This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
To anyone who might known about the page, the 1761 capture of Belle Isle now needs to be disambiguated, but I do not know if it is the island in the Detroit River in Michigan, or the one off the coast of Brittany. The time frame suggests it could be either, and I hesistate to guess. -- Decumanus
Those involved in the video of the joining run were not recruits. They were newly trained ranks just passed out of training. ______
Whoever added the initiation bit should get thier facts straight. It wasn't an initiation of any kind. It was a bit of drunken fun as was evidenced actually by the marine who was kicked in the face. When you get lads together and drunk fights will happen. Admittedly this is a bit of an odd fight but...
And they werent newly trained ranks they had been marines for a while (cant remember how long so cant state...)
Craig Humphreys. Not a member.
Althouth the Royoyal Marines are in fact a corps their official title is Her Majesty's Royal Marines NOT the Corps of.........!
As for the birth of the Corps you will see that one of the memorable dates is 28 October 1664 the birth of the Corps. This is celebrated in every unit, every year so please stop changing it to 1755.
Thanks for the feedback, i'm sorry that this is only a quick reply but i'm performing in London this week at The Mountbatten Festival of Music so wil be away from my pc. But i hope that i can direct you to a couple of relevent web sites. the first is This one where if you look at the bottom paragraph you will see the date 1664. The second is here which is the historical section of The Globe & Laurel website which is the journal for the Royal Marines. Please don't take any offence in any of my replies as this was never the intention. I look forward to continuing this discussion when i get back. Cheers :) -- Bartsimp
I can't find any credible references to the official name being "The Corps of Her Majesty's Royal Marines" (the links above are either broken or changed, google for the phrase finds nothing at mod.uk apart from some forum posts) Khendon ( talk) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I always have wondered why you guys -as all scholars usually do- talk the talk and more over, write about victories but anything about defeats. E.g. as Cartagena de Indias = British Navy major defeat ever. Please do not sweat, ours do the same. By the way ..., Marines you say ?? Sorry mates, you came late. We made it = 1537 [1]. Matter of fact Miguel de Cervantes was one of the first Marines.
The landing craft units of WWII are still missing from the article. JMOsman 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did the Royal Marines mutine?
Could someone confirm whether 75px or 75px is correct for a WO2 in the Marines? In addition, are the officers' insignia available publically anywhere? I hesitate to copy them from a commercial site, despite the lack of copyright on such symbols. Tevildo 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The crown in wreath is the correct insignia for a RM WO2 30 June 2006 [London]
From what I remember during a death by powerpoint lesson on rank in the British Army at least both are WO2, however the first is worn by the squadron/company quarter master. However it may be diffrent for the marines. Renski 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the British Army, the crown is worn by Company/Squadron Sergeant Majors. The crown in wreath is worn by the Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant and technical appointments. In the Royal Marines as stated above the crown in wreath is used for all WO2 appontments-- 81.145.240.232 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldnt there be something included on the bands here, i don't know enough abou tthem to include anything but i think something ought to be put in about them.
This section:
Was included and doesn't appear to add a great deal to the article. I've removed it to here, anyone with an interest in beefing it up is free to do so, but in its present form it just jars the flow. ALR 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The size of the article page is a bit big, the History section is pretty big and it's not my area so I'm reluctant to butcher it. The alternative would be to split it off into a History of the Royal Marines article. Any thoughts? ALR 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the scale of edits undone by reverting all of my edits over the last day or so I'd appreciate some indication of what the issues are? My version unexplained reversion.
ALR 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The "issues" are your changes are a bloody mess. What's "odd" is:
These are major changes reducing the quality and reliability of the article. Unless these are adequately addressed, further action will be taken and the article will be ripe for reversion. Tashtastic 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hardly "better" as the quality and reliability of the article have been reduced. 3 Commando Brigade is only given the briefest of mentions and is not mentioned as the main formation. "It is mentioned that RE and RA units are attached, and full details of the attached units are in the article on the brigade itself, which seems to me to be the correct place for them." Again, only given the briefest of mentions. My point was not that it does not have "full details", but that there is not even any mention of the units so that one can either know which units they are or link to the articles about them. That is a mess. Tashtastic 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to.
It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language.
The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly.
The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful.
Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that.
I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'.
There is no article for UKLFCSG as yet, so no need for a red-link. I don't usually put in red links until such time as I'm ready to create an article. Although I note that I've wrongly referred to the Sigs Squadron as a Sigs Troop. I've also described the Loggy function as Life Support, that's what Loggys do, I'm content to alter that. I am thinking of creating the appropriate article once I've finished tidyiong up the various others.
Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article.
See my previous response, they are mentioned. ALR 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to." I understand what it's about, the point is it's now no longer clear that it's part of the organisation.
"It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language." Actually not, as your mass change says the operational formation is only 5 Battalion-size units, instead of 3 Commando Brigade. It also implies the Brigade is only an administrative section for other units, which it is clearly not. "To my mind.." this is also not "particularly encyclopedic language".
"The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly." Your point of view only. The components are actually separated from each other and are not clearly portrayed as components of 3 Commando Brigade.
"The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful." There is already an article on 45 Commando, so not having one for the others is inconsistent and not very thorough.
"Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that." Fine about the header and further text, but mentioning it twice is just repetetive and of no value, especially when listing it with components of 3 Commando Brigade, which it is clearly not one of.
"I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'." not good enough for an encyclopedia that requires sources. The section on FPG RM from the mass reverted version adequately summarised its role. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". It's more reliable to stick to information about its role that can be verified from reputable sources such as the Royal navy website.
"Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article." They are not marines, but they are also Commandos and still components of 3 Commando Brigade. This makes the organisation section incomplete and not very thorough.
With this much mass reversion and point of view, the quality and reliability of the article is reduced and is now a bloody mess. Tashtastic 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move the image of the commando flash so it's inline with the section about when royal became a commando force?
Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Tashtastic ALR
Would any other interested parties add their name to the list and review the suggested compromise on the case page. Thanks, Addhoc 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The following compromise has been suggested by Tashtastic:
"The Brigade also has attached army units from the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers:
These units are components of the brigade and their personnel have completed the All Arms Commando Course conducted at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines at Lympstone, which entitles them to wear the Green beret and the 'commando dagger' on their uniform."
replaces
"The Brigade also holds Operational Control of attached Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer assets."
Addhoc 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of 30 Commando Assault Unit in this history? It consisted virtually entirely of Royal Marines.. http://www.30AU.co.uk
Should the word "altitude" be "latitude"? even better would be "... and are optimised for operations in high latitudes"
Original: "As the United Kingdom Armed Forces' specialists in cold weather warfare the Corps will provide lead element expertise in the NATO Northern Flank and are optimised for high altitude operations."
I would like to suggest that the history be moved more to the top and the current organisation details be moved more toward the bottom. That way, the reader doesn't have to scroll down through so much content that is essentially "lists" to get to textual "meat". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The information on officers is lacking and vague. As an outside observer I am confused on how one becomes a Marine Officer. Does one attend Britannia Royal Naval College or completed university? -- ProdigySportsman 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) the qualifications are 2 a-levels 5GCSEs including maths and english 92.40.35.179 ( talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) RM Officers are trained at CTCRM alongside the RM Recruits, training is 60 weeks long compared with the 32 weeks for recruits. University is not a necessity, A-Levels are sufficient but it is more common for graduates to commence training. The annual intake for RM Young Officers (that's to say, those in training) is 65 with an output of 35-ish.
whoever came up with it, congrats it gave me a big laugh.
Surrendered In Falklands & Iraq/Iran
Maybe some information about the female who passed the commando course?? hahah
I think the traditional turret manned by RM was "X" turret - not "A" turret. My father was a Royal Marine 1913-33 and 1939-45. -- Applesave 14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
my reasoning is the Royal Marines are defined as the British Royal Marine Commandos as you have other countries which have Marine Corps, the Netherlands in particular which also are known as Royal Marines and do some joint operations with the British Royal Marines also if you look on the Marines website on becoming a Royal Marine, its refered to as a Royal Marine Commando. Also in training it is taught that the Corp is the 'British Royal Marine Commandos', the term Royal Marines is just an abreviation for the full title, well thats my reasoning, however if you disagree it may pay just to pop by a recruiting office and ask senior rank his advice there are a few around your area, Idon't want to cause problems just adding what I thought to be correct anyway have a good day Vinaka
Maikeli MB 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well you do have a point I just thought Bitish Royal Marine Commandos was the correct title, no matter though I suppose Royal Marines is Suffice.
Vinaka Maikeli MB 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that they did not serve. What I said was that RM bandsmen are not soldiers (they do not fight, they perform medical duties)- they do not undergo amphibious training with their overall infantry training clocking in at only 8 weeks, which would would be the same logic of your argument make the definition of 'amphibious infantry' erroneous. Do you have any evidence for your claim of 50% commandoes outside the brigade? The units you mention outside of the brigade are to my knowledge squadron or company sized. If we were then to say that the RM and the brigade are not the same thing- it would require the brigade wiki page to define the unit as commando role wouldn't it? Which I editted in and has so far thankfully not been deleted. My main beef is that whilst what you say is true, that the RM are not the same as the British Commandoes overall, yet since the RM is in fact the home of the British Commandoes and the Commando Brigade, and run the Commando Course and run all the other units which are dedicated Commando units- then it seems in fact rather misleading to split hairs. A good portion of the USMC is not amphibious trained or capable in any way, much more than the percentage of RM who are not Commandoes- are we then to change the definition of the USMC page from amphibious infantry? Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
By my last sentence, and overall, I mean that it seems like splitting hairs to not define the Royal Marines wiki page as commando since by comparison the USMC page gets away with defining that corps as amphibious infantry, which is an extreme generalisation. A Royal Marine is a commando, apart from the bandsmen, not an extreme generalisation. Therefore I don't see that as being misleading or incorrect to define the RM as commandos, if you are bootie Im surprised you don't see the lack of mention as a dis! Bunnyman78 ( talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear on why there is a motivation to move away from a simple headcount. The Corps is roughly 6000 strong, most of those in 3Cdo but many in other areas; Assault Group, SBS, HQ and staff jobs, training etc.
ALR 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand why military articles on Wikipedia are written with so many caps, for example: "The Course ends at the..." it's just a course, it doesn't matter whether the RM call it "the Endurance Course", it's not a proper noun in the sense of an encyclopaedia. And Marine Bloggs yes, but Marine surely no? Also, as the organisation is also called the Royal Marines, the opening line in the article should be IS instead of ARE which would be better for a group of marines. Any thoughts? Regards. Escaper27 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The Preobrajensky MP3 is taken from http://www.kremlinzoria.ru/media.asp?topic=16&id=5 (Kremlin Zoria website). 202.89.152.202 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the content of this article Booth, Robert (
12 January
2008).
"Freerunning goes to war as marines take tips from EZ, Livewire and Sticky".
The Guardian.
Guardian Media Group. p. 13. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) merit a mention?
David Underdown (
talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In the paragraph on this in the commando tests should be corrected as it leads one to believe that only the officers carry their equipment with them and unless im wrong they all do User:Shamboss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambosse ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think someone else might have alluded to this, but what exactly is involved in the process of becoming a RM officer, do potential officers receive specific/distinct training from the enlisted personnel? If so where? I understand they undergo the same commando course training, but do they attend an Academy prior to this. 67.150.59.65 ( talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Understand I'm more than a tad late for this question, but will answer in case anyone else is reading this and interested. To become an officer, you apply directly as an officer when enlisting. The selection process is much more competitive, and the training process is 64 wee,s whereas it's 32 for a non-officer. The training is conducted out at CTCRM though, and the All Arms Commando Course is part of the course, with requirements being stricter for officers than other ranks. Alternatively, upon reaching sergeant, you can apply to become a late entry officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.63.213 ( talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If you were sayig such and such is an infantry battalion or whatever, would you capitalise Infantry? Why should marines be any different, we are referring to a conept, a type of force. What about a navy, would you write "the Royal Navy is the navy of the United Kingdom", or "is the Navy..."?? David Underdown ( talk) 09:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
To clarify on the subject of whether the term is a proper noun (i.e., more specifically whether it should be capitalized or not): When speaking of an army in general it is in lower case.
When speaking of a specific army it becomes a proper noun and thus is capitalized.
When referring to a single Marine (as a member of a national naval army), it is a proper noun. This was to differentiate between Marine (a proper noun and a person) and marine (an adjective).
The same sentence with Marine would imply that the boat motors come from the military organization. The words soldier, sailor, airman, et cetera are not capitalized because there are only one of each in the English language and could not be confused with another word. I hope this helps! Happy editing to all!-- Sallicio 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The MOS does not (and cannot) override proper English. But this is your (if you will) Marine force article, so do with it what you will. When speaking of (US) Marines, the personnel and the force are always capitalized. [2] Cheers!-- Sallicio 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads-up for any RM historians here about this but you may have that page on your watchlist anyway. Any further citations I find I'll post on that page, not sure if any mention of them shoudl be here or only on that page. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the disputed removal, here and elsewhere, I've re-raised the topic at Milhist talk
ALR ( talk) 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Some clarification is needed concerning the role and type of the Royal Marines since defining them merely as 'marine infantry' is lacking in information and in fact downright misleading. The repetition of the definition of the role as being 'naval infantry' as the type is rather pointless by standards of definition too.
I recommend the use of role -'commando', something well-attested in MOD references (I actually gave a footnote ref). Also the secondary definition of 'Special Operations Capable', 'Direct Action', as well as the FPGRM being specifically designed for 'Maritime Interdiction Operations' and 'Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure'. Why these definitions are absent on this wiki entry when they are better detailed (particularly on American forces' pages) is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyman78 ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Cardiff_patrol_boat.jpg
Why is there no mention of the RM's battle honours and military awards of its troops? Gibraltar in the Marines legend needs explaining, and the listing of Victoria Crosses and George Crosses, as well as the two Presidential Unit Citations should be mentioned at the least. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 15:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have in fact read the whole article. However on the USMC page there are full listings of unit merits, which in the case of the British counterpart would suggest inclusion of the VCs and GCs (hardly requiring more than a note: "10 VCs, 2 Presidential Unit Citations" etc) since the RM does not use battle honours in the same way as other units this seems correct. Medals aside, there is nothing interminable about listing engagements, in exactly the same way that the USMC page lists its rather lengthy battle histories. The engagements I listed (in the same way as the USMC page) was deleted for being too lengthy, yet it seems rather double standards that it is for some reason allowed for the USMC page. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
But it is an important point that the types of information that 'we' choose to list and define in the majority of British units is much more meagre, unflattering and I argue even misleading since it is erroneous by lack of content. If the US pages are going to mention a list of 19 operational engagements and 10 unit decorations then it stands to reason that the RM should have there lists. Arguing that the RM information is based on another page only begs the question why it is then acceptable that such information is placed on the USMC page despite it also having a history page, and despite the fact that both US pages are much longer than the RM pages would be. So saying that their is no over-arching policy, or that listings are interminable or that the info is mentioned in another article are all countered by the US articles. It is clear by the log of comments made on this discussion page from at least the last 5 years that I am not the only one who beleives that the RM page requires and deserves a more detailed and well-defined catalogueing of history and info. In fact, since you are the naysayer to the vast majority of such attempts to improve this page one might conclude that you are deliberately blocking a proper representation of the RM in the Wiki. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I apologise if you see it as a personal attack, I just wanted to point out the lack of continuity between various articles and raising the question of fair representation as regards content. I felt I was following this "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". I think it is a fair point also that many people have been frustrated about this article and have attempted discussions over several years to improve it. Of course, their writing or points might be poorly documented regardless. It is clear to me however that there is a need to look at certain points and without labouring upon them (as you have warned against) some form of change might be required. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair dues, well I'm sure you appreciate the need to not get bogged down with the whys and wherefores, I hope you can accept my apology as well-meant. I can agree that it might just be an issue of style that is in discussion. I can slo appreciate the chavish nature of what be argued as 'bragging', but again my personal take (and it seems to be rightly or wrongly echoed amongst others here in the past) that there should be highlights of a few details that do the corps justice. I can have a look at the history page, plus the 3 Brigade page and see if some bits can be brought in here without repeating reams of info. I see what you mean about spreading the info over several articles also. Keep in mind however, that the USMC page has been given awards as one of the top Wiki articles for its style and content. (Now we could be cynical about that) but I am sure there is something that can be taken from that to enhance the RM page -or pages if needed. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be interesting to mention the role that the RM have played in inspiring, training, advising and mentoring a number of military forces internationally through history, particularly since the Second World War. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
New section for your consideration: Commandos not Special Forces
Contrary to some, the Royal Marines are not special forces. However, it is understandable why this is generally considered to be the case. Firstly, the ‘Commando’ moniker is itself usually applied to special forces, indeed the modern Royal Marines Commandos share their origins with the SAS and SBS of the current British Special Forces. During the Second World War, the Royal Marines Commandos and other commando units were basically acting in a special forces role, and the raiding element of that role is continued by the corps' 3 Commando Brigade today. Furthermore, the SBS are an independent sub-unit of the Royal Marines, and therefore in popular understanding the two are perhaps confused. According to Warrant Officer Phil Green* the Royal Marines contribute roughly 40% of the UKSF overall. The fact that the Royal Marines were the first green berets might also explain the confusion with the US Army Special Forces also referred to as ‘Green Berets’, and other special forces around the world who have styled themselves ‘ green berets’. Today, the Royal Marines could be defined using American military terms (that are fast becoming standard descriptions) as being ‘ Special Operations Capable’, and able to perform ‘ Direct Action’. The FPGRM maintains a role that is specifically designed for ' Maritime Interdiction Operations' and ' Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure'.
Suggested accompanying photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boarding_Procedures_demonstrated_by_the_British_Royal_Marines.jpg
Bunnyman78 ( talk) 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you're right- I realise it is mainly original research too. It might make more sense to just focus on the History page and make a far shorter and concise definition of continuing the commando role and tradition. The history section does seem to race through the post-war years which is a shame since the RM have been one of the few British 'regiments' to actually adapt and keep much of their identity intact, unlike say 1 Rifles or the Scottish battalions. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Helicopter insertions (first military unit to perform)
Re: Active every year since 1942
Bunnyman78 ( talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is very little in this article about the Royal Marines Reserve. I could add what little there is on the Mod web site, but that leaves a lot of questions. Do the RMR units Tyne for example form complete platoons, Companies or Commandos and do they have heavy weapons etc?-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialistUnitUncoversTalibanWeaponsAndDrugsStash.htm 30 Commando Royal Marines (30 Cdo RM) Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of RT, PRMC, or specializations etc? Unless i'm missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDarkling ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Christopher Warren appears to be a relative unknown who has published an article in a minor journal. He even says himself that "Contrariwise, several authors – including Josephine Flood, Alan Frost, Charles Wilson and Judy Campbell – maintain that First Fleet smallpox did not cause the outbreak ". As such, this seems to be a minority view not worth mentioning in this article. ( Hohum @) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
user:Amerijuanican, see: Talk:British Armed Forces/Archive 2#The Royal Marines are an arm of the Royal Navy. There was no consensus on whether the Royal Navy is a "service branch of the British Armed Forces" (hence the ambiguity), however I think it was agreed that the Royal Marines definitely aren't. Lots of sources were provided, many contradicting each other, however non supported your view that the Royal Marines are an independent service branch of the British Armed Forces. It doesn't even really make sense to refer to "branches" of the British Armed Forces. The British Armed Forces isn't an organisation. Each branch is a "British Armed Force", together referred to as the "British Armed Forces". Rob984 ( talk) 09:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Royal Marines. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Marines. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This article could do with some more photographs of the different uniforms worn by the RM. If not in this article, they could be added to the article titled Uniforms of the Royal Marines /info/en/?search=Uniforms_of_the_Royal_Marines Dreddmoto ( talk) 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the rank of Officer Cadet needs to be removed under 'Ranks and insignia'. Royal Marine Officers are commissioned on day one (unlike Army Officers) as Second Lieutenants and I don't think any Royal Marines would hold this rank. 46.226.49.237 ( talk) 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@ user:Garuda28 with regards to this revert and your comment "Not saying that you are wrong, but before such a massive (and wide reaching) change is made can we discus in talk first?", see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially
Never revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let those the editors who object to it do their own reverting. ...
and then explain why I should not revert your revert? -- PBS ( talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@ PBS: - You made a bold edit, which, for the most part, you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion. The reason you don't "revert his revert" is because that is called edit-warring and it's not allowed. See WP:BRD. FYI. - theWOLFchild 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
On Talk:Royal Marines you wrote "you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion" (diff). 1.If one reverts a bold edit one has to have a verified reason for doing so. Did you read what I posted to explain why reverting a bold edit because you think someone else may object to it is considered to be detrimental to the project (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially) and see also the wording of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")". 2.I did not revert, I started a section on the talk page pointing out to sections in guidance and I asked was there any reason for not reverting (IE I was following BRD). Reverting a revert under such circumstances in not edit warring. On the other-hand you posting to the article talk page was off topic. If you wished to make such an observation the place to do it was my talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:TPYES) -- PBS 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
What about hazing scandal in 2005? 87.249.197.42 ( talk) 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
One of the current photographs could be moved within the article. In 3 Formation and structure the section 3.3 Structure of a commando has a photograph of Commando and flag badges on a shoulder of a Multi-Terrain Pattern uniform. This could be moved to 7 Customs and traditions, replacing the image of a green beret and badge. That beret is also visible in the article Uniforms of the Royal Marines. Does it need to be in both? -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the photographs with section 7.1 Uniforms. The current image of marine officers with green berets is also used in the Cap badge and Military beret articles. It could be replaced with a photograph showing both beret colours worn by the RM, green as well as navy blue and scarlet. These colours are already mentioned in the text of section 7.1. -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Bettydaisies, please disregard the suggestion of 12 October 2020. It has since been done.
Regarding an image for 7.1, there are some possibilities. That part mentions the green Lovat uniform with the two beret colours, as well as the dark blue ceremonial uniform. There are some photographs that show both berets together https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evening_Parade_140718-M-LU710-368.jpg , as well as both cuts of dark blue uniform, here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Mayor%27s_Show,_London_2006_(295199765).jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Mayor%27s_Show_2007_(2073260817).jpg What do you think of using one of those three images? -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Working together leads to great improvements. I'll add that photograph. -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
in the Formation and structure section the attached picture ( /info/en/?search=Royal_Marines#/media/File:Royal_Marines_eng.png) doesn't match the structure listed in the article. Is one or the other out-of-date, or does some additional clarification need to be added? 194.28.124.53 ( talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Have any women been successful in training and joining a unit? It would be good to have a section on this. I know about: 'This month Capt Eve Newton became the Royal Logistic Corps’ first female to pass the all-arms commando course.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13580537/navy-chiefs-apologise-women-blocked-joining-marines/ Does that count? Escaper27 ( talk) 13:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has made extensive changes to this article to include "commandos" everywhere including the infobox title and the short description. I am aware of publicity to rebrand Royal Marines as commandos but "Royal Marines Commandos" is neither historically correct or the common name: Royal Marines gets 4.6 million hits, where as Royal Marines Commandos gets less than 0.1 million. Dormskirk ( talk) 11:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Given that the RM's has a current strength of over 6,000 regular personnel as well as Royal Marine Reserve personnel, it's not realistic to use future projections, and the exact figure in terms of Future Commando has not yet been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence and is merely the subject of conjecture. There is also the possibility of a further review in relation to both Army and Marines strength as a result of events in Ukraine which took place after the Defence in a Competitive Age review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3CEB:3B00:7CE4:3F4F:6321:7EB1 ( talk) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Regular strength is over 7,000 personnel 82.24.169.40 ( talk) 22:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Royal Marines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following reference:
back to what it was before a script broke it:
[1] XOR'easter ( talk) 21:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
References
If you go to any military units Wikipedia page you will find a list of roles in the infobox, it would look odd if the Royal Marines is the only page without it, therefore I don’t think the roles of the RM should have been removed. I request to revert the recent edit that removed them? Iago4102 ( talk) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Dormskirk, Nick-D, Thewolfchild, and Iago4102: Is there any consensus for the role parameter to be Amphibious warfare as suggested by Dormskirk? Iago4102 in a reverted edit added Special operations, Commandos and Amphibious troops wiklinked to Amphibious warfare. Melbguy05 ( talk) 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
To anyone who might known about the page, the 1761 capture of Belle Isle now needs to be disambiguated, but I do not know if it is the island in the Detroit River in Michigan, or the one off the coast of Brittany. The time frame suggests it could be either, and I hesistate to guess. -- Decumanus
Those involved in the video of the joining run were not recruits. They were newly trained ranks just passed out of training. ______
Whoever added the initiation bit should get thier facts straight. It wasn't an initiation of any kind. It was a bit of drunken fun as was evidenced actually by the marine who was kicked in the face. When you get lads together and drunk fights will happen. Admittedly this is a bit of an odd fight but...
And they werent newly trained ranks they had been marines for a while (cant remember how long so cant state...)
Craig Humphreys. Not a member.
Althouth the Royoyal Marines are in fact a corps their official title is Her Majesty's Royal Marines NOT the Corps of.........!
As for the birth of the Corps you will see that one of the memorable dates is 28 October 1664 the birth of the Corps. This is celebrated in every unit, every year so please stop changing it to 1755.
Thanks for the feedback, i'm sorry that this is only a quick reply but i'm performing in London this week at The Mountbatten Festival of Music so wil be away from my pc. But i hope that i can direct you to a couple of relevent web sites. the first is This one where if you look at the bottom paragraph you will see the date 1664. The second is here which is the historical section of The Globe & Laurel website which is the journal for the Royal Marines. Please don't take any offence in any of my replies as this was never the intention. I look forward to continuing this discussion when i get back. Cheers :) -- Bartsimp
I can't find any credible references to the official name being "The Corps of Her Majesty's Royal Marines" (the links above are either broken or changed, google for the phrase finds nothing at mod.uk apart from some forum posts) Khendon ( talk) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I always have wondered why you guys -as all scholars usually do- talk the talk and more over, write about victories but anything about defeats. E.g. as Cartagena de Indias = British Navy major defeat ever. Please do not sweat, ours do the same. By the way ..., Marines you say ?? Sorry mates, you came late. We made it = 1537 [1]. Matter of fact Miguel de Cervantes was one of the first Marines.
The landing craft units of WWII are still missing from the article. JMOsman 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did the Royal Marines mutine?
Could someone confirm whether 75px or 75px is correct for a WO2 in the Marines? In addition, are the officers' insignia available publically anywhere? I hesitate to copy them from a commercial site, despite the lack of copyright on such symbols. Tevildo 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The crown in wreath is the correct insignia for a RM WO2 30 June 2006 [London]
From what I remember during a death by powerpoint lesson on rank in the British Army at least both are WO2, however the first is worn by the squadron/company quarter master. However it may be diffrent for the marines. Renski 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the British Army, the crown is worn by Company/Squadron Sergeant Majors. The crown in wreath is worn by the Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant and technical appointments. In the Royal Marines as stated above the crown in wreath is used for all WO2 appontments-- 81.145.240.232 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldnt there be something included on the bands here, i don't know enough abou tthem to include anything but i think something ought to be put in about them.
This section:
Was included and doesn't appear to add a great deal to the article. I've removed it to here, anyone with an interest in beefing it up is free to do so, but in its present form it just jars the flow. ALR 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The size of the article page is a bit big, the History section is pretty big and it's not my area so I'm reluctant to butcher it. The alternative would be to split it off into a History of the Royal Marines article. Any thoughts? ALR 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the scale of edits undone by reverting all of my edits over the last day or so I'd appreciate some indication of what the issues are? My version unexplained reversion.
ALR 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The "issues" are your changes are a bloody mess. What's "odd" is:
These are major changes reducing the quality and reliability of the article. Unless these are adequately addressed, further action will be taken and the article will be ripe for reversion. Tashtastic 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hardly "better" as the quality and reliability of the article have been reduced. 3 Commando Brigade is only given the briefest of mentions and is not mentioned as the main formation. "It is mentioned that RE and RA units are attached, and full details of the attached units are in the article on the brigade itself, which seems to me to be the correct place for them." Again, only given the briefest of mentions. My point was not that it does not have "full details", but that there is not even any mention of the units so that one can either know which units they are or link to the articles about them. That is a mess. Tashtastic 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to.
It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language.
The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly.
The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful.
Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that.
I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'.
There is no article for UKLFCSG as yet, so no need for a red-link. I don't usually put in red links until such time as I'm ready to create an article. Although I note that I've wrongly referred to the Sigs Squadron as a Sigs Troop. I've also described the Loggy function as Life Support, that's what Loggys do, I'm content to alter that. I am thinking of creating the appropriate article once I've finished tidyiong up the various others.
Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article.
See my previous response, they are mentioned. ALR 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to." I understand what it's about, the point is it's now no longer clear that it's part of the organisation.
"It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language." Actually not, as your mass change says the operational formation is only 5 Battalion-size units, instead of 3 Commando Brigade. It also implies the Brigade is only an administrative section for other units, which it is clearly not. "To my mind.." this is also not "particularly encyclopedic language".
"The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly." Your point of view only. The components are actually separated from each other and are not clearly portrayed as components of 3 Commando Brigade.
"The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful." There is already an article on 45 Commando, so not having one for the others is inconsistent and not very thorough.
"Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that." Fine about the header and further text, but mentioning it twice is just repetetive and of no value, especially when listing it with components of 3 Commando Brigade, which it is clearly not one of.
"I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'." not good enough for an encyclopedia that requires sources. The section on FPG RM from the mass reverted version adequately summarised its role. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". It's more reliable to stick to information about its role that can be verified from reputable sources such as the Royal navy website.
"Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article." They are not marines, but they are also Commandos and still components of 3 Commando Brigade. This makes the organisation section incomplete and not very thorough.
With this much mass reversion and point of view, the quality and reliability of the article is reduced and is now a bloody mess. Tashtastic 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move the image of the commando flash so it's inline with the section about when royal became a commando force?
Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Tashtastic ALR
Would any other interested parties add their name to the list and review the suggested compromise on the case page. Thanks, Addhoc 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The following compromise has been suggested by Tashtastic:
"The Brigade also has attached army units from the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers:
These units are components of the brigade and their personnel have completed the All Arms Commando Course conducted at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines at Lympstone, which entitles them to wear the Green beret and the 'commando dagger' on their uniform."
replaces
"The Brigade also holds Operational Control of attached Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer assets."
Addhoc 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of 30 Commando Assault Unit in this history? It consisted virtually entirely of Royal Marines.. http://www.30AU.co.uk
Should the word "altitude" be "latitude"? even better would be "... and are optimised for operations in high latitudes"
Original: "As the United Kingdom Armed Forces' specialists in cold weather warfare the Corps will provide lead element expertise in the NATO Northern Flank and are optimised for high altitude operations."
I would like to suggest that the history be moved more to the top and the current organisation details be moved more toward the bottom. That way, the reader doesn't have to scroll down through so much content that is essentially "lists" to get to textual "meat". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The information on officers is lacking and vague. As an outside observer I am confused on how one becomes a Marine Officer. Does one attend Britannia Royal Naval College or completed university? -- ProdigySportsman 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) the qualifications are 2 a-levels 5GCSEs including maths and english 92.40.35.179 ( talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) RM Officers are trained at CTCRM alongside the RM Recruits, training is 60 weeks long compared with the 32 weeks for recruits. University is not a necessity, A-Levels are sufficient but it is more common for graduates to commence training. The annual intake for RM Young Officers (that's to say, those in training) is 65 with an output of 35-ish.
whoever came up with it, congrats it gave me a big laugh.
Surrendered In Falklands & Iraq/Iran
Maybe some information about the female who passed the commando course?? hahah
I think the traditional turret manned by RM was "X" turret - not "A" turret. My father was a Royal Marine 1913-33 and 1939-45. -- Applesave 14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
my reasoning is the Royal Marines are defined as the British Royal Marine Commandos as you have other countries which have Marine Corps, the Netherlands in particular which also are known as Royal Marines and do some joint operations with the British Royal Marines also if you look on the Marines website on becoming a Royal Marine, its refered to as a Royal Marine Commando. Also in training it is taught that the Corp is the 'British Royal Marine Commandos', the term Royal Marines is just an abreviation for the full title, well thats my reasoning, however if you disagree it may pay just to pop by a recruiting office and ask senior rank his advice there are a few around your area, Idon't want to cause problems just adding what I thought to be correct anyway have a good day Vinaka
Maikeli MB 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well you do have a point I just thought Bitish Royal Marine Commandos was the correct title, no matter though I suppose Royal Marines is Suffice.
Vinaka Maikeli MB 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that they did not serve. What I said was that RM bandsmen are not soldiers (they do not fight, they perform medical duties)- they do not undergo amphibious training with their overall infantry training clocking in at only 8 weeks, which would would be the same logic of your argument make the definition of 'amphibious infantry' erroneous. Do you have any evidence for your claim of 50% commandoes outside the brigade? The units you mention outside of the brigade are to my knowledge squadron or company sized. If we were then to say that the RM and the brigade are not the same thing- it would require the brigade wiki page to define the unit as commando role wouldn't it? Which I editted in and has so far thankfully not been deleted. My main beef is that whilst what you say is true, that the RM are not the same as the British Commandoes overall, yet since the RM is in fact the home of the British Commandoes and the Commando Brigade, and run the Commando Course and run all the other units which are dedicated Commando units- then it seems in fact rather misleading to split hairs. A good portion of the USMC is not amphibious trained or capable in any way, much more than the percentage of RM who are not Commandoes- are we then to change the definition of the USMC page from amphibious infantry? Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
By my last sentence, and overall, I mean that it seems like splitting hairs to not define the Royal Marines wiki page as commando since by comparison the USMC page gets away with defining that corps as amphibious infantry, which is an extreme generalisation. A Royal Marine is a commando, apart from the bandsmen, not an extreme generalisation. Therefore I don't see that as being misleading or incorrect to define the RM as commandos, if you are bootie Im surprised you don't see the lack of mention as a dis! Bunnyman78 ( talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear on why there is a motivation to move away from a simple headcount. The Corps is roughly 6000 strong, most of those in 3Cdo but many in other areas; Assault Group, SBS, HQ and staff jobs, training etc.
ALR 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand why military articles on Wikipedia are written with so many caps, for example: "The Course ends at the..." it's just a course, it doesn't matter whether the RM call it "the Endurance Course", it's not a proper noun in the sense of an encyclopaedia. And Marine Bloggs yes, but Marine surely no? Also, as the organisation is also called the Royal Marines, the opening line in the article should be IS instead of ARE which would be better for a group of marines. Any thoughts? Regards. Escaper27 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The Preobrajensky MP3 is taken from http://www.kremlinzoria.ru/media.asp?topic=16&id=5 (Kremlin Zoria website). 202.89.152.202 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the content of this article Booth, Robert (
12 January
2008).
"Freerunning goes to war as marines take tips from EZ, Livewire and Sticky".
The Guardian.
Guardian Media Group. p. 13. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) merit a mention?
David Underdown (
talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In the paragraph on this in the commando tests should be corrected as it leads one to believe that only the officers carry their equipment with them and unless im wrong they all do User:Shamboss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambosse ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think someone else might have alluded to this, but what exactly is involved in the process of becoming a RM officer, do potential officers receive specific/distinct training from the enlisted personnel? If so where? I understand they undergo the same commando course training, but do they attend an Academy prior to this. 67.150.59.65 ( talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Understand I'm more than a tad late for this question, but will answer in case anyone else is reading this and interested. To become an officer, you apply directly as an officer when enlisting. The selection process is much more competitive, and the training process is 64 wee,s whereas it's 32 for a non-officer. The training is conducted out at CTCRM though, and the All Arms Commando Course is part of the course, with requirements being stricter for officers than other ranks. Alternatively, upon reaching sergeant, you can apply to become a late entry officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.63.213 ( talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If you were sayig such and such is an infantry battalion or whatever, would you capitalise Infantry? Why should marines be any different, we are referring to a conept, a type of force. What about a navy, would you write "the Royal Navy is the navy of the United Kingdom", or "is the Navy..."?? David Underdown ( talk) 09:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
To clarify on the subject of whether the term is a proper noun (i.e., more specifically whether it should be capitalized or not): When speaking of an army in general it is in lower case.
When speaking of a specific army it becomes a proper noun and thus is capitalized.
When referring to a single Marine (as a member of a national naval army), it is a proper noun. This was to differentiate between Marine (a proper noun and a person) and marine (an adjective).
The same sentence with Marine would imply that the boat motors come from the military organization. The words soldier, sailor, airman, et cetera are not capitalized because there are only one of each in the English language and could not be confused with another word. I hope this helps! Happy editing to all!-- Sallicio 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The MOS does not (and cannot) override proper English. But this is your (if you will) Marine force article, so do with it what you will. When speaking of (US) Marines, the personnel and the force are always capitalized. [2] Cheers!-- Sallicio 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads-up for any RM historians here about this but you may have that page on your watchlist anyway. Any further citations I find I'll post on that page, not sure if any mention of them shoudl be here or only on that page. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the disputed removal, here and elsewhere, I've re-raised the topic at Milhist talk
ALR ( talk) 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Some clarification is needed concerning the role and type of the Royal Marines since defining them merely as 'marine infantry' is lacking in information and in fact downright misleading. The repetition of the definition of the role as being 'naval infantry' as the type is rather pointless by standards of definition too.
I recommend the use of role -'commando', something well-attested in MOD references (I actually gave a footnote ref). Also the secondary definition of 'Special Operations Capable', 'Direct Action', as well as the FPGRM being specifically designed for 'Maritime Interdiction Operations' and 'Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure'. Why these definitions are absent on this wiki entry when they are better detailed (particularly on American forces' pages) is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyman78 ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Cardiff_patrol_boat.jpg
Why is there no mention of the RM's battle honours and military awards of its troops? Gibraltar in the Marines legend needs explaining, and the listing of Victoria Crosses and George Crosses, as well as the two Presidential Unit Citations should be mentioned at the least. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 15:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have in fact read the whole article. However on the USMC page there are full listings of unit merits, which in the case of the British counterpart would suggest inclusion of the VCs and GCs (hardly requiring more than a note: "10 VCs, 2 Presidential Unit Citations" etc) since the RM does not use battle honours in the same way as other units this seems correct. Medals aside, there is nothing interminable about listing engagements, in exactly the same way that the USMC page lists its rather lengthy battle histories. The engagements I listed (in the same way as the USMC page) was deleted for being too lengthy, yet it seems rather double standards that it is for some reason allowed for the USMC page. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
But it is an important point that the types of information that 'we' choose to list and define in the majority of British units is much more meagre, unflattering and I argue even misleading since it is erroneous by lack of content. If the US pages are going to mention a list of 19 operational engagements and 10 unit decorations then it stands to reason that the RM should have there lists. Arguing that the RM information is based on another page only begs the question why it is then acceptable that such information is placed on the USMC page despite it also having a history page, and despite the fact that both US pages are much longer than the RM pages would be. So saying that their is no over-arching policy, or that listings are interminable or that the info is mentioned in another article are all countered by the US articles. It is clear by the log of comments made on this discussion page from at least the last 5 years that I am not the only one who beleives that the RM page requires and deserves a more detailed and well-defined catalogueing of history and info. In fact, since you are the naysayer to the vast majority of such attempts to improve this page one might conclude that you are deliberately blocking a proper representation of the RM in the Wiki. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I apologise if you see it as a personal attack, I just wanted to point out the lack of continuity between various articles and raising the question of fair representation as regards content. I felt I was following this "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". I think it is a fair point also that many people have been frustrated about this article and have attempted discussions over several years to improve it. Of course, their writing or points might be poorly documented regardless. It is clear to me however that there is a need to look at certain points and without labouring upon them (as you have warned against) some form of change might be required. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 12:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair dues, well I'm sure you appreciate the need to not get bogged down with the whys and wherefores, I hope you can accept my apology as well-meant. I can agree that it might just be an issue of style that is in discussion. I can slo appreciate the chavish nature of what be argued as 'bragging', but again my personal take (and it seems to be rightly or wrongly echoed amongst others here in the past) that there should be highlights of a few details that do the corps justice. I can have a look at the history page, plus the 3 Brigade page and see if some bits can be brought in here without repeating reams of info. I see what you mean about spreading the info over several articles also. Keep in mind however, that the USMC page has been given awards as one of the top Wiki articles for its style and content. (Now we could be cynical about that) but I am sure there is something that can be taken from that to enhance the RM page -or pages if needed. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be interesting to mention the role that the RM have played in inspiring, training, advising and mentoring a number of military forces internationally through history, particularly since the Second World War. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
New section for your consideration: Commandos not Special Forces
Contrary to some, the Royal Marines are not special forces. However, it is understandable why this is generally considered to be the case. Firstly, the ‘Commando’ moniker is itself usually applied to special forces, indeed the modern Royal Marines Commandos share their origins with the SAS and SBS of the current British Special Forces. During the Second World War, the Royal Marines Commandos and other commando units were basically acting in a special forces role, and the raiding element of that role is continued by the corps' 3 Commando Brigade today. Furthermore, the SBS are an independent sub-unit of the Royal Marines, and therefore in popular understanding the two are perhaps confused. According to Warrant Officer Phil Green* the Royal Marines contribute roughly 40% of the UKSF overall. The fact that the Royal Marines were the first green berets might also explain the confusion with the US Army Special Forces also referred to as ‘Green Berets’, and other special forces around the world who have styled themselves ‘ green berets’. Today, the Royal Marines could be defined using American military terms (that are fast becoming standard descriptions) as being ‘ Special Operations Capable’, and able to perform ‘ Direct Action’. The FPGRM maintains a role that is specifically designed for ' Maritime Interdiction Operations' and ' Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure'.
Suggested accompanying photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boarding_Procedures_demonstrated_by_the_British_Royal_Marines.jpg
Bunnyman78 ( talk) 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you're right- I realise it is mainly original research too. It might make more sense to just focus on the History page and make a far shorter and concise definition of continuing the commando role and tradition. The history section does seem to race through the post-war years which is a shame since the RM have been one of the few British 'regiments' to actually adapt and keep much of their identity intact, unlike say 1 Rifles or the Scottish battalions. Bunnyman78 ( talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Helicopter insertions (first military unit to perform)
Re: Active every year since 1942
Bunnyman78 ( talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is very little in this article about the Royal Marines Reserve. I could add what little there is on the Mod web site, but that leaves a lot of questions. Do the RMR units Tyne for example form complete platoons, Companies or Commandos and do they have heavy weapons etc?-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialistUnitUncoversTalibanWeaponsAndDrugsStash.htm 30 Commando Royal Marines (30 Cdo RM) Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of RT, PRMC, or specializations etc? Unless i'm missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDarkling ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Christopher Warren appears to be a relative unknown who has published an article in a minor journal. He even says himself that "Contrariwise, several authors – including Josephine Flood, Alan Frost, Charles Wilson and Judy Campbell – maintain that First Fleet smallpox did not cause the outbreak ". As such, this seems to be a minority view not worth mentioning in this article. ( Hohum @) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
user:Amerijuanican, see: Talk:British Armed Forces/Archive 2#The Royal Marines are an arm of the Royal Navy. There was no consensus on whether the Royal Navy is a "service branch of the British Armed Forces" (hence the ambiguity), however I think it was agreed that the Royal Marines definitely aren't. Lots of sources were provided, many contradicting each other, however non supported your view that the Royal Marines are an independent service branch of the British Armed Forces. It doesn't even really make sense to refer to "branches" of the British Armed Forces. The British Armed Forces isn't an organisation. Each branch is a "British Armed Force", together referred to as the "British Armed Forces". Rob984 ( talk) 09:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Royal Marines. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Marines. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This article could do with some more photographs of the different uniforms worn by the RM. If not in this article, they could be added to the article titled Uniforms of the Royal Marines /info/en/?search=Uniforms_of_the_Royal_Marines Dreddmoto ( talk) 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the rank of Officer Cadet needs to be removed under 'Ranks and insignia'. Royal Marine Officers are commissioned on day one (unlike Army Officers) as Second Lieutenants and I don't think any Royal Marines would hold this rank. 46.226.49.237 ( talk) 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@ user:Garuda28 with regards to this revert and your comment "Not saying that you are wrong, but before such a massive (and wide reaching) change is made can we discus in talk first?", see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially
Never revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let those the editors who object to it do their own reverting. ...
and then explain why I should not revert your revert? -- PBS ( talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@ PBS: - You made a bold edit, which, for the most part, you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion. The reason you don't "revert his revert" is because that is called edit-warring and it's not allowed. See WP:BRD. FYI. - theWOLFchild 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
On Talk:Royal Marines you wrote "you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion" (diff). 1.If one reverts a bold edit one has to have a verified reason for doing so. Did you read what I posted to explain why reverting a bold edit because you think someone else may object to it is considered to be detrimental to the project (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially) and see also the wording of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")". 2.I did not revert, I started a section on the talk page pointing out to sections in guidance and I asked was there any reason for not reverting (IE I was following BRD). Reverting a revert under such circumstances in not edit warring. On the other-hand you posting to the article talk page was off topic. If you wished to make such an observation the place to do it was my talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:TPYES) -- PBS 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
What about hazing scandal in 2005? 87.249.197.42 ( talk) 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
One of the current photographs could be moved within the article. In 3 Formation and structure the section 3.3 Structure of a commando has a photograph of Commando and flag badges on a shoulder of a Multi-Terrain Pattern uniform. This could be moved to 7 Customs and traditions, replacing the image of a green beret and badge. That beret is also visible in the article Uniforms of the Royal Marines. Does it need to be in both? -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the photographs with section 7.1 Uniforms. The current image of marine officers with green berets is also used in the Cap badge and Military beret articles. It could be replaced with a photograph showing both beret colours worn by the RM, green as well as navy blue and scarlet. These colours are already mentioned in the text of section 7.1. -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Bettydaisies, please disregard the suggestion of 12 October 2020. It has since been done.
Regarding an image for 7.1, there are some possibilities. That part mentions the green Lovat uniform with the two beret colours, as well as the dark blue ceremonial uniform. There are some photographs that show both berets together https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evening_Parade_140718-M-LU710-368.jpg , as well as both cuts of dark blue uniform, here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Mayor%27s_Show,_London_2006_(295199765).jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Mayor%27s_Show_2007_(2073260817).jpg What do you think of using one of those three images? -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Working together leads to great improvements. I'll add that photograph. -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
in the Formation and structure section the attached picture ( /info/en/?search=Royal_Marines#/media/File:Royal_Marines_eng.png) doesn't match the structure listed in the article. Is one or the other out-of-date, or does some additional clarification need to be added? 194.28.124.53 ( talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Have any women been successful in training and joining a unit? It would be good to have a section on this. I know about: 'This month Capt Eve Newton became the Royal Logistic Corps’ first female to pass the all-arms commando course.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13580537/navy-chiefs-apologise-women-blocked-joining-marines/ Does that count? Escaper27 ( talk) 13:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has made extensive changes to this article to include "commandos" everywhere including the infobox title and the short description. I am aware of publicity to rebrand Royal Marines as commandos but "Royal Marines Commandos" is neither historically correct or the common name: Royal Marines gets 4.6 million hits, where as Royal Marines Commandos gets less than 0.1 million. Dormskirk ( talk) 11:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Given that the RM's has a current strength of over 6,000 regular personnel as well as Royal Marine Reserve personnel, it's not realistic to use future projections, and the exact figure in terms of Future Commando has not yet been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence and is merely the subject of conjecture. There is also the possibility of a further review in relation to both Army and Marines strength as a result of events in Ukraine which took place after the Defence in a Competitive Age review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3CEB:3B00:7CE4:3F4F:6321:7EB1 ( talk) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Regular strength is over 7,000 personnel 82.24.169.40 ( talk) 22:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Royal Marines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following reference:
back to what it was before a script broke it:
[1] XOR'easter ( talk) 21:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
References
If you go to any military units Wikipedia page you will find a list of roles in the infobox, it would look odd if the Royal Marines is the only page without it, therefore I don’t think the roles of the RM should have been removed. I request to revert the recent edit that removed them? Iago4102 ( talk) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Dormskirk, Nick-D, Thewolfchild, and Iago4102: Is there any consensus for the role parameter to be Amphibious warfare as suggested by Dormskirk? Iago4102 in a reverted edit added Special operations, Commandos and Amphibious troops wiklinked to Amphibious warfare. Melbguy05 ( talk) 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)