Talk:United States Marine Corps/Archive 4

MILTERMS
MOS:MILTERMS states
 * Terms, such as soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman, are to be written in the lower case when referencing to an individual or a group of individuals. This guidance does not apply when the term is used as a rank (see above in such a case) but rather, when applied to identify the service to which the individual|s belong.
 * Correct: the soldiers landed on the beach.
 * Incorrect: John Doe is a Marine (would be correct with lowercase marine)

Basically that means marine, when referring to an individual marine or group of marines is lowercase. i.e. U.S. marines when referring to a group of American marines and U.S. Marines when referring to the service as a whole. Garuda28 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point. However, while in the United States, "Marine " is not a "rank" per se, as it is in the British Royal Marines, for example, it is indeed a proper "earned" title as it were. It is only officially recognized for an individual upon completion of initial entry Marine Corps training. Therefore, just as "Green Beret" or "Ranger" are capitalized, I believe that "Marine" should be as well. I believe that most modern manuals of style recognize this distinction for members of the U.S. Marine Corps.CobraDragoon (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I also understand what your saying. I suggest you go to the MOS talk and try to argue your point. One of the big reasons this change was made was to unify capitalization for all service designators, so I’ll support you if it applies to all service titles the same. I think holding off on changes until your debate there is finished is a good idea. Garuda28 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * - There is (was?) a whole debate about this very issue at MOS:Capital Letters#. Some guys are on a massive decapitalization campaign, you should check it out. - the WOLF  child  01:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Global casualties/deaths
Being a militar group. Global casualties section would be welcome to account most deadly battles and where are intervention where more marine died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.176.121 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of untenable reference
I've again removed the use of usmarinesbirthplace.com as a reference in this article. The site is self-published and anonymous, and isn't a viable reference for an article on Wikipedia. A better source for the claim made in the article should be found, so I've removed the reference and marked the passage with a fact tag. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The first time you stated it was a broken template and added tag without a clear reason. But you gave fair reasons the 2nd time, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture Caption: Re William Eaton
I completely agree with your truncated caption; I added in "former captain, U.S. Army" as an "offering" to whomever/those who, originally put in/support(ed) the caption that stated Eaton was an "Army officer" at the time of the expedition. An unnecessary, and quite incorrect, tidbit anyway, that I suspect was included with the intent of not giving proper credit to USMC 1st Lt. Presly O'Bannon (who was not even originally mentioned in the caption) as the commanding officer of the Marine detachment that served as the U.S. contingent, and nucleus, of the multi-national force involved. Perhaps, as well as an attempt to insert (if not completely usurp Marine Corps leadership in this event), if even very obtusely, "Army" participation (if not a claim of outright "command") in one of the most signal events in the early history and battle lore of the Marine Corps.

I have noticed previously in Wikipedia (as well as other venues) this same phenomenon in regards to the "Harper's Ferry" incident, in which oftentimes, writers fail to give credit proper credit to USMC 1st Lt. Israel Greene as the commanding officer of the Marine company which provided the assault troops that retook the arsenal and captured John Brown. Writers are very quick to state the Robert E. Lee (Lt. Col., U.S. Army) was overall in command of the expedition, and even, almost just as quickly, credit Army 1st Lt. J.E.B. Stuart as being present. Some writers even go so far as to assert that Stuart was Lee's "second-in-command" and actually commanded the Marines in the assault! (This, even though Stuart was several years junior in date of rank to Greene.) Actually, of course, Stuart was an "aide" (actually an "adjutant," as only general officers rate "aides-de-camp," but field grade officers often had/have "adjutants" as junior officer executive assistants). Anyway, while Lee at Harper's Ferry (just as was Eaton at Tripoli) was in overall command of the expedition, it was Greene and O'Bannon, who were the commanding officers of the Marine units at Harper's Ferry and Tripoli, respectively. (Also, while not in the "chain of command," just as Stuart was not, there was also a Marine Corps major, the paymaster of the Marine Corps, present at Harper's Ferry, sent by the Commandant as a "senior officer advisor" to 1st Lt. Greene. This fact, that technically, Stuart was not even the third ranking officer present, much less "second in command," over a company of Marines, no less, is never mentioned.

There are many, for some reason, Marine Corps detractors about who seem to delight in any perceived opportunity to denigrate, dismiss, belittle, or otherwise make light of, U.S. Marine Corps history, status, and accomplishments. I know not whether that intent was the impetus for the former caption, but regardless it was incorrect and incomplete.

In any event, the present caption, as you have edited it, stands correct and properly represents the command relationship (as well as proper services and ranks) of the officers concerned. Thank you.CobraDragoon (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

ACMC
Currently, Glenn M. Walters' picture is used for the ACMC in the leadership section. However, he is retired and Gary L. Thomas is current ACMC as of the 23rd of February. Check https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/acmc/. I'd do it myself, but I'm still learning the basics of editing. Thank you, and good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueRavin (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:United States Marine Corps for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:United States Marine Corps is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:United States Marine Corps until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification of MOS debate at United States Space Force
Please be advised there is currently a debate on WP:MOS at Talk:United States Space Force that could affect the article pages of other U.S. Armed Forces branch pages.Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2018-10-31 15 25 21 The west side of the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington County, Virginia.jpg

Marine Corps casualties section
I’m unclear on this, but what are we gaining from this section? Garuda28 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know either. Given that the same user added similar information to History of the United States Marine Corps, it's redundant here anyway. User had been warned for 3RR, but reverted anyway. BilCat (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct 0-3 USMC (& USN, USCG) Rank insignia
I added a correct image for the USMC/ USN/ USCG 0-3 rank insignia and it keep being reverted by those who just use the excuse that the previous one (the US Army & US Air Force) has always been in use. If anyone besides myself, can help me make my point to those who are -not- knowledgeable to the US military rank insignias,(but keep reverting it back because they can), that the one I updated is the correct one. Even the shoulder boards that is in the article page shows the correct one.

USMC / USN/ USCG

USA / USAF/ USSP


 * The image you keep trying to swap-in you uploaded yourself, and you've added no reliable sources to support you changes, while engaging in a slow edit war. Here is an example of a reliable source. Please have a look at it, specifically the images of USMC Captains bars and Army Captains bars. Thank you - wolf  06:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok since youre clearly not in the military and wouldnt know that the DoD typically uses Army rank insignia since they are the senior most branch, here are examples.  Please have a look at ACTUAL Marines in uniform, specifically their rank insignias. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonorza (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa, you need to cool your jets son. Whether I am, or was, in the military in none of your business. That said, I have already shared with previously that I did in fact serve. But this isn't the military, this is Wikipedia, where sourcing and consensus determine content, not ranting and personal opinions. Those two links you just added are likely of little use. You need to provide images, that themselves are reliably supported, and fit in with the other rank images already in use. Then you need to establish a consensus to support your proposed changes. And you need to do without the ad hominem attacks. You could be a full Admiral, it still gives you no more weight here than anyone else. (In fact, being military could even be a WP:COI). Anyways, do not make anymore comments about people's personal business. Focus on edits, not editors. - wolf  08:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, well since you want to be the end all for this page, what 'image' that can reliably supported besides the ones already shown to support that fact that I provided? (An actual service members wearing said insignia). The military rank insignias, though similar in appearance, are not universal in the DoD, and to try to say otherwise is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonorza (talk • contribs) 04:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, well since you want to be the end all for this page". That's what I'm talking about right there, that kind of needless, personal jab. I Haven't made any personal comments about you, why don't you try to do the same. As for the pics you added, anyone can get some ACUs from a surplus shop, stick on insignia they got from eBay and take a photo of themselves. I'm not saying that you did that, but it's the reason WP has a sourcing policy. You need to familiarize yourself with that. You also need to understand how consensus works and why we have that guideline as well. Otherwise, continuing with this is just a waste of time. - wolf  16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on this document published by the US Navy in 2018 on page 21, the insignia they provide matches the USA and USAF insignia. --Cdjp1 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Isn't it ultimately down to the machinery used by whichever uniform contractor manufactures the badges? I remember seeing both styles in my time in both the Navy and Army. Seems like a pretty petty thing to go to war over. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Extremism in the ranks
Recent edits regarding including some history of white supremacy in the traditions and culture section. Source is questionable per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias

Citing some incidence in the past of certain beliefs and actions hardly makes it tradition or part of the culture of the organization especially when the organization itself has repeatedly stated that is not the case.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824370942/marine-corps-aims-to-tackle-evolving-face-of-white-supremacy

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/marines-corps-root-out-racism/

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2020/0303/U.S.-Marines-lead-charge-in-rooting-out-racism-in-military-ranks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.246.246 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All three of those sources seem to be supporting the fact that historically the Marine Corps has had a major issue with this, did you read them? Your argument that because the Marine Corps has taken action on these issues the issues never existed in the first place is most peculiar, can you expand on it? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP editor that the content about extremism/white supremacy doesn't belong under "7.2	Unofficial traditions and customs". But I do think there's been sufficient coverage of the problem for it to be included in the article. I'd suggest its own subsection under "Culture". Schazjmd   (talk)  18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to fit it into the framework we already had and I didn’t want to make it seem like an officially endorsed part of the corps, a separate subsection is definitely doable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some re-wording is needed so as not to appear to be painting the entire Corps with the same brush. Would also suggest moving to a new "Controversies" subsection under culture. (imho) -  wolf  05:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis
The article states that this was adopted as the Marine motto in 1883, at the suggestion of the then-Commandant. But why? What led up to this, why then, and why that motto? Some detail would improve the article.

The article does state that about a third of the Corps left in 1861 and fought against the United States. Was there any contemporary discussion of this when the Corps’ new motto was announced? Again, more detail needed. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find some sources and add that information, then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2018-10-31 15 25 21 The west side of the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington County, Virginia.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2018-10-31 15 25 21 The west side of the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington County, Virginia.jpg

please undo revert
There are several mentions of the marine corps in the United States war crimes page I linked to in the see also section. It is appropriate to link to it from here. aniola (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You added the link to the main US Armed Forces page, which seems appropriate, but then adding it to every service article as well seems like overkill. I agree with the reverts. - w o lf  01:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:SEEALSO, "See also" sections are for "related or comparable articles," but not for topics that are tangential in ways that you'd expect to see thousands of potential links that could have one tangential connection or another. For example, the article on the Russian Armed Forces does not contain a link to the article Russian war crimes, even though the latter article has a link to the former in the first sentence of its lead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)