. If these problems are solved, perhaps scrolling could be incorporated as a toggle in the {{reflist}} template, making it very simple to implement. - BillCJ (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No Between the Wars

Curiously, the text entirely neglects the period between the world wars when the corps was heavily committed to various "banana republics." At least from 1918 to the early-mid 30s the experience gained in bush fighting proved invaluable to the WW II generation of leaders including Vandegrift, Puller, and Hannekin. 29 Sept 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Interim: Civil War to World War I section. However, if you want to expand upon it, editing this article would not be appropriate; it is merely a short summary of the information in History of the United States Marine Corps, which has a bit more in-depth coverage, but could use a generous amount of proper expansion. Let me know if you need any help getting started! bahamut0013♠♣ 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maintainer

Since this article garners a lot of attention from anonymous users, who could use some help with thier edits, I thought it might be nice to include Template:Maintained. Does anyone (beside myself) want to volunteer to have thier name included on it? I know there are several of you guys who have this page on your watchlists. bahamut0013♠♣ 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the template, anyone who wishes to add his or her name is welcome (probably alphabetically to be fair). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 06:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Who the United States Marine Corps reports to

This is conserning what i read in the marine corps article. The issue is where the marines report to. In the aticle it is said they report to the navy. This is not true they report to the president. While they (the USMC) do not report directly to the president he is in control when he decides to "step in" during the "War on Terroism" President George W. Bush exersised his control over the USMC to deploy troops into iraq Kellarphil (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true on two accounts: the article clearly states that the Marines report to the United States Department of the Navy, not the United States Navy perhaps you were confused about the difference between the two. The other point is that the president does not exercise control over troops, he issues orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Unified Combatant Commanders. You may wish to read Organization of the United States Marine Corps for more details. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bigger than brazilian army

In numbers, this american military force is bigger than armies od countris such as Argentina or Brazil.In money, it is bigger than all militaries of Latin America combined.Agre22 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

Note talk pages are for improving the article, and are not discussion forums. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a point to this fact? If you are suggesting that this should be included in the article, there are already two sufficient size comparisons with militaries that an English-speaking reader might be more familiar with. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

World War I

The discussion of the Marine Corps in WWI is totally inadaquate. In Europe, Marines fought as part of the Army's Second US Infantry Division and the following was taken from the Divisions Wiki page: The Division "was organized on October 26, 1917, at Bourmont, Haute Marne, France. At the time of its activation, the Indianhead Division was composed of the 3d Infantry Brigade, which was a normal Organic Brigade which included the 9th Infantry Regiment; 23d Infantry Regiment; and the 4th Marine Brigade, which consisted of the 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment, a battalion of field artillery, and various supporting units.

(Special Note: The Navy furnished the hospital corpsmen for the 4th Marine Brigade, 5th Marine Regiment and 6th Marine Regiment, and made a special uniform change which allows hospital corpsmen of these organizations to wear a shoulder strap on the left shoulder of the "Dress Blues" so that the French Fourragere could be worn. These are the only Navy units to wear the Fourragere.

Twice during "The Great War" the division was commanded by Marine Corps generals, Brigadier General Charles A. Doyen and Major General John A. Lejeune, the only time in U.S. Military history when Marine Corps officers commanded an Army division.

The division spent the winter of 1917–1918 training with French Army veterans. Though judged unprepared by French tacticians, the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) was committed to combat in the spring of 1918 in a desperate attempt to halt a German advance toward Paris. The 2nd Infantry Division drew its first blood in the nightmare landscape of the Battle of Belleau Wood, and contributed to shattering the four year old stalemate on the battlefield during the Château-Thierry campaign that followed. On July 28, 1918, MajGen John A. Lejeune assumed command of the 2nd Infantry Division and remained in that capacity until August 1919, when the unit was demobilized. The division won hard fought victories at Soissons and Mont Blanc, for which it was awarded the French Fourragère in the colors of the Croix de Guerre. Finally the Indianhead Division participated in the Meuse-Argonne offensive which spelled the end of any German hope for victory. On November 11, 1918 the Armistice was declared, and the 2nd Infantry Division marched into Germany where it performed occupation duties until April 1919. 2nd Infantry Division returned to U. S. in July 1919."

Mosst of the WWI exploits of the Marines were shared by several of the other elements of the Division, especially the Second Engineer Battalion elements that directly supported the Marines and fought along side of them as Infantry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The history sections in this article are deliberatley brief summaries of the information on History of the United States Marine Corps to keep this article from being so large as to be unreadable.If you desire to add some of the above information, please add it to History of the United States Marine Corps and not here. I would definately reccommend it, because the WWI section there isn't much bigger than it is here. Thanks! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Terms

Uh i know that i shouldnt ask this on wiki but it seems like the best place to. I want to serve in either the Army or USMC when i graduate Hischool but i dont wanna make it my life. How many years do you have to serve before you can leave? Cause you know i wanna go to college to and stuff--98.249.148.172 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct this is not a forum, and this is not the best place to ask this. This is what recruiters are for. If you are completely in the dark, you can first try going to each services respective website and locating a recruiting center or station near you. If that seems to difficult you can also just call 4-1-1 and have them search for the numbers. I recommend talking to more than one, from different places, as they are salesman and love taking advantage of prospective recruits. You can literally "get a better deal" someplace else. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Generic Marine Corps

Since only one country on the planet operates a (slightly understrength) corps of Marines, is this a generic term or not? When speaking about units from other countries the generic term would be Marines, without a size designation, no? Hcobb (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I've ever heard "Marine Corps" refer to anything other than the United States Marine Corps. However, a quick look at Marine (military) shows that many other nations refer to thier marines as a "corps", such as People's Liberation Army Marine Corps, Chilean Marine Corps, and Netherlands Marine Corps. Whether or not they are corps-sized (using whatever size definition you prefer) is up for debate.
That said, I doubt that using the term "Marine Corps" in this article or any USMC-related one is likely to garner confusion amongst readers as to which nation it refers to. Should there be an article where multiple nations' marines are noted, we can take the discussion up there. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, should not be confusing. The context is clear with United States stated with Marine Corps in early mentions. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Coast Guard

I've removed section for the Coast Guard in the "Relationship with other branches" section for now. As it stands, it paled in importance compared to the reletioships between the Corps and the Army, Navy, and Air Force. I'd ike to re-add it with something significant, but I just don't think that one MOH winner and the SMTC can cut it for a proper balancing of importance and NPOV, while the A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower portion was a cut and pasted from the Navy section. Perhaps we can get something fleshed out and sourced? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Without any response, perhaps we can combine it with the Navy section and rename it United States Navy & Coast Guard. Seems that all of the modern relations the USMC has with the USCG are similar, if not identical, to that of the USN. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 08:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Article length

At 117kb, this article is extremely long. (Personally, I notice an article's length when I experience several seconds of delay between opening it and being able to read it, as I do with this article.) I noticed that most of the sections link to a separate article where that section can be discussed in more length; perhaps more content can be moved from this article to the spin-offs?

I found that the History section here is currently 28kb, which is more than half as long as the separate History article (not much of a "summary", in other words). The Organization section is 16k and the Culture section is 9k. (I determined these sizes by copying the sections to my userspace here; I'm not sure if there's another way.) Throughout most of the sections, there seem to be more details than are necessary to provide here instead of in the linked articles. Also, while the Famous Marines section isn't adding a great deal of bulk to the article, what's there seems basically unnecessary; it looks like a bunch of random names pulled from the linked list, inserted into various forms of the sentence "X was also a Marine" and combined into one huge ugly paragraph.

I've never worked on the article and know nothing about the Marines, so I feel quite unqualified to make any changes myself; I'm only offering these comments as suggestions for decreasing the article's size and making it more accessible and readable. Propaniac (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We just did a large pruning almost a year ago, see Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 2#Prune where previous consensus was at. I don't think that there has been much addition of content in the intervening year... several editors have this page watchlisted and regularly summarize up good-faith additions.
Personally, I don't think we can really remove too much from the history section without glossing over huge portions of time and lending some undue weight on others that are merely more well-known. There might be some room for a bit of trimming, but I think wholesale is the wrong way to go there.
I agree a great deal with the "Famous Marines" section, but I've made some remarks about that earlier (in the section above): I don't see how we can choose which names to use as a summary over others. Perhaps we should merely remove the whole section?
For the most part, we've already moved as much to a subarticles as we can while still leaving enough of a summary to allow user comprehension. I'll let some of the other watchlisters chime in now. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you and the other people who tend this article don't want to reduce it, I'm not going to press the issue. I checked this page and the most recent archive and didn't see any discussion of length (I realize now there's a lot more stuff in Archives 1 and 2), so I thought it might not have been brought up.
I saw the previous topic about Famous Marines after I posted this new one. My advice is to delete the current section text entirely, and just link to the two lists. Trying to determine criteria for which people to mention in the main article is going to be difficult and essentially arbitrary, and even if you're able to define criteria, other users who are ignorant of the criteria are likely to just add other names back in. Also, as it is, the paragraph is just begging to be turned into a bulleted list, but if it were in list form it would just be even more redundant to the linked lists. Like I said, I suggest cutting the text entirely. Propaniac (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Famous Marines section

I was reading through this section and got a headache. Right now, it seems pretty haphazard as to whom is listed and in what order. Then there is also a bit of an imbalance: there are plenty of names from List of notable United States Marines, but only a few from List of historically notable United States Marines. I was thinking that we might consider some reorganization of that section... for one, I'd prefer it to be a subsection under the Personnel section, though I could also stomach it being part of the Culture section if that was preferred. We need to also figure out some sort of inclusion criteria... a few entertainers, a few athletes, a few politicians, and maybe a few of the random others (business, authors, infamous killers, astronauts, etc). We should decide in what order the names will be listed, probably grouped by profession? We might also consider a list form, but I think that would also be unsightly and encourage drive-by adding of random names, though it would make alphabetical sorthing possible.

What do we all think? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Propaniac's suggestion below, I've removed it. The {{Seealso}} links were moved under the Personnel section. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The only sword authorized to be carried by any enlisted service members in the U.S. ?

Under the Culture section, it states, “the only sword authorized to be carried by any enlisted service members in the U.S.”

I personally spent 10 years in the Marine Corps and was taught the same thing and believed it up until a few months ago when I saw an Army Sergeant wearing a sword. My first thought was, “who the heck does he think he is? Doesn’t he know that Marine's are the only enlisted service members allowed to carry a sword?” After doing a little research, I found the following, Army FM 3-21.5 Appendix F, entry:


There are several google hits for “Army FM 3-21.5 Appendix F,“ but I was only able to get a positive hit from this one: [1]

As much as I would like to believe that Marine enlisted service members are the only ones allowed to wear a sword; I suggest the above quoted entry be removed unless someone can come up with a reason not to.

Semper Fi, Xander271 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)xander271

Interesting. I've removed the line and made a change to the corresponding section in Culture of the United States Marine Corps. Seems to be a recent change? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple English

The Simple English Wikipedia version of this page is a stub. I was hoping to recruit a few editors in expanding it some... obviously not into the massive article with dozens of subarticles that this one has, but there is plenty of room for expansion. If you are interested, take a read at simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, simple:Wikipedia:Aids for Writing Simple English, and simple:Wikipedia:Very good articles for some insight into what you are in for, then post here and we can start some coordination. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"jarhead" etymology

I hoped to find an explanation of this word at jarhead, but it is a disambiguation page that points here. And this page only says "'jarhead' has several oft-disputed explanations." without saying what any of the explanations are. (I heard it had something to do with the traditional Marine haircut). Could some of those disputed (if verifiable) explanations be added? 66.127.54.181 (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a bit more about that, but anons would edit war over it, so we shortened it. That whole section is merely a brief summary of Culture of the United States Marine Corps anyway, and there is a bit more content there. However, the most ideal place to add any sort of explanations and etymology would be at jarhead. Looking at the history there, there was some more ocntent as well, but it was removed as being unsourced. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion efforts on the first holders of Marine Corps service numbers

I am inviting any interested party to comment (for or against) the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Schott and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ackerman (USMC). I was very surprised to see these up for deletion, especially with sources from both NPRC and the Marine Corps historical society. -OberRanks (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Videos are in youtube

Videos such as [Y1] talks about the Mariners.Agre22 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Thanks, but the Mariners are a baseball team. A random video off of Youtube doesn't do us much good because it's not a reliable source in most cases. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Deaths

How many marines have died in the line of duty/serving their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.73 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the official tally: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Frequently_Requested/Casualties.htm 74.85.68.62 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

James M. Masters, Sr., Lt. General (deceased)

Hi, I am a wiki newbie. I have written a biographical article about a Marine Corps General (deceased), located at James_M._Masters,_Sr.. I would appreciate if someone can review and provide comments - and corrections, as necessary. I particularly had difficulty with creating new categories (e.g. Notable graduates of the U.S. National War college). I also had difficulty automatically updating categories that contained lists (e.g. in the 'United States Marine Corps generals' category, James M. Masters, Sr. is listed under the letter 'U', presumably because I originally prepared the article in my 'U'serspace.). My goal is for my article to be cleared of the 'new unreviewed article' label. Thanks very much -- Man on the Roof 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champmasters (talk • contribs)

Thoughts from Bunnyman78

Role and Class Definition

I think it could be useful to review the definition of the USMC as naval infantry, since the USMC are not only an infantry outfit but like the Army use and deploy a wide range of assets utilising tanks and air-support to such a degree to make the infantry element only around 50% of its key forces. I think itt might also be limiting to say that the USMC role is merely amphibious. In a way, it is in fact misleading to say that the USMC are an amphibious force when only a fraction of the units have amphibious training. It might be more accurate to define the USMC as a rapid reaction force of some kind, capable of deploying in a full range of environments and ways, although predominantly linked to and reliant on the Navy. Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Helicopter Insertion

The Marines are credited with the development of helicopter insertion doctrine and were the earliest in the American military to widely adopt maneuver-warfare principles which emphasize low-level initiative and flexible execution. This is incorrect since it was the British Royal Marines who were the first military unit to use helicopter insertion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis so I recommend this should be changed to The Marines are credited as the first American force to develop a helicopter insertion doctrine and were the earliest in the American military to widely adopt maneuver-warfare principles which emphasize low-level initiative and flexible execution. Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Connection with the Royal Marines

It could be useful to note in the opening historical points of the USMC that the Colonial Marines were modelled on the British Royal Marines, and have a relationship which continues today. Notably the USMC have the Pacific part of their globe whilst the Royal Marines hold the Atlantic part. USMC and Royal Marines regularly train and deploy together also, notably During February and March 2003, tactical control (TACON) of the MEU was assigned to the United Kingdom's 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines for Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 21, 2003, Marines from the 15th MEU crossed the border into Southern Iraq and secured the ports of Umm Qasr and Az Zubayr in order to destroy Iraqi resistance and enable follow-on humanitarian assistance to begin.(Umm Qasar, CNN.com, March 2003) or the 41 Independent Commando RM that was assigned to the 1 MAR DIV during the Korean War during 1950-1952. Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Do you have adequate referencing for any of these? We cannot tread into the territory of origional research here. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns about original research, but in two out of three cases I did give direct references. But here is some more
Heli Insertion- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_assault "On November 5, 1956 the Royal Marines' 45 Commando performed the first combat helicopter assault during an amphibious landing as part of Operation Musketeer, in Suez, Egypt." The USMC was the first unit to use helicopters in a military function 1951: Operation Summit, but these were used as supply transports rather than in an insertion or assault role. Which is why I recommended rewording the current paragraph.
Connection of USMC and Royal Marines As stated the use of different sides of the globe on the capbadges of each unit was a conscious symbol, which you can read about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle,_Globe,_and_Anchor Also the historical reference of RM as bootnecks and USMC as leathernecks due to sharing origins in uniform, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leathernecks. The motto ^ "USMC Customs and Traditions". History Division, U.S. Marine Corps. Archived from the original on 4 March 2007. For instance the motto By Sea and by Land, a translation of the Royal Marines' Per Mare, Per Terram was used by USMC until 1868 http://web.archive.org/web/20070304212218/http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/hd/historical/Customs_and_Traditions.htm. Retrieved 3 August 2008.
Amphibious Role I admit I have no sources to hand concerning the numbers of amphibious trained USMC but since amphibious training does not figure in USMC basic training, it should tell us something. Without evidence though I can't really discuss it. Bunnyman78 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
We can't reference Wikipedia on Wikipedia itself, though we can grab sources from the articles you mention.
The mention on the History Division website about the similarity of the USMC and Royal Marines' insignias are pure speculation (as they note themselves with "probably"), and even that doesn't really prove a special link aside from inspiration in the logo; the same with some other borrowed traditions. The multiple times they've deployed together doesn't define a special link either, as Marines work with lots of foreign militaries as a matter of routine.
Suez Crisis doesn't mention Royal Marines as the first vertical envelopment. Air assault notes that Marines did perform aerial assault missions in 1951, and further notes that Royal Marines perfromed the same in Suez in 1956; alas, the former is cited and the latter is not.
The article does mention the Marine Corps's role as a force-in-readiness. The recent lack of amphibious training is subjective: MEUs and such regularly still train for amphibious operations, and Commandant Conway regularly refers to the need to return to amphibious roots once our obligations in the Middle East are over. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Helicopter insertions
http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/museumresearch/PDFs/Suez%201956.pdf http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/units-and-deployments/3-commando-brigade/brigade-information/history/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/08/egypt.military
Re:USMC and RM capbadge/motto
http://www.usmcmuseum.com/Museum_LoreCorps.asp http://www.logcom.usmc.mil/contracts/pr%20builder/emblemseal.asp
Bunnyman78 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, you haven't addressed my points. Just because the Royal Marines make the claim doesn't mitigate the fact that 1951 came before 1956 chronologically. Nor does re-emphasizing that the early Marine Corps borrowed an emblem and a motto from the Royal Marines make a reliable reference for some vague "special relationship" that I acknowledge probably existed on some informal level, but can't be historically proven. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
With respect to helo insertion I'd observe that there is a difference between exercise and operation, tracking back through the various articles it becomes clear that Bumblebee (the cited information), was an exercise whereas the Suez was operational, and would have been preceded by exercises, not least in the concept and doctrine stages. That said I don't see it as that important, everyone who was a heavy user of Helo assets was working on similar concepts at the same time as the assets had become capable of the task.
@Bunnyman, it's worth remembering that the US will claim ownership of justabout anything and in Wikiland trying to mitigate for that is a futile exercise. I suspect though that as it stands it's a reasonable description, only the US and the USSR really worked on helo insertion on a large scale, in the UK our preference has generally been for operations at a lower level of task element. The snag is that to work it out you'd need to back to the development of doctrine, rather than first practical use to demonstrate anything else.
In terms of any relationship, I'm not convinced about an enduring relationship, although I am aware of the lore. The US went through periods of military and economic isolationism and combined operations in WWII weren't all that combined. It's only really during the cold war that interoperability developed to any great extent. There has been since WWII a much closer relationship, we have a couple of US secondees at CTC and in the various units, including as I recall one in or attached to the SBS.
It may be worth spending some time on the article on the Al-Faw landings, when 1MEF was under the OPCON of 3Cdo Bde. The point about Korea is probably worth mention in the articles about the Korea ORBAT rather than this article. Bear in mind that US forces tend to have a lot of Bilateral arrangements and they're all special. What is a little different is that there are RM in the USMC training environment, although more at the Recon level than just infantry, there are also RN and RM aircrew with the the USMC aviation community. I think you will find some challenges sourcing that though.
ALR (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well put. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers ALR, will do as you suggest. Bunnyman78 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It may also be worth looking into the background of Samuel Nicholas who established the marines. This article and his own bio don't talk about it but many of the officers appointed in the period had previous service with the British, French or German military or marines. It would surprise me if he was appointed to establish two battalions with no prior experience.
ALR (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on the Continental Marines, American Colonial Marines, and other progenitors at History of the United States Marine Corps, especially the "Ancient & colonial origins" section. Of course, just about everything in the Thirteen Colonies relates to or descends from the British, indeed, they were British up until the Revolution began. I haven't seen much on Nicholas's past in particular though, but I'm still doing research, and like you say, it would not be suprising to see some prior service. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing like a little Brit arrogance and condescention to brighten up the day, Thanks ALR. HMM-161 was ferrying troops into combat as early as 1951. They were not doing so into opposed LZs but they were performing in an assault support role. That may be the difference between claims because I do not know if the landing during the Suez crisis were opposed or not. On another note....the I Marine Expeditionary Force was not OPCON to 3 Commando Brigade, it was the other way around. Last I checked a 30,000+ unit like the MEF does not get placed OPCON to a brigade. The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit was OPCON to 3 Commando Brigade for the Battle of Al Faw (2003).--205.56.210.194 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That's incredibly rude, anon. Given the incivility and history of vandalism from the IP, it's hard to take the criticism seriously, though the IP is registered to a Navy.mil address, so it's likely rotating through many stations from time to time. However, he is correct in stating that the landing in Korea were not mere exercises but actual vertical envelopment missions, in addition to being combined with amphibious by merit of being based from a ship. The IMEF/3 Commando statement looks like a typo or slip of the tongue, and not worth the scathing retort. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the 1MEF/ 3Cdo issue, yes 3Cdo was subordinated to 1MEF, which then subordinated TEs to HQ 3 Cdo. Not referenceable as that's notes from my own orders books from the time. I wasn't in Bde myself as I had a sub-unit command elsewhere although my teams were heavily involved. fwiw I gave up trying to keep track of the abbreviation alphabet soup a long time ago, hence the memory slip.
With respect to the Helo ops issue I do think there is a significant difference between assault and support, although clearly the distinction is probably the preserve of a doctrinal discussion. As long as the material is referenceable then clearly it undermines the assertions by Bunnyman.
ALR (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to see the references Bahamut, you did state in your intitial objection that it was referenced but I can't find it. I think it is an important issue to iron out, since the statement concerning the Suez insertion is part of several Wiki entries and then there is the concern that the MOD site and the Royal Marines Museum could be incorrect.Bunnyman78 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in the air assault article when I looked last week. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This one? ^ vertical envelopment, encyclopedia.com, Retrieved 2009-12-03. Quotes "The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military"). - it is not referenced on this USMC page though. Bunnyman78 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being obtuse, but seeing as the point is not being responded to- vertical envelopment, even by that definition does not constitute air assault, nothing of that is mentioned in the reference. I don't see why it is counted as evidence, especially as a secondary source to support the claim that the USMC developed this doctrine first- merely because they are are USMC and 'supposed' to have developed it first. Air assault was certainly not used by the USMC first, as has been discussed with the whole RM point. My suggestion was for a small ammendment, I don't ike that an invalidated claim is somehow acceptable instead. Bunnyman78 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

needs some clarification

On 23 October 1983, the Marine headquarters building in Beirut, Lebanon, was bombed, causing the highest peacetime losses to the Corps in its history (220 Marines and 21 other service members of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit were killed) and leading to the American withdrawal from the country.

This was a political decision by civilians. Bin Laden cites this as proof that the Americans are weak and run away. The U.S. Marines did not run away. They were told to pack up by American civilian leadership (or lack of leadership).

Mr. Reagan told the world that the Marines carried unloaded weapons, almost tempting jihadists to attack the American Marines. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's opinion analysis, and really doesn't affect the wording in an overview article. Also, it's not the first time such decisions were made, and it certainly was not the last time, so singling out this one incident it's really the best thing either. - BilCat (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WWII - missing mention of Midway

Visited the Putnam graveyard tonight and noted a tombstone for Alden W Learoyd, died July 26, 1942 US Marine Corps. My immediate thought was Guadalcanal - which was two weeks later - so I'm digging around a bit to figure out what happened to him. Which brought me here. I see that the first mention of Marines in the Pacific is Guadalcanal, which is inaccurate, there were US Marine aviators flying off of Midway island in June of 1942. Jp421 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has a shortened version of the USMC's history. The detailed version is at History of the United States Marine Corps. However that History article and moreso this one try to limit coverage to major involvement in battles. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Really, the best place to add any info like that would be Battle of Midway or related. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto and Cadences

Just wondering if it should be included that there is more than one motto for the Corps. Although I don't know if it's official or not "Do Or Die" is reffered as a Corps motto in the "Mama Can't You See" cadence, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxrmr4nJgqA

Maybe put that and the cadences under "Culture". I am not aware how to do any of this, being rather new to Wikipedia, so please excuse that.

Semper Fi, Brody Kennen (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the Culture of the United States Marine Corps article as this article is big and featured. There are some unofficial mottos in the culture article if you can source "Do or Die" is organic to the Marines. There are a bunch others like "Yut" and "Kill" that I can think of. I see cadences as viable too but there are some that probably would be censored on Wikipedia. S/F --NortyNort (Holla) 13:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"ours is not to reason why.
ours is but to do or die!"
Seems it should be included somewhere. It's embedded in my brain, but that's OR. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
OK ref (to support me brain): Nicholas Warr, Phase line green: the battle for Hue, 1968, p 93 ISBN 978-1557509116. Vsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense that shows up in cadence is certainly not equatable to a motto. The lyrics are supposed to be dramatic and memorable so that you can scream them whist running. In this case, the so-called "motto" used is only there because "die" rhymes with "cry" used in the previous stanza.
Now, if you can actually find a reliable source, which YouTube is not, then we might consider this further. The line Vsmith quotes above seems to be stolen from The Charge of the Light Brigade. Indeed, quotes from that poem have been used for patriotic slogans in militaries around the world, and are hardly unique to the Corps. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Then if a cadence is not enough then you should know that it is also used in the "Semper Fi, Do or Die, Gung Ho, Gung Ho, Gung Ho!" battle cry. It is also used alone just as: "Semper Fi, Doe Or Die". This coming from a number of "retired" Marines close to my family going back as far as 'Nam and as new as Gulf War I. This was said with and without knowledge of it being in a candence while on active duty for them. And there in that is another, being "Gung-Ho". Seen here: http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/usmc_slogans.htm - Brody Kennen (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the link you gave? "Do or die" is not listed. If you were referring to gung-ho, then that is already listed at Culture of the United States Marine Corps. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps: To be or not to be? That has been questioned.

I might have missed it in this somewhat lengthy article, but is there a section that discusses the various historical (and current) efforts to do away with the Marine Corps, along with the reasons to keep it, and the decisions that allowed it to continue to exist? Like the U.S. Air Force, the Marine Corps is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, unlike the Army and Navy. Theoretically, an Act of Congress could abolish the Marines. 173.59.245.216 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is some mention in the "History" section, as well as the "Relationship with other services" section. Anything more is treading on the line of OR. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

scrolling list IDW IAW

In the heading infobox, there's a scrolling list in contravention of WP:ASL which says: "Scrolling lists, or lists of citations appearing within a scroll box, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers." This is enumerated at WP:REF, but seems to apply site-wide. Is there any discussion on this? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent Marines?

Why does the article say this? The USMC is the least independent of the armed services. Even down at platoon level they depend on the USN for basic medical services. By outsourcing their support arm to the Navy the Marines have managed to become lean mean fighting troops. They've got more teeth because somebody else is holding their tail. Hcobb (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Though corpsmen and religious personnel may be from another branch, they are organic personnel; and the reasoning behind that is not beased on support needs, but a fighting mentality regarding non-combatants on the battlefield. To say that the Corps "outsource[s] thier support arm" is a gross mischaracterization; the Corps tends to rely far less on external support than the other three branches (a generalization, of course, but a fair one I think). But in any case, the independant notion is supported by at least a couple of the refs that I have read, but can't really point you to a specific page without spending my whole holiday weekend digging through old books at the library, which I'm not inclined to do. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The USMC does not outsource their support arm. The Force Service Support Group provides the logistics requirements necessary to support MEF operations. However, you are correct that the Navy does provide significant support in the area of Navy corpsmen and chaplain support, not to mention shipping of Marines and equipment to the various theaters. You missed the fact that the Navy also provides the procurement dollars for all Marine air. All air procurement and support are considered 'blue' dollars and the Navy holds the purse strings (within limits, the Senate & House appropriations committees influence this). Jct0302 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You mean Marine Logistics Group? :P
Regardless, the Marine Air-Ground Task Force concept is all about independance in the tactical sense. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Women in the Marines

According to [2], only men can serve in Marine Corps combat units. Is that true? I don't see any mention in this article, but that seems pretty notable compared to the other US armed services. Can anyone clarify this and note it in the article? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Only men can serve in the combat units of any of the US armed services.71.142.240.36 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify, note in the article or provide the ref? Thank, — sligocki (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary for this article. It's covered at United States armed forces#Demographic controversies; anything here would be unnecessarily redundant, especially since the Corps does not handle females in combat any differently than the other branches. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Bahamut, but I'm still a little confused, the article I mentioned: states that "only men can serve in combat units" in the Marine Corps, as far as I know women can serve in combat units in other branches of the military (say the army). Is the article over-generalizing? Does combat unit have a more restrictive meaning than a unit that will go into combat? For example, do female marines fight in the front lines? Are they restricted to non-combat positions? Is the distinction more nuanced? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The rules the Corps has are the same as the other branches. I think the current vogue term is "combat arms", which prohibits females from being in a military occupational specialty directly relating to combat, i.e. infantry, armor, artillery, special forces, as well as the units that center on them. So, for example, I used to be in an artillery unit, and even though there are lots of female supply clerks, my battalion could only have males in supply. It wasn't until you started to get to higher headquarters that you started to see female Marines. Another example is that females were just authorized to be on nuclear submarines (I think that was just a matter of facilities though, since a ship isn't really "front line" per se).
I think the confusion is stemming from the fact that recent wars don't have a front line as distinct as in the past. Now you see support units, with thier female servicemembers, rolling through the same dangerous territory as the men. For example, the infamous 507th Maintenance Company which was ambushed in the Battle of Nasiriyah. Realistically, PFC Jessica Lynch shouldn't have been anywhere near the battle, but a navigational blunder and the changing nature of maneuver warfare. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic lately; I'm sure if you read any sort of professional military journal, you'll see an essay or article about it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hi everyone, this article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be needed, cheers Tom B (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite after EFV cancelled today.

Need a rewrite with sackcloth and ashes about how the Marines reached out to embrace hi-tech in the way they'd always scoffed at the Army and Air Force doing and how the wax in their wings (or ears) melted and now they've crashed down to eat mud. (Getting quotes together.)

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/stealth-jet-delay-could-screw-marine-corps/ That unwavering obsession with high tech painted the Corps into the corner it now finds itself in, waiting around for a much-delayed, over-budget new fighter while its current jets waste away to nothing, deeply eroding the Marines’ famed self-reliance.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/MarineCorps’VehicleBuyersTurntoAutoIndustryforInspiration.aspx “We overreach on technology and as a result, we underestimate the cost and we underestimate the time to be able to do it. That’s typically how a program gets in trouble,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/business/06marine.html?partner=rss&emc=rss “The Marine Corps used to say, ‘Our weapons system is the Marine,’ and tout its affordability as a service,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group in Washington. “But they seem to have become enamored with the very high-end programs that in previous years they would have criticized the Army or the Air Force for pursuing.”

A few more? Hcobb (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like that. And when the Pentagon does cancel the EFV, lets put it on the main page news. Put the Pentagon bureaucracy's feet to the fire. Marcus Qwertyus 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
When did it become part of Wikipedia's mission to put anyone's feet to the fire? I'm not saying it's not deserved; I'm just saying ... Yaush (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we part of Minitrue? Here's another.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/06/gates-tries-to-tame-marines-by-sinking-their-swimming-tank/ "During previous periods of austerity, as well as repeated threats to disband the corps, we could always fall back on the fact that the corps provided more combat power for less money than any service," says T.X. Hammes, a retired colonel now at the National Defense University. "The decades-long focus on the V-22, the EFV and the F-35B has severely undercut that ethos."

Hcobb (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To say that you are pushing a slanted POV is seriously an understatement. It's just a weapons program, no need to be raving about how the Corps "crashed and burned" or any crap like that. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia is one of our core competencies

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad79e08a5-6d79-4a85-b76f-37559e1fe368&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

  • The force will be "rightsized" for the post-Afghanistan environment, which means no immediate reductions, and that it will be 2014-15.
  • The USMC will support a crisis force built around two Marine Expeditionary Unit brigades and 33 ships.
  • The Corps command structure will be leaned and flattened.
  • The Marines will increase their cyberwarfare and special operations forces.
Work that in yet? Hcobb (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder

According to the video game Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, it says that John Adams created the Marines 1775, not Samuel Nicholas. AOCJedi (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never played the game myself, but I'm not sure that EA would have made such a mistake. Adams was never in any military at all, but the confusion may be from his political role: he served on the COntinental Congress that authorized the Continental Marines in 1775, and as president in 1798, signed the "Act for establishing and organizing a Marine Corps" that reestablished it permanently. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

More Civil War info needed.

The article could benefit greatly from some more information on the Marines in the American Civil War, at least the Union Marines should receive a comparable treatment to the Confederate Marines which have their own article. Absolutely tons of books exist on the most marginal aspects of the Civil War, so there should be more material on the Union Marines than the current five lines, even if their role was fairly minor. So if any of you Marine buffs or Civil War buffs could provide it I'd be very glad. -- 77.187.41.231 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the hatnote directing readers to History of the United States Marine Corps. The summary on this page is left intentionally brief for size constraints, but there is much more depth at that specific article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis

Just to let he editors know, there is a newer and better audio file of the march Semper Fidelis available to use. I noticed in the info box in the article, there is a "play" button to listen to the march. So you may want to consider switching the files. They are below, both the 1909 and the 1989 versions as performed by the United States Marine Band.Yoganate79 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis
John Philip Sousa's "Semper Fidelis March", the official march of the United States Marine Corps. Performed by the Marine Band in June 1909.
Semper Fidelis
John Philip Sousa's "Semper Fidelis March", the official march of the United States Marine Corps. Performed by the Marine Band in 1989.

USMC listed at FAR.

I have nominated United States Marine Corps for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Percentage games

I've got a more recent ref at 7.8% of the DoD budget. This does not mean that 6% of the defense budget is wrong, as that is the same sized slice from a slightly larger pie.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxWUADutnijUY2YzNDE0MzItNDZlYy00MmI5LWEyYzAtYjRkYzMxZjM0NmNh&hl=en&pli=1

So use this new number? Hcobb (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying with no luck to find out who this man is...I have his Dog tag, I found...I am Canadian and I don't know who will read this.I'm hoping that someone will who this Marine is.{Rego Christian,USMC, S.V.,O27.72.1227 MALE

hELLO mY Name is Joshua Kindred...I live In Moncton Canada,I found a Dog tag in some army boots I got,,I have been having a real hard time finding out who this man is ,,This is the Info on the tag ..Name{Rego Christian}S.V. ,A NEG,027.72.1227 ,USMC,MALE...........iF ANYONE CAN HELP ME FIND OUT ABOUT THIS SOILDER I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT.My Email is Joshua.Kindred@live.ca..Thank you....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.8.224 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rank

Was more than slightly tempted to add content to the "Rank" section. Agree with 3 groupings for officer, enlisted, and others. Still think there is room for "contributors"... just a rank officer? Enlisted service member. Jambay (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC) sorry, had to login for account recognition.

What exactly is missing or incorrect in the current "Rank structure" section? Commissioned officers, Warrant officers, and Enlisted each have a subsection there now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, and "Rank" is always structured. Was leaning toward - we're all Marines. Still trying to figure that out but my intent is - "Once a Marine always a Marine" applies to anyone that cares to choose to serve. (more to follow). Jambay (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC) to comply with "not a chat forum" rules... http://www.uthynq.com/JBDoc/index.php?title=Marine_Corps reference for details. (not meant as personal link but only reference I have to clarify intent).

Odds and Ends

I thought it might put WWII in perspective to note that there were only 19,400 Marines in 1940. (As the article states, there were 485,052 Marines when WWII ended.) And I seem to recall that there were only about 3,000 Marines in 1900, it had always been a small, elite force. And the Marine Corps hymn was set to a popular tune from the opera "Genevieve de Brabant" by Jacques Offenbach, the guy who wrote "Gaite Parisienne" with its Can-Can dancers. --Apparently after General Scott whupped Santa Anna at the Battle of Chapultepec and Mexico City in 1847, some unknown Marine in Mexico thought up the words to the first stanza and it took off from there. 64.169.155.134 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Urinating on Corpses

Surely this video link should be included as part of the history of the US Marine Corps? <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16538159> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.237.182 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Every instance of what each individual Marine did in the 236 year history of the Marine Corp, cannot and should not be added to the article. That would be absurd.--JOJ Hutton 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

JOJ, either include something about it in the main article or make a new article. Im sick of people trying to hide Marine rape and murder just because "thems is our boys."--Billwsu (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JOJ...The fact that in it's 236 year history some Marines did something stupid makes for a foot-note in a 1000 page book but it's not justifed here. Frankly, this whole debate is boring. So, here's the simple truth, anyone who adds this trivia to article will be reverted. If you feels so strongly about your position that you're willing to lose your edit privileges and be permanently blocked, then make whatever changes that you feel nescessary....And, live with the consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate article on USMC War Crimes/Controversies?

After hearing about the recent incident where Marines urinated on dead Afghans, I think it would be appropriate to create a separate wiki article on war crimes and controversies done by the Marine Corps. There have been numerous notable incidents in the last 50 years alone. An article seems necessary in the same way you would make an article for a business or politicians that is continuously involved in scandal. I agree with others here that including the controversies on this page would be illogical because: 1. People would complain that other branches/militaries dont have a separate page. And 2. The list of incidents would take up too much space on the article page. How do we suggest a new Wiki page be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.222.2 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: Marines' actions are not only predictable, but inevitable. Indeed, said actions have been common throughout Marine history and will remain common until the Corps reaches the point where they teach and enforce the standards they supposedly live by. No one should pretend Marine Corps depravity is uncommon in either war or peace time. There should be a Wiki article on the topic instead of continuing to try and hide the number of incidents. Marine malfeasance isnt some isolated aberration—it is, by the number of incidents, the inevitable outcome wherever marines are stationed. An article is both necessary and desired. --Palladia (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Said actions have been common throughout military history and the Marines are not particularly notable for it. We could have an article on the Imperial Japanese Army practice of cutting the penises off corpses and stuffing them into the corpses' mouths, or the Karen practice of collecting ears of slain foes, and so on. Or we could recall that Wikipedia already has a number of articles on war crimes, and think about putting this material there. --Yaush (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't History of the United States Marine Corps the article the OP was asking for? Hcobb (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys do realize you could write a Crimes/ Controversies/ Bad Stuff article for not just every single military or government organization, but also every job, nation, race, religion, and so forth, right? Proponents of this idea, ask yourself what's the REAL article: Crimes of the Marine Corps, or Crimes Committed by Persons Who HAPPEN(ED) to be Marines? If the former, prove it with legitimate verifiable sources that it was Marine Corps policy and practice to enact or permit such crimes; if the latter, why should there be an article at all? People who commit crimes HAPPEN to be lots of things (e.g. US Marine, caucasian, blue-eyed, born in Spokane, USC alumni, etc.); it doesn't make them representative of those things (even if many Spokane residents and USC alumni commit violent crimes). This is an encyclopedia, not an axe-grinding and shit-slinging contest for people like Palladia. Milhisfan (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The last three users bring up good points to counter the knee-jerk reactions and I disagree there should be a separate article for war crimes. Urinating on dead combatants is near the bottom of the list when it comes to war crimes throughout history. The Marine Corps, overall, is much more "well behaved" when compared to other services, armies, etc. over history. It's war and if you've ever been it, you'd understand what it does to your mind. Excusable, no, but no wars are perfect and that should be taken into account. Yaush makes a good point that the USMC isn't notable for it, especially a split article.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Branches of the U.S. Military

Ok, this page needs to be updated because the Marines are not nor have they ever been a separate branch of our military. The branches of the U.S. are Department of the Navy (this includes the Marines), Department of the Air Force and Department of the Army The Coast Guard does not fall under the Department of Defense. Yes, I already know some Marines may post snide remarks but really get over yourselves you are still a division of the Navy and not You're own branch. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PO2USN (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK... please provide your definition of military branch and see United States Armed Forces as you may want to address that also. Note a snide remark telling others not to make snide remarks ... well, that's quite funny. Vsmith (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have done your research, sailor. Per the 1834 Act for the Better Organization of the Marine Corps, the USMC has been a separate service from the USN. Both the US Navy and the Marine Corps are administered by the Department of the Navy, which is civilian-run and does not really favor one service over the other. You're reading too much into the Department name. Sorry! Milhisfan (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Marine/marine-Soldier/soldier

What is the accepted practice on wiki for capitalization of marine and soldier? I can only speak as a soldier, but only in official Army correspondence do we use the capitalized Soldier. Is the Marine Corps the same way? If so, why would marine be capitalized and soldier not? Robbskey (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I always capitalize the M in Marine. It is short for an official title and also separates the word from ocean-related stuff.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Marine is capitalized when in context of the Corps, soldier is not capitalized in any context, unless its at the begining of a sentence. Trinjac (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish - see Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military_terms. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Trinjac is right. The Marines alone bestow their title on their lowest ranks - Air Force officers and airmen, Army officers and soldiers, Naval officers and seaman, Marine officers and Marines. You can be a type of soldier: Green Beret, Ranger, etc. but the noun itself is not a proper one. Because the word "Marine" is both the title and the organization, it is correct to capitalize it.Coeus24 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet another edit changing the capitalization of Marine. We really need a settled consensus on this. I find "marine" downright grating, mostly for the reason NortyNort gives: "marine" is a very general adjective for something having to do with the sea, while "Marine" makes it clear we are talking about the military branch. --Yaush (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is not consensus to use "Marine" in place of "marine". See #Capitalization of "Marine" and "Marines" below for another note on the issue, and the link to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military_terms:_Marines, where the issue is being discussed at length. You can weigh in on the issue there, but please don't make any more changes to "Marine" unless there is a consenus at the linked discussion to use the caps format, which at this point is unlikely to change. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Btw, WP:MILTERMS is settled consensus on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Desert Storm

You left out Desert Shield/Storm. The ONLY war since WWII that the US won and it's already forgotten.--204.69.139.16 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. The Gulf War is listed in the Infobox and mentioned in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I DO feel like we could flesh out that part a little bit more, just for continuity's sake. There are main points listed in the blurbs about all the other wars/conflicts, but Desert Storm gets one sentenceCoeus24 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Marine" and "Marines"

I want to share the fact that I am trying to get the wikipedia Manual of Style changed to require capitalization of the word "Marine," which (of course) is the preference of the Corps--and which is the practice of an increasing number of manuals of style outside of wikipedia (including the AP, and as of 2009, the NY Times). Here's the discussion, in case anyone would like to offer an opinion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military_terms:_Marines. I think the change would be important, and is an issue both of grammar...and respect. Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox battles

Someone deleted the Mayaguez rescue in 1976 from the infobox list of battles. There was shooting and Marines died. Yet, the Iranian hostage rescue attempt was listed and the Marines didn't fight anyone. Actually, both could be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchansa (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"The" Honorable Ray Mabus

Every style manual requires "The" when using Honorable in a title. The US Navy protocol manual requires it as well. OPNAVINST 1710.7.Revmqo (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine and matches The Honourable. But Wikipedia has its own policies such as MOS/Abbreviations to help with consistency across articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Time line of the Corps

The U.S. Marine corps is not the same as the Continental Marine Corps just as the U.S. Army is not the same as the continental Army to suggest they are the same thing is false.The Continentals were disbanded after the revolution . The Corps was created by the first U.S. congress first then the Army then later the Navy. Several articles about the creation of the services are misleading and need to be corrected.

Glenn Vicker

P.S. I will not cite my sources they are to obvious to need citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.236.14 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Another point of revisionist history is this from the info box:
Active: 10 November 1775 – present
(238 years, 7 months)
There are two problems with that:
- There was no USMC in 1775 (there was not even a USA). As Glenn highlights above, there was the Continental Marines. While a legacy organization, it is not the same organization.
- This legacy organization along with the USMC was NOT around for 238 years continuously.
I just fixed this mistake in the infobox.--Concord hioz (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Personnel needs to be updated

Saergeant Major Ronald L. Green is the current incumbent of the position of Seargant Major of the Marine Corps. The picture and text needs to be updated. Evan Simoneaux (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Gunner

Should we add something to the WO section about Battalion Gunners? Bstoopmarine (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is covered under Infantry Weapons Officer in the Billet Description and Core Competencies section. Also, the battalion infantry weapons officer is a billet, not a rank.CobraDragoon (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

add the USMC's Order of Battle?

It would be helpful to add the USMC's Order of Battle. How the USMC organizes it's fire teams, squads, platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, etc...

I came to the wiki page to find out more about the USMC's unique structure in that regard, specifically how the battalions and regiments are numbered within their divisions, but that information wasn't present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.192.67 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

See Organization of the United States Marine Corps under the Ground Combat Elements (GCE) section.CobraDragoon (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Anbar occupation

It would be good if the article could explain more how a branch of service whose purported mission is to project expeditionary power from water ended up serving as an occupation army in the middle of the desert.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That mission changed with the deployment of the 5th Marine Brigade, which formed half of the US Army's 2nd Division in France during WWI. Moskin's History of the United States Marine Corps, Krulak's First to Fight and many others chronicle this in detail. Marines served in the post-war occupation of Germany (WWI) and Japan (WWII). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.254 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It was actually the 4th Marine Brigade, consisting of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments and the 6th Machine Gun Battalion, but more to the point, you are correct that Marines have long been used in non-naval campaigns and occupation duty. In fact, the Marines performed non-naval duty in the Revolution, Barbary War, War of 1812, both Seminole Wars, Mexican War (including occupation duty in Mexico and California), Civil War, Philippine Insurection, Boxer Rebellion, and the Banana Wars. Lastly, I would remind Sylvain1872 of the USMC Congressionally mandated mission to perform "Such other duties as the President may direct," the only Branch of Service so tasked by US Code.CobraDragoon (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Depressed Marines

After the war, the Marine Corps fell into a depression that ended with the appointment of Archibald Henderson as its fifth Commandant in 1820. I'm sure the source meant something else, but this style problem speaks for itself. Maybe some Prozac would have helped.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How about malaise? Now, pass that bottle of port before I get depressed.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit needed

If anybody is feeling ambitious, the section on the Civil War (Interim...) is in need of an edit. The PREVIOUS section's last paragraph includes the ONLY mention of the Marines during the Civil War and should be moved down into and integrated with the Civil War to WWI section. I'd also remove the word "vast" as it seems hyperbole without some facts to back it up. (Number of men, number of military engagements, etc.)216.96.79.240 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Teufel Hünden

What is the origin of the almost-but-not-really-German nickname "Teufel Hünden" listed in the sidebar? --94.134.255.132 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Most people would just Google it, but I'll save you the trouble; have a look at Devil Dog. Cheers - theWOLFchild 08:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep. The IP user could have just searched the Marine Corps wiki article for Teufel Hunden and found a couple sentences and the Devil Dog link if the user had tried. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to be subtle. (for a change) - theWOLFchild 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, and I was be extra subtle and not replying, originally. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
lolz - theWOLFchild 03:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox - navy dept

An editor would like to add to the infobox a line indicating that the Corps is also part of the Navy dept. This is already prominently noted in the article lead. If we do this, it opens the door to changes to other infoboxes. I'm not sure it's necessary, but thought others should weigh in with their thoughts on this, and see if there is a consensus to make this change, and address the potential impact on any other articles. - theWOLFchild 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Added note: it's similarly noted on the US Army page, with the year (also don't think that's necessary), and the on the USN page (without the year), but not on the USAF page. The USCG page is entirely different, listing all depts and years. There are certainly inconsistencies here, perhaps this should be brought to MILHIST? As long as there is a consensus and some consistency, I'm fine either way. - theWOLFchild 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I believe that since the four DoD branches of the U.S. military all fall under one of the three service branches that their parent branch should be listed. The Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force do not report directly to the Department of Defense but rather to a service secretary. Each service department contains one or more (i.e., Navy Department) military services as well as other offices, agencies, and organizations that support the military service(s) within that department. The U.S. Army, for example, is headed by a general as its chief of staff, this officer in turn reports to the Secretary of the Army, who then reports to the Secretary of Defense. In the same manner, the Air Force is headed by the a general as chief of staff who reports to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Department of the Navy is a dual-service department and can become tri-service (should the Coast Guard be transferred from Homeland Security) upon presidential order. The Chief of Naval Operations heads the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps heads the Marine Corps, both officers are direct reports of the Secretary of the Navy. It is an important legal point, albeit technical, and perhaps unique to the United States (I don't know about other nations but this discussion concerns the U.S. armed forces only) that each of the military service branches are subordinate to a civilian political appointee who then directly reports to the Secretary of Defense (a presidential cabinet official). Now, before someone goes "Joint Chiefs of Staff" and/or "National Command Authority" here, one must understand that the U.S. military has a dual chain of command, both of which terminate at the president as commander-in-chief. The joint chiefs serve as an advisory panel on military matters but they do not command the military services. The operational chain of command flows from the president, through the secretary of defense, directly to the commanders of the several unified commands. The generals and admirals commanding these organizations are responsible for geographic or functional areas that encompass members and units of all branches of the U.S. military, but again do not command an entire specific branch of service. In summary, I posit that the Army should be listed as subordinate to the Department of the Army (Department of War from 1789 — 1947), the Marine Corps and Navy subordinate to the Department of the Navy, (Navy 1794 — present; Marine Corps 1834 — present). Prior to 1834, the U.S. Marine Corps legally reported directly to the president as the Congress had apparently failed to ever specify whether it was subordinate to either the Department of War or the Department of the Navy, operationally its units reported to either the senior Army or Navy officer present, primarily based upon whether a particular unit was serving aboard ship or on a naval installation, or ashore with army units as they did as part of Cadwaladar's Brigade of Washington's Division during the Trenton-Princeton Campaign or with Jackson's Division at New Orleans. The Air Force, Department of the Air Force (1947 — present) as prior to 1947, there was no separate U.S. Air Force, it was the U.S. Army Air Forces. The U.S. Coast Guard is a unique case and its organizational history is already listed in its info box. CobraDragoon (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I admittedly only skimmed over your post as it's rather lengthy, but as far as the sub-dept's go, (army/navy/af) they are administrative, responsible only for equipping, training, etc. The operational chain of command flows thru potus to secef to the ucc commanders. (I know you know this). A couple things we need to address are a) uniformity, we want the same layout and info for all the us armed forces infoboxes, (right?) and b) what info do we need in the infobox vs. what is better suited to the article body? I see the point of your edit, but this article, and the others have gone a long time without it. That's a lot of implied consensus. I think we should give it a few days, allow others to participate in this discussion, and see if we can come to a decision as a community on how to address all of this. Cheers - theWOLFchild 19:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Marines are a seond army ?

Good point here..the us marines are supposed to be amphibious..So why were they in the desert fighting no where near water? I know that desert training also serves very well in any venue where retreat is out of the question but the us army has that job..inland is army..shore is marine corps..Also the seals have robbed the job of us marines..the marines should be the seals.and the green berets or rangers should have captured bin ladennot seals..Why is the navy forming seal teams for fighting on beaches? thats the marines job. and then seals are doing stuff that is army job..Seems navy is the biggest robber of all..they comepte with the marines with seal teams. they ompete with the army with seals again..they even have an air force...seems weird that americas team of capturing terrorists comes from the navy..And then there the united states air force..pj cct..the AF wanted a piece of the tough guy land action so they formed cct..their own commandos who go in on land to destroy enemy airports crafts and anti airplane groupn weapons..thatsthe armys job!!!..so now an american boy who wants to join the toughest has to choose..seals green berets pj-cct or marine rangers..all trained together ....we are one confusing country.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.193.163 (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the USMC is not a "second army."

1) The Marine Corps is amphibious, but more importantly, it is expeditionary. That means that the operating forces of the Marine Corps are "go anywhere, anytime, to do anything" capable. The US Army has some expeditionary capable units but generally that is not the Army's mandate.

2) Marines fight wherever they are ordered to do so because of 1) above and the Marine Corps mission to perform "Such other duties as the President may direct." (See "Al Anbar occupation" above).

3) Marines have been fighting "inland" since the Revolution; they served with Gen. Washington's army in several battles, participated in the unsuccessful defense of Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812, fought the Seminoles in Florida, served in the invasion of Mexico, were instrumental in the storming and capture of the fortress at Chalpultepec, and raised the US flag over the national palace in Mexico City during the Mexican War, formed a battalion that fought at the battle of First Bull Run/First Manassas during the Civil War, served with the American Expeditionary Force on the Western Front in WWI, and served in Russia in 1919 during the Bolshevik Revolution... (I could go on, but you get the picture.) Also, do you realize that the Army has performed more amphibious operations than the Marine Corps and that the largest amphib op in history (Normandy, June 6, 1944) did not involve any US Marines in the landing forces (there were Marines aboard several US Navy warships as Marine detachments, including some gun crews, and as staff officers and observers).

4) No, the SEALs have not "robbed" the Marines of their job - the SEALs do not, cannot perform forcible entry operations against fortified and determined defenders, nor execute deliberate defenses against superior numbers of reinforced, aggressive attackers. The SEALs are fantastic at what they do, which is special operations, but they are not large enough, nor properly equipped, supported, or supplied to perform large-scale conventional operations over extended periods of time.

5) It is arguable whether the Army's Delta Force (vice Special Forces or Rangers) or the Navy's DEVGRU (aka SEAL Team 6) should have been the "take down" force against bin Laden. They are equivalent Tier 1 units under US Special Operations Command and my understanding from reading unclassified sources is that it was essentially "luck of the draw" as to which unit received the call - Delta was already tasked for some other classified operation and DEVGRU was available, simple as that.

6) Of course the Navy has its own specops and aviation capability; do you expect a Navy Expeditionary Strike Group to have to call on the Army if it needs a beach survey prior to landing a Marine Expeditionary Unit or for the USAF to man carrier-based aircraft to prosecute a naval campaign hundreds of miles, if not a thousand miles, from the nearest land-based air field? Yes, Army Special Forces A and B teams could be assigned to ESGs and Air Force pilots could be trained to fly naval aircraft off of and (here's the rub) back onto aircraft carriers, but why? (In fact, it is the USMC that puts all of these capabilities together into neat little packages called MAGTFs that makes it unique among the world's military organizations. Again, not a second army.) Yes, I know that the Canadians have, or had, a "unified military" but it's not quite what it seems at first glance. They still "specialize" to a large degree between land, sea, and air components and besides they are several orders of magnitude smaller than the US Armred Forces, no where as capable or diverse, and don't have our same traditions and military culture, etc. If you research it you will see that it's another of those "apples and oranges" comparisons that would not be practicable for the US, and frankly does not appear to have worked out that great for them either.

7) USAF special operations are highly specialized and do not, on their own, "destroy enemy airports..." etc. They provide several key competencies viz., pararescue, combat controlers, and combat weather operators and are usually integrated into, or work closely with, US Army special ops or other allied personnel.

8) Yes, we're Americans - we have choices and several options. Do your research and then choose whichever one best fits you, and then go for it. Each branch is unique to some degree and each branch has one or more "elite" components. We have them all because it works and even though there is some overlap in missions and capabilities, in general each one fills a special niche in the overall strategy.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just stepping in with a brief, possibly enlightening footnote. Canadian here. The status of our armed forces (are they one? are they several? if so, how many? what does that mean to operations? are they "Royal"? why or why not? what does Royal mean? can anyone answer this? are there really Canadian armed forces at all, or are they actually part of the American military? did we have any before, or were they part of the British military? should we spend any money on them? do they really need modern and/or armoured vehicles? what about guns; those are expensive, aren't they? etc etc etc) is a hornet's nest. (A royal hornet's nest, before 1968 and since 2011.) Not only do I doubt that it's relevant to any American situation, I doubt any other nation in world has anything like it. Call it a feat of Canadian genius. Laodah 02:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Feature

Why is this not feature? Is it just because it is lacking citations? I would be willing to work on it. The writing is outstanding, how can I nominate it for review? Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

Per the MARINE CORPS MANUAL W/CH 1-3, Paragraph 2102.1 (page 2-8), the correct grade of rank title is "Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps". Per the MARINE CORPS INDIVIDUAL RECORDS ADMINISTRATION MANUAL (IRAM) MARINE CORPS ORDER (MCO) P1070.12K W/CH 1, Paragraph 6002.10.A (page 6-36), the official abbreviation is "SgtMajMarCor". As with all sergeants major, the correct "form of address" is simply, "Sergeant Major". For example, in official documents or correspondence, or when being verbally introduced, the correct form is "Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" or if written, printed, or typed, "SgtMajMarCor", informally it may be abbreviated as "SMC." After the initial formal introduction using the full title, it is then appropriate to refer to, or address, the incumbent as simply, "Sergeant Major."

This usage differs from the forms used for the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), in that the "Commandant of the Marine Corps" is an official billet title only, and NOT a grade of rank title. Per the MARINE CORPS MANUAL, Paragraph 2101.1.a, the senior Marine Corps officer grade of rank is "General." There is no grade of rank unique to the billet of the CMC, and unlike the SgtMajMarCor, the CMC wears no unique grade of rank insignia. In fact, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as some of the Commanders of United States Unified Commands are all currently commissioned in the the grade of "General."

I am adding the above comments here, as well as on the "Talk:Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" page, due to confusion re this issue. CobraDragoon (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Function: Aerial Warfare?

Propose removing Aerial Warfare as a function in the infobox, as all Marine air assets are by design, used to support the ground forces (and as such do not normally fall under the Joint Forces Air Component Commander unless doing strategic missions not in support of the ground forces, same as Naval Aviation). In addition the Navy, whose aviation assets preform a greater amount of the strategic mission than Marine air assets, does not have aerial warfare as one if its core functions. To conclude (for clarity) the Marine Corps is not an aerial warfare branch as a primary function, but rather an expeditionary one with embedded air assets for tactical support in a secondary role.Garuda28 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Propose switching emblem and seal

I propose making the emblem the main image on this page, as it is more of an identifier of the Marine Corps than the official seal, and would move it into the same standard as the other service branch pages. It is stated by the USMC to be "the most popular version" (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/ousmcc/Units/Marine-Corps-Trademark-Licensing-Program/Our-Emblems/), and as such is quite recognizable. Further reading: http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/ousmcc/Units/Marine-Corps-Trademark-Licensing-Program/History/ Garuda28 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia age calculations are wrong - off by 1 year

The "founded" date is November 10, 1775. Today is November 10, 2017. Simple math says that's 242 years ago, yet you have it calculating as 241 somehow. You're not alone, it seems, though... many news articles and radio hosts are saying "241" for some reason, too. I tried to see if something was wrong in the article's code but didn't see anything obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybercorp (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to use. I changed the means of counting so that issue shouldn't happen again. Unfortunitally that's probably due to us, many people get their information from Wikipedia. Garuda28 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and it's also because many people do not understand that the historical antecedents to the modern U.S. Marine Corps, as well as the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy, all predate the declared independence of the United States. CobraDragoon (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The "error" is probably a function of the {{start date and age}} template that was used to get the age. It might report the age correctly tomorrow, so I'll try to check it then. If it's still not working correctly, then I'll ask about it on the template's talk page. It's also possible this wasn't the correct template in the first place, but I need to check on that. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

President vs. Commander-in-Chief

Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Marine_Corps/Archive_3&oldid=1191648566"