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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I hope that makes clear why I've removed the scrolling list from the References section. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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'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? bahamut0013 words deeds 10:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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? bahamut0013 words deeds 11:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
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:
“ | APPENDIX F
MANUAL OF ARMS—SABER AND SWORD The saber is worn by officers while participating in ceremonies with troops under arms, or as directed. It is carried on the left side of the body attached to the belt by the scabbard chain with the guard of the saber to the rear. The sword is worn by all platoon sergeants and first sergeants while participating in ceremonies with troops under arms, or as directed. It is carried in the same manner as the officer’s saber. F-1. NOMENCLATURE The nomenclature for the saber is saber for all officers, model 1902. The blade is 31 inches long. The nomenclature for the sword is noncommissioned officer’s sword, model 1840. Figure F-1 shows the nomenclature for pertinent parts of the saber (sword) and scabbard. |
” |
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
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. bahamut0013 words deeds 13:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 such as [ Y1] talks about the Mariners. Agre22 ( talk) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)agre22
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you have adequate referencing for any of these? We cannot tread into the territory of origional research here. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It was in the air assault article when I looked last week. bahamut0013 words deeds 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
| |
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) |
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.
So use this new number? Hcobb ( talk) 02:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART12.PDFWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 ( talk) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3117663&C=airwarWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lifeasamarine.com/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 24 January 2018 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I hope that makes clear why I've removed the scrolling list from the References section. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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'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? bahamut0013 words deeds 10:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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? bahamut0013 words deeds 11:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
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:
“ | APPENDIX F
MANUAL OF ARMS—SABER AND SWORD The saber is worn by officers while participating in ceremonies with troops under arms, or as directed. It is carried on the left side of the body attached to the belt by the scabbard chain with the guard of the saber to the rear. The sword is worn by all platoon sergeants and first sergeants while participating in ceremonies with troops under arms, or as directed. It is carried in the same manner as the officer’s saber. F-1. NOMENCLATURE The nomenclature for the saber is saber for all officers, model 1902. The blade is 31 inches long. The nomenclature for the sword is noncommissioned officer’s sword, model 1840. Figure F-1 shows the nomenclature for pertinent parts of the saber (sword) and scabbard. |
” |
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
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. bahamut0013 words deeds 13:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 such as [ Y1] talks about the Mariners. Agre22 ( talk) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)agre22
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you have adequate referencing for any of these? We cannot tread into the territory of origional research here. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It was in the air assault article when I looked last week. bahamut0013 words deeds 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
| |
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) |
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.
So use this new number? Hcobb ( talk) 02:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART12.PDFWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 ( talk) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3117663&C=airwarWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lifeasamarine.com/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)