Talk:United States Army Basic Training

90% of this is nonsense and misinformation
AIT is not part of Basic Training. There is an entire program --- One Station Unit Training (OSUT) --- that exists to combine Basic Training and AIT. This has been the case since at leas the early 1960s.

All of the filler about fire guards, CQs, what is done which week, what certain phases are called, etc, is pointless. These are determined by the post conducting the training, and the version of the training POI that is in use at that post, the available facilities and personnel, and other factors. Listing what one editor did in Basic three years ago is as pointless as listing that was the lunch entree at the DFAC yesterday.

The entire article is in desperate need of some valid references. Starting with the Army Program of Instruction.

Weeks
If you'd like to help create the remaining sections for individual weeks of BCT, information can be found at this URL:
 * http://www.goarmy.com/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile=

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AIT List Deletion/Overhaul
U.S. Army AIT is for enlisted personnel, so Engineer School should not link to the Engineer Officer's Course. Also, Air Assault school is not a part of IET. The list of AIT's should lead to the correct articles that exist, or be deleted. Dirteater13 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You should make the pertinent edits if you see something wrong. As for the red links though, I was hoping to encourage people to start articles for the missing schools. I just finished a massive cleanup of the TRADOC template in which I removed all red links, so that all the training articles wouldn't have them. But if a few individual articles have them, maybe thats not such a bad thing? I don't know... Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just updated the list with locations of training and source links to the specific schools. Also added a couple that were missing. However, I strongly disagree that a school needs an article to be listed. The information is relevant to the topic and should be included. If you want to delink the ones without articles, fine. But deleting them just because someone hasn't taken the time to write an article on it isn't a valid reason to remove the information. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Advanced Individual Training into this article
The Advanced Individual Training article describes a part of US Army Basic Training, and is a stub. I feel it would better serve as a section of this article. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge completed. Also merged OSUT stub article. Advanced Individual Training and OSUT now redirect here. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 06:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AIT is NOT a part of Basic Training and should not have been merged into an article about US Army BT.

Nor is OSUT part of Basic Training. OSUT covers the same basic soldier skills but is part of an integrated MOS-specific training plan while BT is MOS non-specific and is a stand-alone training program.

Criticism
I have no idea where the idea of separate hourly "Fire Guard(s)" came from, but the USArmy uses the CQ for the fire guard during the BCT/IET/AIT phases. The CQ does hourly rounds which includes the duty of fire guard, and there is no "waking" of another guard as each hour ticks past. This reference should be deleted if noone else can recall it's current supposed "usage." Please disregard this notation if it's specific implementation has occurred universally in the last few years I am not aware of. If the practice is MOS specific, it should be listed here by MOS reference...separate hourly "Fire Guard" is not a part of the Fort Sam Houston AMEDD series IET/AIT MOS duties. In addition, CQ was the reponsibility of 1 soldier under the supervision of the Drill Sergeant/Platoon Sergeant, not 2 as listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren99 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, you're talking about it being a "recent change". When I went through basic training and AIT in 1987, fire guard was totally seperate from CQ and changed fire guards hourly. And when I was on drill duty, it was the same. If anything, the lack of hourly fire guard duty sounds like the more recent development. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was in service 96-99, so my experience is much more current than yours. Also please note I do not state "recent change" ever in my comments, you have chosen to insert the reference. In addition, I specifically state that "MOS specific" differences may exist, and should you have had a different experience it would be to your advantage to state it, and not postulate. In particular the Combat Arms (infantry, etc) most likely follow a separate protocol than the Med Corps; listing the disparities would help to establish your opinion vs my own. The most beneficial result would be the merging of these differences, but that cannot be effectively achieved until everyone reports in their own experiences. Your experiences are not universal, nor were mine; as such a convergence should be explored.Ren99 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, the "recent changes" is in the title of the section. Further, I never said my experiences were universal, nor did I imply that they were. You complain that I took something from the title and incorporated it into my response, but feel it's ok to read some crap into what I said and make it look like I needed a lecture from you? Whatever. I went through training at one post and conducted training at another one. Both used it. Take that for what it's worth. Also, please learn to put your responses where they belong, not at the top of the disucssion. BTW, do you know when I got out of the service? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your term of service is not the matter. We appreciate your service. The title of the section was not the matter, I referred it to my response only. I served at many different stations, including overseas; where you served was not the matter, I stated the various arms may well function differently. That you took offense is your issue, and was not the matter of statement here. The Army is a professoinal organization; if you can't take the input vs what you feel is correct is not my concern and is your matter. If you don't want to participate in discussion, don't say anything at all as you are NEVER always correct; nor am I. That you cannot take criticism as a matter of learning is your matter, not mine. This is Wikipedia, an online informational open source format; write your congressman if you don't like it.Ren99 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked if you know what I got out of the service is because you made the declarative statement that you were in from 96-99 "so my (your) experience is much more current than yours". I wondered what fact you based that statement on. Where you served is not relevant, unless it was a training base. If you were on active duty, you should understand that difference. I have never tried to use my personal experience as a basis for anything in the article. Your implication that I am attempting to do so is dishonest. I used my personal experience to make an observation about the discussion at hand. Further, your statement that I can't take criticism is not only wrong, but not WP:CIVIL, just like your statement that I'm not "officer material" You have nothing to base your opinion on except for this exchange, ehich you've done nothing but mischaracterize. Don't lecture me on what Wikipedia is. You've got a whopping 10 edits under this account. Somewhere over the last 13,000+ edits, I've figured out the glaringly obvious; that this is an open source format. What it appears you haven't figured out is the skill of reading comprehension. Had you mastered that skill, you wouldn't have said half the things about me that you've said. I have a better idea. Instead of trying (and failing miserably) to tell me what I am saying, doing or have done, why don't you comment on the topic. Here is a better idea: Why don't you produce a reliable source showing what the current state of fire guard duty is? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How about how it's getting softer? Like how recruits can have cell phones and cd players now? Perhaps under a "Recent changes" section? Just a thought. Parsecboy 12:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, maybe under a "Criticism" section. Although we would need good sources for info like that. I went through basic training just a couple years ago and if they found a cell phone or CD player on you, G-d help you. If that's changed then it must a very recent change, like in the past 3 or 4 years.
 * Edit: I just took a short look look around and did find some stories about cell phones. From what I found they give them back for AIT, which makes some sense since AIT is more of an education period, and less of a mental breaking-down than BCT. Not to mention it can last a long time depending on the MOS. I only found forum threads so far though. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was the same for me in early 2004, I think it's a pretty recent change. Here is where I heard about it. It's a Youtube of a Fox News segment about it. I'm sure there are suitable text sources, we'll just have to track one of them down. Parsecboy 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just watched it. That's pretty crazy. They tuned down the yelling to only when necessary? Jesus... I'd bet that's to get more people to join, so basic sounds less scary than it used to. I think a Fox news video is fine for a source, regardless of the clip being on youtube. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's probably to get more people to join, and less to quit once they get there. You're probably right about the clip being a reliable source. If at somepoint someone objects to it, it probably shouldn't be too hard to find something else. On a side note, I've heard some rumint that you don't even have to pass the PT test to graduate anymore, and that you can finish your push-ups on your knees. Who knows how much of that is exageration, though. Parsecboy 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard that too. If you have a source for it feel free to put it into the article. For now I'm concentrating on the Overview and Phases sections. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it has, especially in the co-ed. There was alot of infighting between drill sergeants, people who did pass basic should not have, that includes myself.  They just wrote down any pt score.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.146.202 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got back from Fort Benning. I don't know about the other Basic Training forts, but we aren't allowed to have anything like cell phones or CD players during any phase of training.  When I read that, I thought it was a joke... also, I don't think we had a "Fat Camp" at reception, and we were at reception for more than two weeks.  Getting an ELS, even if you were suicidal, took months, and they were very reluctant to do it.  We actually had a few privates try to commit suicide, and one in another platoon actually did.  It may be getting softer, but we sure don't have anything like cell phones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.97.26 (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BCT is not the same as IET. BCT in the USArmy is 9 weeks long. This is your boot camp training/basic combat training. Failure to pass BCT results in dismissal from the military. IET is training for your initial MOS and includes both BCT and AIT. Failure to pass IET results in reclassification of your MOS. These are important differences to consider when making statements concerning training environments.Ren99 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) AIT is also for soldiers who just completed basic and are qualifying for a MOS. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I just revised my prior listing for accuracy.Ren99 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IET is exactly the same thing as "BCT" and has nothing to do with MOS training.


 * AIT is the MOS-specific training.


 * OSUT --- "One Station Unit Training" --- combines Basic/IET and MOS training.


 * If you don't know even this simple definitions --- that have existed for decades now --- you are clearly not qualified to be commenting on the subject of US Army basic training, let alone editing an article on same.

I added Unreferenced tag to the Overview section. The first citation doesn't appear in the article until we get down to Locations. I note that even on this Talk page, most of the conversation is compare/contrast of individual experiences. This article needs more objective references and less "back in my day" commentary. Advice about what to expect in IET would make for a better blog than a Wikipedia article. Canute (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Victory Tower/Teamwork Development Course
The Victory Tower we used at Relaxin' Jackson did include rope ladders and rope bridges, as well as the single rope you had to lie down on and slide on. Can't remember what that's called, I'm on 24 hour staff duty at the moment, and am a bit tired :) Thanks for fixing those misspellings. I blame it on being tired too ;). Parsecboy 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember that rope thingy, and the other stuff. Is that all called Victory Tower? I don't remember exactly. I thought the 50-foot rappelling wall was Victory Tower, and was separate from all the rest of that stuff. I could be wrong. Actually now that I think about it, Victory Tower is that tower with 3 levels, where you have to climb/pull each other up to get to the top. Seems like that would be partof the teamwork course. The rappelling wall might be separate. I really can't remember. Feel free to change it to whatever you think it is. No problem on the spelling. I've been up for a while myself. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 09:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At least the one we did it was all one big tower, and it was all the same day. The teamwork course was separate, and had obstacles like an approx 8' wall, with a couple of small wooden platforms (a few inches by few inches), and another wall past that. we had a couple wooden planks and maybe a length of rope to get everyone on the wall and then accross the platforms and over the 2nd wall. I've noticed you've been up a while. Where are you stationed? I'm at Fort Bragg. Parsecboy 10:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We did a bunch of separate things (clearer now that I've slept). Victory Tower was the 3-level thing, but I think Victory Tower referred to everything that resided in that facility, which included the rope that you hang from and climb down, the log you run and roll over, etc. Then, as you said, the teamwork development course was something completely different, done on a different day. The rappelling wall was, for me, just a wooden wall with a ladder going up the side, and that may have been in the same facility as Victory Tower but I don't quite remember. I'll work on the wording in the article so that it can apply to either of our situations.


 * I'm actually not in the Army — I got out during Basic on a medical discharge, for pain associated with flat feet. Or at least that's what it says on my discharge papers. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For us, the rappelling wall was the "main event" of the Victory Tower. It was part of the whole tower structure. Your idea to reword it to be a bit more ambiguous sounds good to me. I'm sure plenty of people have had different experiences than both of us, too.
 * Oh, ok. I'm getting med boarded myself. I broke my back a little over a year ago, and they've decided that since I can't deploy, I don't really need to stay in. Parsecboy 17:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

its identical????
to say that jackson and benning are identical is just false. benning is much harder than jackson. no doubt. i went to jackson and the guys who went to benning told me of things that we never, unfortunately, endured at jackson. benning is harder no doubt, but the army as a whole is easier than it used to be because the recruit you get isnt as hard as he/she once was. i will say this thought, and that is that dicipline and being a good soldier is a choice. no drill sgt is going to make you a good soldier. you make that choice and i know this because although fort benning is harder, the biggest shi*bags came out of benning. they all claimed to be "real" soldiers, but they had no dicipline whatsoever and didnt live up to the army values for the most part. Ethmegdav (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure which statement you have a problem with. Could you paste a statement from the article that you feel needs to be changed? Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:23, 12/15/2007


 * Personal opinions aside, BCT is not identical at every location. Some posts use a different order and length. I've reworded to reflect such. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here but if you completed training and perform your duties as they are expected of you then you are a "real "soldier" regardless of where you went to BCT and AIT.Jersey John (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

wake up
daily, especially in the beginning, wake up is anwhere from 3 am to 4 am because tow the line is around 4am or 5 am.Ethmegdav (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Schedule and other aspects of the experience depend largely on where you train and who's training you. I therefore chose to just post the official schedule, which in my experience was generally followed with a few exceptions (and I was at Benning). If you want to add a small disclaimer that the schedule is not steadfast and can change depending on the whims of those in charge, you are welcome to, but I wouldn't go changing the schedule based on your personal experience. Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:22, 12/15/2007


 * I've revised the table and posted a SOURCED schedule. The occasional deviation from the norm based on conduct etc. shouldn't be used as an encyclopedic entry. On a personal note, I never woke my recruits up at 0300- 0400. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Occasional deviation? I think it is more accurate to say that this is a common practice and the article should reflect that. --Jmbranum (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then source it. Otherwise, what you "think" isn't going to fly. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Barracks area
I don't know about other Basic training site but I just got back from Fort Leonard Wood and our barracks were one building with each platoon having a floor to themselves. The way this article describes them it sounds more like each platoon had there own building. I don't know about other BCT sites but thats what I experienced at Fort Leonard Wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeman177 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably using Jackson as an example. Besides for the temporaries I stayed in, most of Jackson is full of "Starships" which are huge buildings with plenty of room. Jersey John (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the differences between the US armys basic training and the United Kingdoms basic training (for the regulars)
I was curious about the training of the US army and the British army and how they differ both in length and difficulty? I thought that someone here may know the specific details. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.76 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhh, what's to stop you from researching them on your own...? I know firsthand about the US Army, but not a thing about how it's done across the pond...Jersey John (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a special way to "line up" in military?
Do people in army line up in a more efficient way? I looked up the article about Queue and I can't find how or why people in army line up. 118.169.96.88 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was an MP (Military Police) for 9 years from 1995-2004; completed my OSUT at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. I think what you mean by "lining up" would best be answered as "Dress Right Dress"; everything, soldiers included is "lined up" "Dress Right Dress". Hope this helps. Hooah. (Or as we said back in my basic training days, "kiiiiiiiiiiil!". Hooah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dressing is only one part of the process. Regardless, the posters question is ridiculous and that's why nobody answered it for nearly a year. Don't feed the trolls, it just makes them come back. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MOS training
A curiosity popped into my head. I'm wondering in regards to AIT. How does it work out. So, once a recruit finishes basic training, they go on to more weeks of training for their MOS. Most new recruits are usually college age. So for serviceman attending college, how do they find time do their AIT? I guess they'd have to put it off until summer. But say they're at a college that has summer courses, like a community college or other 2-year schools. I guess they'd have to put it off until they graduate. There's the time issue and their AIT may take place at a base far from where they live. How do they get time to do it, and is their a limit to how long it can be put off? --71.214.245.4 (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think putting off AIT is possible, generally. You don't have much of a choice, if any, as to when you do your AIT. It's not like college courses. There's slightly more freedom in AIT versus BCT, but it's still part of Basic Training. You don't need to "find time" for AIT, cause the Army basically tells you when you're going, and you have no particular say in the matter. People who go into basic training generally need to plan to put off any college courses or other life plans until after both the BCT and AIT phases are complete. Equazcion (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me good sir but I believe you may be mistaken. It is common for ROTC recruits and early entry soldiers to have their BCT and AIT split between two consecutive summers. 67.247.234.225 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, AIT can be delayed. This is actually not uncommon among National Guard and Reservists. I don't, however, remember that happening for active duty soldiers, which is where I think the confusion here is coming in. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree. There is difference between an active duty obligation and reporting for active duty. Early entry and ROTC carry an obligation but they have not yet reported for active duty. After reporting for active duty they are full time for their term. Yes? 67.247.234.225 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reservists, National Guard etc are considered on active duty while attending basic training and for AIT. Their service record indicates those periods as active duty service. It's necessary that they be on active duty so that they are subject to all applicable regulations and the UCMJ and to ensure all trainees have the same chain of command structure. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ROTC cadets do not attend either Basic/IET nor AIT/MOS schools.


 * ROTC cadets may attend a 6-week "Basic Camp" if they are not prior service and have not completed the MS I and MS II courses, but this is not Basic Training/IET and does not result in the award of any MOS.


 * Reserve Component (Army Reserve and Army National Guard) enlistees can take the "split training" option that lets them take IET (or the Basic portion of OSUT) one summer and AIT (or the second portion of OSUT) the next summer, in order to accommodate their civilian school schedules. They are on active duty ("Title 10 duty") for both portions of their training.


 * "Split training" is not an option for Regular Army enlistees. They will either complete both parts of OSUT in the same unit, or will go directly from IET to the AIT for their MOS.

No history
Why is there no history of basic training? It has changed quite a bit during the years. This is especially true regarding physical contact and so called abusive language. 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.234.225 (talk)

Basic training changes
Recently the US Army has released some major changes to the BCT system. A good source can be found at http://www.military.com/news/article/army-news/the-top-ten-basic-training-changes.html?ESRC=army-a.nl, I hope someone is watching this. Sadads (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy vio?
Obviously the entire article isn't a copy vio, so if the editor who decided to tie up the entire article with a copyvio notice, then fail to state what part is the problem, would like to be specific, perhaps we can get the article fixed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't 'tie up the entire article', I did what is standard procedure in the case of such violations. Most of this article (and by 'most', I literally mean the overwhelming majority of the article -- i.e. the entire intro as well as 90% of the article that follows) was merely cut and pasted from the website listed in the template (which, as you correctly noticed, is not a government website, and is copy-written). In order to fix it, the entire article will essentially need to be re-written. Because as it stands right now, this was a private firm's verbiage, which was used -- extensively -- without permission. You can see for yourself at the website. I got suspicious after I read it closely -- it looked a little too polished, and without enough citations compared to most Wikipedia articles I've read and/or edited, so I Googled large sections and they all came back to that site, word for word. That's blatant plagiarism at the very least, and a violation of various copyright laws at its worst (which is a BIG wiki-no-no to put it mildly) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire article is now unavailable because of this. Spare me the lecture on plaigiarism and copyvio, I'm not new. Much of this could have been handled with some rewording and better cites. Instead, you placed a vio notice, taking the article completely out of use, without having the common courtesy of even posting a word about why on the talk page. The article was using 34 references, so it clearly wasn't unreferenced. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you were. Spare me the condescending tone, as I'm not new either to Wikipedia either. I did exactly what is standard procedure according to Wikipedia guidelines -- and according to those guidelines, this is how it's supposed to go down. If that's an inconvenience to you, well, I don't know what to tell you. Take it up with the Wikipedia Copyright Violations policy if you feel as though this was unfair -- and FYI, anyone can arbitrarily plug in citations they found wherever they want. The bottom line is that most of the article was cut-pasted from somebody else's work. That's why the template is on there, and it's now subject to the findings of the investigating admin to determine what to do about it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I was? Oh, weren't you the one telling me that I must not have served? Clearly you didn't do your homework before making that ridiculous assertion. It doesn't "inconvenience me". I've been through basic training, I don't need the article to tell me about it. You fail to grasp what I'm talking about. There is a way to handle these. If there is a copyvio, fine, we deal with it. What you failed to do was tell what the vio was before rendering the article completely unusable. From the policy: "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active.". This article is reasonably active. That should have been step 1. "The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text." Did you? Not until I gave up waiting for you to do what you are supposed to do and started the thread for you. Instead, you threw a blanket over the whole article and gave no explaination for it at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First off... it's not a matter of me not doing my homework -- the template info (see: here) isn't that detailed. It doesn't say anything about discussions. I saw the clear violation, followed the instructions listed there, slapped the template on the article and called it a night. The template itself is a lot more detailed than the directions on how to use it are. Second -- You gave up waiting for the URL? The URL you are referring about is clearly listed on the template which now covers the article page. You didn't see that?

Look, I think you might be the one that is failing to grasp something here: the article was almost a complete copyright violation in and of itself. What exactly would you have proposed discussing? It was like a house that needed everything but the windows replaced. Seriously. And considering (after the fact) that you yourself were hasty enough to make the snap decision to revert the article by removing the template (until you realized that it wasn't a .gov website... something I did look into myself before I made the call BTW) and going with my gut on interpreting your own snap judgement, do you think my bet would've been on a reasonable discussion had I even known to bring it up here first? And for the record, it wasn't my intent to leave anyone in the dark -- I was trying to leave a link and a note in the editing comment when my hand hit 'enter' right after that colon at the end of the word see: in the edit summary. The see: that I was going to direct concerned editors to was this.

And lastly, doing my homework before my 'ridiculous assertion' about your not having served? What, you think I'm a wiki-stalker that goes and checks up on who is who before I make a comment? When I went through Benning back in 1990, we called it 'chow' and the 'chow hall', and when we called meals breakfast, lunch or dinner, we did pushups. So apparently it's not a standardized regulation put out by TRADOC and/or enforced universally by Drill Sergeants. Maybe we've both learned something... or maybe not. Maybe we can continue arguing about it, or maybe not. That part is up to you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not stalking, it's recon. It will keep you from saying things like "you didn't serve" and being dead wrong. I never said it was standardized. I said that it was a colloquialism. It doesn't belong in a chart like that. It does belong in the body of the article (and it was already there). I self reverted because I thought you'd said all of it was a copy vio. All of the article is NOT and a number of the sources are govt. sources. But of course, it's moot now since the whole article is lumped under your blanket complaint. I just said URL because it was shorter than the whole explaination about the policy and that you should be specific about what part you feel is the copyvio. Just saying "this site" doesn't complete it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue could have been fixed with a little bit of discussion, and a little bit more citations. Instead, someone had to escalate it to a whole new level. It is not a copyright vio. This shitstorm could have been avoided. A research paper without quotes is plagiarism, a paper with quotes is research. The job of armybasic.org is to provide information to the recruit. The job of this article is to do the exact same thing. Nate1028 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it could have been fixed with some discussion first. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the article came up for review today I've been looking through it and judging from the introductory section it looks like a reverse copyright violation - i.e., they copied from us. The structure of the intro has remained largely the same for years, but in this diff, there's some evidence of evolution:
 * becomes
 * and
 * becomes
 * Both of these changes are reflected in the text at usarmybasic.com. I didn't check through the whole article, so if there's still a concern that some particular subsection of text may have been copied from there, please let me know. From what I've looked at so far there's no copyright problem here so I've removed the blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honored -- I wrote most of this article including those lines. What is it they say about flattery? The site's since been hacked by muslim fundamentalists though. Oh well. PS. "Basic Training is designed to be highly intense and challenging" -- this was my original wording, someone else later added the "and individuals who have experienced it [etc]" part. The site just copied an earlier version of this article. Equazcion  ( talk ) 06:56, 14 Apr 2011 (UTC)
 * becomes
 * Both of these changes are reflected in the text at usarmybasic.com. I didn't check through the whole article, so if there's still a concern that some particular subsection of text may have been copied from there, please let me know. From what I've looked at so far there's no copyright problem here so I've removed the blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honored -- I wrote most of this article including those lines. What is it they say about flattery? The site's since been hacked by muslim fundamentalists though. Oh well. PS. "Basic Training is designed to be highly intense and challenging" -- this was my original wording, someone else later added the "and individuals who have experienced it [etc]" part. The site just copied an earlier version of this article. Equazcion  ( talk ) 06:56, 14 Apr 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honored -- I wrote most of this article including those lines. What is it they say about flattery? The site's since been hacked by muslim fundamentalists though. Oh well. PS. "Basic Training is designed to be highly intense and challenging" -- this was my original wording, someone else later added the "and individuals who have experienced it [etc]" part. The site just copied an earlier version of this article. Equazcion  ( talk ) 06:56, 14 Apr 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate links
It's not just a matter of forcing people to look an inch over; rather, since people don't necessarily already know which Army bases are located where, they have to skim through the rest of list to find the link they want, instead of being able to click it when they've already found the item that interests them.

Eg. List of bus routes in London has everything linked, even duplicates located just a few items apart (Hammersmith, for example, has a duplicate just two items down).

This is more intuitive for a list because a list is a reference, rather than a linear narrative like paragraphs are. You generally read a paragraph from beginning to end, so seeing the same word linked multiple times can be obtrusive. There's no reason to avoid that in lists, because they are more often used by skimming for a particular item and clicking its related links, rather than reading through. Equazcion ( talk ) 22:38, 28 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * Another article overlinking isn't justification for this one to do it. There ARE reasons not to do it and they are found in the MOS section addressing WP:OVERLINKing. Look at ones you are talking about anyway? For example, the Ft. Leonard Wood link would repeat on the very next line. The list is short (11 deep) and only two columns wide. If this were an extensive list and covering a lot of space, you might have something to point at, but needing to have over 25% of a mere 22 entries be repeats just doesn't wash.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you point out one of the reasons it should be avoided here? I don't see any on that style guide page that apply here. I see "it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value", but once again, in a list this wouldn't apply, since it's not a narrative where an important word needs to stand out. It's a reference. Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:59, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you point out a reason why the MOS should be ignored that isn't linked to your subjective personal opinion that it's "intuitive"? Again, a short list doesn't need 25%+ duplication. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we are told to ignore all rules in favor of reason. Again, in the particular application of a list, the reason we tend to avoid duplicate links doesn't actually apply. We're not trying to highlight important terms in a list so they stand out, but make it easy to use as a reference. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:17, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR is frequently misused and, I believe this would be another misuse. As the overlinking guide previously mentioned, creating a "sea of blue" doesn't help and it can create problems for readers with certain visual impairments. Further, expecting a reader to shift his gaze a mere line or two isn't exactly a lot to ask. Lastly, especially when the school itself has an article of its own, a redundant link to the base, which will be linked again in that article, seems doubly redundant. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked why we should ignore the MOS, rather than presenting an argument, so I felt the need to point out that the existence of a rule is not reason alone. That's exactly what IAR is there for. I see nothing there about a sea of blue or readers with visual impairments, and don't see either of those being an issue. Realizing full well that overlinking is usually frowned upon and veteran editors are used to steadfastly cleaning them up (I know because I do it often), in this particular application, again, it would actually be better. Lists often do this on Wikipedia, whether or not there's a rule that specifically states it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:57, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * As a veteran editor who also frequently cleans them up, I don't see any compelling reason to disregard the MOS. As for the "sea of blue" etc, those were both long-tme reasons in the MOS before it was trimmed down for brevity. They still hold true, even if not currently displayed. Again, there is not need to prove a reason to follow a rule, there is a need to show why an exception should be made. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave you reasons that an exception should be made. The reasons for the rule don't apply here, and a list is better served by ignoring it. A reference is better served by linking everything so that people don't need to go searching once they've already found what they're interested in -- Lists are references, and whereas we usually avoid duplicate links because we want to highlight important terms, that's not the case with a list. This is the general practice with lists, whether or not a rule is written. There is a need to show why an exception should be made to THAT, from where I'm standing. You haven't really explained your steadfast resistance to this, and I think you're just doing what you're used to rather than actually reconsidering your reasons they should apply here. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:13, 29 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you haven't really given a reason that extends beyond your personal opinion that it's "intuitive". Using some other list in an article as an example isn't really valid since a) it has nothing to do with this and b) the list in that case is extremely long compared to this short list. BTW, in that same list you used as an example, there are short tables where repeat links are not duplicated. This "types of service" table has 8 lines (much closer to the 11 we are talking about here). "Central area" is listed 3 times, but only linked once. The other lists are each a HUNDRED deep and 3 columns wide......hardly comparable to the list were are talking about in this article. The MOS says you don't repeat. IAR doesn't relieve you of having to come up with a real reason, not just "I like it that way". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember saying "I like it that way". In my last comment above I just presented rather extensive reasoning, which you've not argued against yet (though you do continue to repeat retorts against my earlier "intuitive" comment, which is easier, admittedly). Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:18, 30 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * The quotes, in context, are obviously not representing an actual quotation. Your reason is really a matter of you saying that you think it's "intuitive". Nothing more. Your so-called "extensive reasoning" have never really gone much past that. Further, I've explained my reasoning both with the MOS and by explaining the difference between this article and the article you used as an example. In the end, I've rejected your subjective opinion that it's "intuitive" as being a valid reason to ignore the MOS and you've just decided that the MOS can be ignored because...well, because you said so. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent) We're having an argument in which we're both expressing subjective opinions and we've both stated reasons. Claiming my reasoning is subjective while yours is objective is pretty arrogant, and classically fallacious when you're debating someone.


 * My reason is that duplicate links make navigation easier in any event, list or no list -- we just tend to avoid them in paragraphs because they serve double duty as highlighting important new terms that need to stand out, whereas in a list there is no reason to do this.


 * Your reason is that it causes "too much blue" (not a direct quote)? So it might bother people with... eye problems? What else was there? Oh right, "There's a rule and it agrees with me, so I get to say we default to it."


 * I've tried to respect your side of this, but haven't gotten that in return, so here we are. Which of the above sounds more like "I like it that way" to you? Equazcion  ( talk ) 13:42, 31 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually believe all that, don't you? My stance that the MOS should be followed isn't subjective. IAR does not agree with you and it doesn't even make sense in this case. And now you want to start personal attacks? Whatever sunshine. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing above was a personal attack. You pigeonholed my arguments as subjective nonsense and I responded in kind. If you'd care to get back to the facts I'd be fine with that. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:06, 31 Jan 2012 (UTC)
 * You responded in kind, but it's only me being "arrogant"? Once again, whatever sunshine. Your "reason" for ignoring the rules isn't persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither is yours. Would you like to declare that and call each other names some more, or discuss this further? Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:41, 2 Feb 2012 (UTC)
 * The guy who started name-calling wants to act like I started it? Whatever sunshine. The rule exists. Observing it needs no justification. To invoke IAR, you need a persuasive reason to ignore those rules. You have not done so. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR exists so that people can't merely point to a rule when someone thinks there's cause for deviating from it; we're supposed to then discuss what's best for the article, and MOS or no MOS, discuss why or why not those practices should hold in this instance.
 * Saying your opponent hasn't provided a persuasive argument is as good as saying "I'm right and you're wrong", which really doesn't help. I could say it right back to you, of course; we disagree, so we're each going to feel like the other's argument doesn't hold.
 * Duplicate links make sense -- they provide more places to click a word you're interested in. As stated in the MOS, we usually avoid them because we want to highlight important terms in a narrative; in a list this reason doesn't apply. The "sea of blue" and concern for visual impairments has nothing to do with it, and that's why those reasons do not appear in the MOS any longer (if there was anything to them they'd still be there).
 * What, then, is the reason you think duplicate links need to be avoided in this list?
 * PS. I never called you a name. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:08, 2 Feb 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they don't make sense. There is no reason in the world to link the same term directly beneath where it is already linked. If someone is too mentally deficient or lazy to move the cursor a fraction of an inch to touch the link that is already in their field of vision, then nothing we do will be enough. Arguing that we need to put the same link literally 1/8 of an inch away from another link to the exact same thing (or less) doesn't make sense. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, shake your digital fist at the sky and chant IAR, it won't make sense. It's not "intuitive", it's lazy, redundant and not needed. I'm done with this ridiculous back and forth with you. Enjoy the last word. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to continue in my attempt to keep this civilized.
 * It's not a matter of spacing. An inch or a foot, it's still easier to click a link when it's contained within the list item you were skimming for. And, just because we can say it's easy enough already for people to find links, there's no reason to refrain from making it even easier. Claiming that people should already have no trouble is no reason.
 * The fact is, the only reason stated in the MOS to avoid duplicate links doesn't apply here; and that definitely is a reason to ignore the rule. If there is another reason you can state (other than "it's already easy enough"), then please do.
 * You can't hold your version in place while refusing to discuss objections, so if you refuse to discuss this further then I'm going to edit it back to my version. If you want to keep it your way, you'll need to discuss until a consensus is reached. That's just how it works here.  Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:57, 3 Feb 2012 (UTC)

break

 * Who do you think you are to lecture me on "how things work"? The MOS is being observed. The onus of having a persuasive reason to ignore it is NOT on me. It is on you my arrogant friend. Continuing to cover the same bullshit over and over with you is not needed. We disagree. Nothing I say will convince you at this point. There clearly will be no consensus between us. If someone else wants to discuss it (and act like a grown-up about it), then I might discuss it with them. But there is NO need for me to continue listening to you say the same stupid things and proclaim that they "make sense" and then refute it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you wanted to describe the situation that way (the onus being on me to provide a persuasive argument), it's not your decision whether or not I've provided one. Consensus is the judge, and since it's just the two of us here, we're forced to discuss this until some semblance of consensus is reached between the two of us.
 * True that nothing you've said so far has convinced me, but that doesn't mean either one of us can throw up our hands and say we've had enough of this discussion, while expecting our version to stay in place.
 * I'm sorry if it seems as if I'm repeating myself, but there are points you haven't addressed yet. You haven't responded at all to the points in my last comment, and I'll repeat them again:
 * The MOS states its reason for avoiding duplicate links. It only states one reason, and that reason doesn't apply here. Other than "it's already easy enough", you haven't offered a justification for applying that practice here.
 * I've done everything I can to keep this civilized, but you're continuing to respond angrily. I don't see why. I'm just arguing my point, not saying anything about you personally. The name calling, "angry fist", and "get over yourself" comments really aren't necessary. If I'm continuing to do anything to offend you (other than arguing about what's best for the article), please know that it's unintentional, and tell me what it is so I can address it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:58, 3 Feb 2012 (UTC)
 * You've done everything you could to keep it civilized? That's a lie my friend. (yeah, I said lie.) What name did I call you? And where did I say "angry fist"? Telling you to get over yourself isn't an attack, it's good advice. I have responded to your points. No, we're not forced to discuss it. I will abide by the MOS until good reason is shown to ignore it. You don't get to have it your way just because you want to keep repeating yourself longer. This isn't "winning" by attrition. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've provided good reason. You obviously don't think so. That means it continues to be a disagreement with two equal sides, not a "You need to convince me, and since you haven't done so, I can say it stays my way. End of discussion." (effectively what you're saying)
 * I'm not asking that you bow to "my way", only that you discuss our argument thoughtfully and without the malice you seem to have developed for me (though that seems to be a rather futile request at this point). I see you told me to get over myself again (in your edit summary), and like many of your points, I could just as easily tell you the same thing, as many people having an argument could. I hope to keep my arguments productive, so I tend to stay away from that kind of acrimony. I guess you should continue with that if you think it will help.
 * Sorry it was "shake your digital fist":
 * Name you called me: "sunshine"  Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:23, 3 Feb 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've called you sunshine.......now that is "name-calling"? So now an inoffensive term is equal to calling you an asshole? Wow. I'm sure glad I didn't call you "buddy" or "pal". You'd probably be running to WQA by now. And look at you.....providing a diff to "prove" something I never disputed. I KNOW I said "digital fist" because a) I said it and b) because I can scroll up. But YOU got it wrong and when it gets pointed out that what you quoted was never said, you provide me with a diff (trying to act like I needed proof) to prove that I actually didn't say it. No kidding. Thanks for the news flash. BTW, that is called a metaphor, not an attack. Simply repeating that it is "intuitive" or "makes sense" is not going to change anything. Thanks for the laughs. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You know what? You've made significant controbuitions to this article. You and I agree on many things. I disagreed with something a while back from a editor and got tired of squabbling about it (the chow thing) so I left it. You came in and pretty much spotted it right off. I'm not trying to take away from what you've done here. But in this single issue, I completely disagree with you and I can't think of anything you are going to say to me that will make me see it as "making sense" or "intuitive". I simply see no reason to invoke IAR or to ignore the MOS. Yeah, I got sarcastic. No, I propbably shouldn't have. That really has no bearing on my position about the changes. I don't see the need. I don't see the reasoning as being persuasive and I do believe that, short of true consensus to the contrary, that the list should have redundant links. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, in all seriousness.
 * Forgetting about "intuitive" or "makes sense", the single justification stated in the rule doesn't apply here, so it would seem there is good reason to ignore the rule. If that doesn't make any sense to you, could you explain why? Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:00, 3 Feb 2012 (UTC)

Hydration / Memorization
These are both verifiable and relevant, not sure why anyone would remove them. Summary says they're "trivia"? I don't see how. It's no more trivial than several other items in the Overview section, and they all belong as well. Any article attempting to provide an overview of Basic Training should include these rather prominent aspects of it.  Equazcion  ( talk )  21:48, 2 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * First, let's address "verifiable". That's not a reason to include something. Hundreds of media outlets reported that Jessica Simpson tweeted a pic of herself showing her pregnant belly. It is extremely verifiable, but still trivial when it comes to her biography. Simply being verifiable isn't grounds for inclusion. Second, you brought up a good point in that there were other trivial items in the article. I agree and removed them. Third, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good reason to include something. Just because there was trivial crap, adding more trivia doesn't improve the article. Fourth, IF (and that's a big if) the information is somehow relevant, you over-did it. The info doesn't need separate sections. It should be incorporated into the existing article. Additionally, there is too much info. Simply saying that compelling soldiers to memorize things is an exercise in self-discipline is sufficient. There is no need to list a bunch of things they could be required to memorize. That's trivia. You belabored the whole water thing. There is no need to go into such detail. Relate that dehydration is an issue and that drill sgts monitor water intake to prevent it. Period. And for crying out loud, stop with the WP:OVERLINKING. Do you honestly believe that most readers don't know what "water" is or that they need linked to articles on beads, lapel or nylon? Common words and phrases should not be linked per the MOS. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Verifiable isn't a reason alone, true. Verifiable + relevant is. And just how relevant something is, is pretty subjective. You've been here too long to think any opinion other than yours counts on that front, despite this self-delusion that the above represent objective logic. I don't have the energy for your drama again. Enjoy ruling your little realm, drill sergeant.  Equazcion  ( talk )  15:32, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Your little personal attacks aren't the way to go here sunshine. It's pretty sad actually, considering. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have ownership issues here. It's not a personal attack. It's something that happens to long-time contributors at articles who are so used to reverting nonsense that they lose perspective. It's happened to me in the past, and just as I did, I think you need to take a step back. And I'll be reverting your last edit tonight, unless you can offer something other than an "I don't think it's relevant", to which I simply say "I think it is".  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:26, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article" is an exception to overlinking. No matter how obvious a word, if it's particularly relevant to the point it's generally linked. If we went by your definition of overlinking, the word water would never be linked, but it is -- from tens of thousands of articles.  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:32, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Guess you weren't done, huh? Your plan to edit war is the wrong path to take. There is a discussion, so discuss the issue, not me. I've discussed how the information could be added into the article in a proper context. Have you countered or discussed? No. All you've done is complain about me and declare you intention to edit war. (BTW, waiting til later to try to game the 3RR won't protect you from the violation). If anyone is exhibiting ownership and acting in bad faith, it's you my friend. Perhaps you are the one who should be stepping away and re-examining their conduct. And no, you are completely missing the reading of the overlinking guidelines. Linking the word water would not be particularly relevant to the article, nor would lapel, nylon etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "sunshine" remark, a repeat performance of our previous encounter, tells me your objective is more to spite me and/or protect your domain, so you'll be less than openminded. So yes I'll be reverting tonight, that is unless the discussion seems to actually be getting somewhere. As far as ownership on my part, until yesterday I hadn't edited this article in six months. I have no particular dog here. I don't think you're offering much in the way of discussion other than to call the information irrelevant -- when, ps, what you mean to say is "unimportant", as the information does assuredly relate to the topic. Even if the "trivia" label were to apply to the information, the trivia guideline was written to warn against removals like this. "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." If you want to work on putting the information into whatever you think is a more proper context, you're free to do so, but in the meantime you shouldn't be removing it.  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:56, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Sunshine is an inoffensive word. No more offensive than you talking about my "self-delusion" or "drama". Again, your delay in reverting won't absolve you from the edit war policy. Read it carefully, you can be edit-warring with less than the 3RR and you've already declared your intentions to do so. ("it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so") Your simple declaration in the middle of the discussion is plenty of evidence. Saying that I've done nothing but say it's irrelevant is a lie. I discussed putting it into existing prose, not separate sections, cutting it down to the more important parts etc. Just because you rejected it without so much as a reason doesn't mean it wasn't there. Simply saying I didn't do it won't make your lie true. Further, I do mean irrelevant. I don't believe it is relevant to the article, irrelevant. Nor did I cite the trivia guideline at the reason for removal. Nor does the trivia guideline protect the material. Read it carefully. BTW, I never made an ownership allegation toward you, so I don't know why you feel the need to proclaim innocence. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re. Your ownership allegation towards me: "If anyone is exhibiting ownership and acting in bad faith, it's you my friend."

"I've discussed how the information could be added into the article in a proper context."... This is essentially saying you think the info could be added if presented in a different way. The trivia guideline (whether or not you made reference to it) covers such a scenario, in saying you shouldn't be removing info just because it's presented poorly. Work on changing its presentation if you want, but in the interim a poor presentation is not justification for removal.  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:18, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * "Acting in bad faith" doesn't mean ownership. I don't know where you decided one meant the other. Your bad faith isn't about ownership, it's about your refusal to actually address the issue, the proposed alternatives and your declared intent to edit war. You are misreading and misapplying the trivia guideline and it won't shield you from the edit war policy. Discuss the issue, not me, and maybe some progress can be made. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I got "ownership" from your use of the word "ownership" in reference to me: "If anyone is exhibiting ownership and acting in bad faith, it's you my friend." 
 * You say the trivia guideline doesn't apply here, despite it saying that information is better presented poorly than not at all, while you make an argument that directly opposes this statement. How have I "misapplied" the guideline?  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:27, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I forgot to delete it when I saved the original edit. My error. And yes, you are still not applying the trivia guideline correctly. The guideline clearly says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." In other words, the suggestion is about STYLE, not content. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My argument for inclusion isn't based on any guideline. It's based on you saying that it can be included if presented in a better way. Your argument regards the style; you've essentially said the style is wrong and therefore you're justified in removing the content. The trivia guideline explicitly warns against that.  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:48, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I said: "Fourth, IF (and that's a big if) the information is somehow relevant, you over-did it." I never said it was solely presentation. I question the need to include it at all. But for civility sake, I presented the position that if (if, if, if) we did somehow decide that it was relevant, then the presentation would need to be different. See how that works.....actually considering that mine might not be the only opinion (missed that didn't you) and then discussing the alternatives if I am not completely correct (damn, shoots your theory in the foot). Meanwhile, you ignore that and jump ahead. I still don't see why it needs included in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I've discussed how the information could be added into the article in a proper context." I won't split hairs over what this sentence means. Anyway: Anyone looking to gain insight into life in basic training would be remiss to skip information on memorization and hydration. There are several documents' worth of text that recruits are expected to memorize verbatim, and a lot of time is spend reciting it. Recruits need to drink (at minimum) half a quart of water every hour throughout the day -- to someone unfamiliar with the Army or Basic, that's major. These each weight heavily on life in Basic as much as Fire Guard and Battle Buddies do, and each of these is fine as its own section as far as I'm concerned. I'm open to other suggestions though. How would you rather these be presented?
 * Along with meals and sundays, they might all work in a sort of "daily life" section, but the Overview section is essentially that already. We could rename it and get rid of the sub-headings. Xmas exodus and split training could go under a combined heading, something about scheduling options.  Equazcion  ( talk )  20:35, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Observation: Greetings, I just stumbled onto this article and thought it would be worthwhile for me to voice out my opinion on this - An overview is supposed to be just an overview, while there are too many subheadings at present, those paragraphs recently removed do however seem to be an integral aspect of training. That said, the overview is way too detailed, and at its present form, the average reader is not going to want to read it at all. (I certainly wasn't able to get past the 3rd paragraph). I believe the way forward would be to condense "Hydration" and "Memorization" as well as similar sections together, possibly under a new heading called "Training conditions" or something similar. I hope this helps a little, please dont take editing too seriously guys. -A1candidate (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't think anyone ever looked at this talk page. I agree (obviously, based on what I said above) that there needs to be someplace to put those aspects that encompass training and don't fit the chronological sort of structure that makes up the article's brunt. "Conditions" sounds sort of like quality-of-life to me, which probably wouldn't include something like memorization. Though I'm not sure I have any better suggestions. "General aspects"? I don't know.  Equazcion  ( talk )  22:16, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should leave "Overview" as the title but get rid of the sub-headers and condense everything into more flowing paragraphs, maybe just a sentence or two for each of the current sections. That would make it more of an "overview", I think. Equazcion  ( talk )  22:19, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess when I suggested discussing how some things could be presented in a logical, non-trivial way, it wasn't a good idea. Oh well, at least you're finally thinking about the issue. Moving on......if you look, A1Candidate has pretty much said we both have some points, so let's see where that is. (And let's leave the trivia guideline out of this because it applies to trivia sections and lists, not to content) Presentation does have a bearing here. For example, say I were writing a section of an article on the University of Texas and got to the section about admissions. If I started creating a series of very short, fairly unimportant sections about each step (1) gather your financial info 2) print the application 3) fill out the application etc) then it would look like a list of trivial factoids. Now, let's say we re-write thee section to a prose format, but still overkill with trivia, like talking about how the application could be filled out by computer or by hand for those without computer access and that handwritten applications need to be in black ink. Trivia. Same applies here. It could be mentioned in a brief form (ie "To prevent dehydration, drill sgts closely monitor trainee water intake") That let's us know that dehydration may be a concern and that steps are in place to help prevent it. that's sufficient and perhaps useful. Telling us what the Ogden cord (which is nothing more than the pace counter we've used for decades) is made out of and where it gets pinned is....trivia. Again, just because we know something and it is printed somewhere doesn't make it relevant or relieve it from being trivia. Much of the (often unsourced) stuff that was removed also fits that bill. While I'm not advocating OR here, I would offer some common sense. It appears you've never been through basic training, so let me ask you to think about a conversation you might have had with a vet. Did they tell you a story about being on fire guard and hearing guys say funny things in their sleep (which happens a lot during basic because of the stress and sleep deficit) or do they talk about memorizing ranks? Do they talk about bayonet training or do they talk about memorizing the battalion chain of command? Victory Tower or memorizing? Do you know why you don't hear a lot of memorization stories? Because it's trivial, like breaking a boot lace. Again, I know OR isn't a valid reason for inclusion or exclusion so please don't try to lecture me on it and needlessly wikilink some policies and guidelines. I offer it as an appeal to common sense, not a policy justification. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "It appears you've never been through basic training..." Firstly, don't be so sure about that. Vets don't talk about memorization because they've been through, like, you know, wars and stuff, since having to do that. This isn't an article about a soldier's career in totality, for which the memorization that one had been required to go through in the very beginning would be a lot more trivial a thing to discuss. This is about Basic Training, the defining aspect of which is the major change from civilian demands to military ones, which are laid on in excess during Basic in order to break old habits. Looking back, it may seem trivial to talk about things like having to memorize lots of stuff and drink lots of water when you've since killed people, but to a civilian who wants to know about Basic Training and the major life change it represents, they are as important -- if not more so, because they're not as obvious or well-known in popular culture. Everyone knows about the guns and the running, in contrast.  Equazcion  ( talk )  18:51, 5 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were sure about it, I wouldn't have said APPEARS, would I? But perhaps you'd like to state, clearly, if you have or not. Regardless, you typed all that, gave a bunch of theories and never actually addressed the issue of if it really needs presented and if so, in what manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I said it's as important if not more so, so yes I think it needs to be presented. In my response to A1candidate I suggested restoring and condensing the Overview content into narrative paragraphs without the subheadings, to make it into an actual overview instead of a list of disparate facts.  Equazcion  ( talk )  23:42, 5 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you said you think it's important, but you've still not really said why. The closest thing I've heard to an answer was because you had a source. As for your sudden epiphany that re-writing it into an overview and not a list of separate facts......well, I wish I had suggested that. Oh wait.... I DID suggest incorporating some of the stuff into the article and not as separate sections. But you were so damn busy bitching complaining about me that you ignored it. Now, if you're done with all your personality silliness, maybe we can make some progress. Or you can drag this right back to making it about stuff that won't improve the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

break 1
I said they're important because "a civilian who wants to know about Basic Training and the major life change it represents" would see it as just "as important -- if not more so" than the physical training, "because they're not as obvious or well-known in popular culture." Having to drink a half to one-and-a-half quarts of water every hour throughout the day is a major change from civilian life, as is having to suddenly memorize such a large volume of text for recitation. Basic Training is about the major change from civilian life, that the Army lays on in excess during Basic in order to drive it in and condition, create a new frame of reference and a new mental reflex. These aspects are as much a part of that as any of the other training aspects. I'm not seeing any particular reason to exclude them, other than you saying you don't think they're as memorable (to "vets"?).  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:16, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Having to drink water isn't "major life change". Any good football coach is forcing players to drink water during two-a-days in the summer. This isn't unique to basic training, nor did it start wioth them. It's standard heat injury prevention that is in every Red Cross first aid book. And memorizing things? Take a chem class and you'll be memorizing the periodic tables, history has you memorizing dates and anatomy has you memorizing bones. Fact is, memorization is probably common to tons of classes, jobs and other activities in life. Again, not that unique. You claim they aren't that well know and maybe there is a reason for it....because it's trivial. In fact, that could be evidence of the trivial nature. In the end, I don't see any particular reason to include them, other than you saying they are important (to "non-vets"?). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The particular volume of water is of course the point, and none but a relatively small segment of the population would be familiar with it from that level of sports training. Chemistry classes don't require verbatim recitation of pages from memory. The argument that if something isn't well-known it's evidence that it isn't worth including... well, much of Wikipedia is made up of corrected misconceptions and little-known facts that other more official information sources neglect, which I think is one of its strengths. The "non-vet" perspective is probably more important here to an article on Basic Training, wouldn't you say? It's the non-vets who are going to want information about Basic. The fact that a vet thinks these things aren't important comes as no particular surprise, but we're writing this for those who haven't had the firsthand experience, not those who have, and the inexperienced will not know about these aspects unless we mention them. There's no reason to think they would.  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:51, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * None but a small segment? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that tens of thousands of people from grade school to pro do summer training camp for football, you're completely ignoring the other sports and....oh yeah, people who have common sense from living in hot climates or the millions who've taken first aid classes. Chemistry classes don't require pages of memorizing? Um, neither does the Army. The chain of command isn't that long. 9 enlisted ranks and 10 officer ranks. Soldiers creed is about 13 sentences. Having done both basic training and a chem class, I am completely comfortable with saying chem required more, and more difficult, memorization. While you like to discount experience (and I am not using it as a source, so don't lecture me about OR), you fail to see the obvious. I was a civilian, then a soldier. I made that transition and know first-hand the major life change that happens. Of all the significant ones, drinking water and memorizing a few things, were that major. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You again shouldn't argue from the implication that you're talking to someone who hasn't experienced both chem classes and basic training. But anyway, their being "not that major" to you shouldn't factor into the decision for inclusion. You don't think they're important, I get that. But to someone who isn't at all familiar with them, they are -- and yes, there are plenty of people who have never trained in sports. You're used to these things, and as such, you should be vigilante, when writing an article that has the inexperienced as its likely audience, to nevertheless include such things. The hardest thing for a pro to do is to write material for beginners. It's not reasonable to assume that everyone who hasn't been through military training would've at least been through sports training and therefore we can leave this out...  Equazcion  ( talk )  20:27, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? You haven't gone though Army basic training, have you? You're pretended long enough, haven't you? And no, the hardest thing for a pro to do isn't to write for the beginner. I do it all the time while creating lesson plans and cirriculum for adult learners. It's actually quite simple if you know what you're doing. I'm sorry you struggle with that. Again, you've missed what I said. Aside from sports (and not at a high level), and the military training (which is hundreds of thousands of people a year), there are all the people with basic first aid, common sense or have bothered to read a book. Since you're so worried about the uninformed, which sounds more likely to you: someone wants to know about preventing heat injuries so they go to a) the article on Army basic training or b) the article on heat injuries or c) WebMD. If your answer is A.......well, then there is little we can do for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The need to drink a half to 1.5 quarts of water an hour, the requirement to do so and make a record of each quart drank, along with the risk of disciplinary action otherwise, has nothing to do with general education, first aid knowledge, nor common sense. You honestly think the average individual is generally "informed" regarding those requirements? Sure, some of it will be obvious to those who've been through other forms of physical training, but even to those people, the aforementioned aspects unique to the military won't be known. We can't assume either of the reader.  Equazcion  ( talk )  22:25, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * See, I think the amount range is trivial. Again, I said inserting something like "Drill sgts. monitor water intake to prevent dehydration" or "To prevent heat injuries, drill sgts regularly monitor trainee intake". That's it. This whole thing about specific amounts, the silliness about the construction of the cord and where it gets pinned is trivial. And yes, it is common sense for most people and first aid training. Aside from not having completed basic training, you apparently haven't completed a reputable first aid course. If you did take a course, you need a refresher, so please check with your local Red Cross office. Your whole reasoning here is that 'someone might want to know it'. Tens of thousands of people wanted to know about Jessica Simpson tweeting a pic of her stomach last week, but it's still trivia that doesn't belong in her bio. We can and should make that assumption. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a dumping ground for useless trivia and unmanageable. Further, we have editors that come in and try to make separate sections for every sentence of said trivia, highlighting the fact that the article is getting bloated with trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could blame all the readers whose first aid training isn't up-to-date and nevertheless write the article for those who've kept current, but, no, I don't think that's reasonable. I'd be open to a change in presentation from the separate sections to condensed paragraphs, as long as the information in general is restored, as "A1candidate" agreed above. Shall we get started on that?  Equazcion  ( talk )  16:42, 8 Jan 2013 (UTC)
 * We could also resolve to only use words of two syllables or less too, but that doesn't really seem that reasonable either. A1candidate didn't say that everything needs restored.....and that's been the issue. I've asked SEVERAL times now, since the very beginning, about addressing how it could be added in, using streamlined wording. Now, after how many hundred words, you want to "get started". You're going to have to excuse me if I don't just throw a party because you FINALLY decided to try to be productive. How about this: You write a suggested replacement and we'll discuss it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hat???
Drill sergeants are the instructors that are responsible for most of the training that takes place in Basic Training. They accompany recruits throughout the training process, instructing and correcting them in everything from firing weapons to the correct way to address a superior, and are also largely responsible for the safety of recruits. They are recognizable by their distinctive headgear, often called "Smokey the Bear" hats, as they resemble that character's round park ranger-style hat.

Dude, they are correctly referred to as campaign hats. At best, smokey-the-bear is slang; at worst, an insult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_hatjohncheverly 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

AIT or MOS training is NOT part of Basic Training
"Basic" or Initial Entry Training is a completely separate matter from Advanced Individual Training. Even those MOSs that use the One Station Unit Training (OSUT) plan make a clear distinction between basic training and MOS training.

honorable discharge
Why does my Honorable Discharge have the date of basic training instead of my date of separation that was 3 years later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.48.25 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Factual challenge.
The lede claims that "the challenge comes as much from the difficulty of physical training as it does from the required quick psychological adjustment ...". This sounds like its copied directly from Army PR material. It requires an authoratiative reference citation (which would show drop-outs are equally likely to be due to NON-PHYSICAL factors (that is, many drop-outs are easily passing the physical challenges) as to failed Physical Tests. I doubt it is true. Secondly the lede claims:"...it introduces...a strict daily schedule... for which most civilians are not immediately ready." Again, the same objections a) lifted from PR b) requires authoratative reference. And again, I doubt it is true (unless, when it refers to "civilians", it means 18-22 year old children..er sorry "young adults" and if so it should say so.). The lede also seems to confuse IET and AIT. There is nothing "quick" about spending a year 'adjusting' in an AIT, for example. (And the implication that the physical demands continue after IET is just not true, in terms of intensity - which is what is being discussed.) Plus, who knows what "immediately ready" means? compared to being ready "some day"?? Sound without meaning216.96.76.79 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would it say "18-22 year old children..er sorry "young adults" when the Army accepts enlistment well past that age? To put that in the lead would be to put false information in it. If you think those two lines are lifted from another publication, please provide the publication and we can do a comparison to it. Just saying that it sounds too well written isn't reason to remove it. It didn't take me long (read that a quick Google search) to find this article in the first few results stating that "You would be surprised, but many people are physically unprepared for life in the military when they arrive.". Imagine what would happen if you researched it more. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on United States Army Basic Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225011130/http://www.jackson.army.mil:80/BCT/What_to_Expect.htm to http://www.jackson.army.mil/BCT/What_to_Expect.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603162816/http://www-rucker.army.mil:80/1AB/1AB.htm to http://www-rucker.army.mil/1AB/1AB.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114051626/https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/toc/school.htm to https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/toc/school.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on United States Army Basic Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070704224734/http://www.goarmy.com:80/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile= to http://www.goarmy.com/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204013428/http://www.wood.army.mil:80/usamps/14thMPBde/OSUT_787th.htm to http://www.wood.army.mil/usamps/14thMPBde/OSUT_787th.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205104817/http://www.usachcs.army.mil:80/TNGDIR/ENLISTEDTNG/AIT1.HTM to http://www.usachcs.army.mil/TNGDIR/ENLISTEDTNG/AIT1.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221010739/http://sill-www.army.mil:80/USAFAS/index.htm to http://sill-www.army.mil/USAFAS/index.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States Army Basic Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111131219/https://www.benning.army.mil/192d/content/TrainingOverview/index.htm to https://www.benning.army.mil/192d/content/TrainingOverview/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Locations
Under the Locations section, the article says there are 4 basic training locations and cites a 2010 article. I found a 2020 article from MilitaryOneSource that says there are 5, including Fort Knox. Can anyone confirm? Army Basic Training: What to Expect Canute (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I just questioned my Alexa, and it says that according to a site called Destination360.com, yeah, your MilitaryOneSource is correct. It is a training base. However, I don't know the training units that are over there, or even what other training programs it provides. Faith15 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RECBN Commander?
One question. I'm looking at this article, and I realize that it doesn't say anything about the NCO rank that usually handles the reception battalion phase. Like, is it a corporal, a specialist, what? Faith15 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Confliction RECBN Timelines
So in the section about the Reception Battalion (RECBN) period, it says it takes 4 to 10 days. However, in the actual Basic Combat Training (BCT) chapter, it says it takes 3 to 5 days. Which one is correct? Faith15 19:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)