Talk:G.I.

Origin of term

The origin of the use of "G.I." for US servicemembers does not trace back to the phrase "government issue". It actually traces back to "galvanized iron", the initials of which were stamped on trash cans used up through WWII. The phrase moved to a verb as in "to G.I. the barracks" meaning to clean it thoroughly prior to an inspection. From there, it migrated back to an adjective applied to servicemen.

The initials have been mistaken for government issue. This can be demonstrated as a mistake because no other equipment was stamped or marked G.I. This has been extensively discussed and sourced over at the Wiktionary definition of G.I.

As far as I know, the second paragraph of this page is correct. -- Rossami (talk) 17:58 & :59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ich glaub's einfach nicht

Das ist doch unverschämt, dass dort die alten Gis als tin can waste geführt werden - wer denkt sich denn sowas aus? Und wir zitieren das auch noch als Referenz - unglaublich,...meine ich

Belitrix (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The etymology of words is a fascinating topic.
Unglaublich? Nein, ich kann es glauben. Diese Erklärung ist dumm genug, wahr zu sein.
Varlaam (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC) (Kanada)

General Infantry?

From all I've ever heard, GI stands for general infantry.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.237.144 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2006

I'm pretty sure I wasn't playing with Government-Issue-Joe Action Figures as a child.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.250.73 (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2006

---

No, but I bet you didn't play with General-Infantry-Joes either. You DID play with G.I. Joes, though, and that stands approximately for your everyday soldier of the era, be him Government Issued or just General Infantry. Dabizi — Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 21 September 2006

--- I always thought G.I. meant Ground Infantry. You know, as opposed to SEAman and AIRmen. Funny to know that it isn't so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.83.253 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Airmen? You mean aviators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Choco Rain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Aviators are the men and women who actually FLY and Guide the aircraft", i.e. pilots and navigators. "Airmen", whether they are enlisted men or officers, include aerial gunners, flight engineers, bombardiers, radio and radar operators, loadmasters, electronics countermeasures operators, and those men in cargo planes who just supply the muscle for handling the cargo. Also, the boom operators in aerial tankers are airmen. Why is it that you do not know the difference between actual aviators and those who are/were support personell on board aircraft. Even in the film Top Gun, the pilots and the weapons system / radar officers were refered to as "Naval Aviators". Like I mentioned before, gunners, etc., are not aviators, but they are airmen.98.81.2.120 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Slang?

'In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, government issue still holds its original meaning as clothing, rations, weapons, furniture, office supplies and other equipment provided as standard to military personnel or civil servants. It may also be used as derogative slang, as in "I have a government issue wristwatch", meaning that there is nothing remarkable about the wristwatch.'

There is simply no evidence of this phrase being used as slang in the UK. While it may be used in the Armed forces to suggest an item is overtly generic, this does not amount to UK slang.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.249.121 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2006

   FWIW, the single-quoted passage seems to arise from the 15:41, 15 December 2005 edit of a registered editor.
--Jerzy•t 17:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Zenith?

I didn't think that zenith was very good word choice so i changed it to apex. My main reason being that its not a very known word for what is probably such a popular article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.73.147 (talk) 22:56:25 & :47, 17 January 2009

Only a Few Sentences & 100's of Contributions

Why does this tiny meaningless article have so many edits listed in its "history?" It is absolutely amazing for something that only consists of a few sentences... Does that suggest something about the military? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people think they know that G.I. stands for "government issue" (which is incorrect) so there has been a lot of reverting going on. --Sus scrofa (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   A single-contrib IP colleague made (months after the preceding 2009 contribs, but prior to the 2010 response to them which follows on this page) a roughly 50-word talk contribution. Like many more experienced contributors, they left us to puzzle out their choice of location... (esp'ly so in light of failing to indent it: single-indent would have strongly suggested a response to the first contrib of the section, and double-indent, by the same token, a response to the 2nd contrib). The content suggests it is an off-topic response to the mention, above in this talk section, of the "G-for-government, I-for-issue" theory.
   I'm taking the liberty (or extending the courtesy) of starting a new section for that changed topic, as a sub-section of the current section of this talk page.
--Jerzy•t 03:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In part, yes. In larger part, this page will always remain trivial because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this page has never managed to identify any non-lexical content that goes beyond the bare bones that are already better presented in Wiktionary. For a long time, this page (or its predecessors - it's been moved several times) was a soft-redirect to the Wiktionary definition. Then some folks added legitimate disambiguation listings. Then the dictionary definition got added back and all attempts to revert were rather viciously attacked. Given the massive confusion about WP:WINAD, however, I see little hope of resolution. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

General-issue soldiers? Continuing a somewhat cryptically submitted, apparently off-topic response to the above "Only a Few Sentences ..." discussion

According to [article]: "No wonder American combat troops in those years started calling themselves "G.I. Joe." Reporters passed the term back home as a charming bit of sentimentality; they didn't know, or chose to ignore, that it was really a despairing joke - "G.I." for "general issue," a mass-produced unit of basic military hardware." It's quite obvious, and could be included? --77.17.110.82 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

   Even much more experienced editors shoot themselves in the foot (you should excuse the expression) like that; the colleague who simply shoved the off-topic material (off-topic to this section, tho not IMO to this talk page) further down in the section was, IMO entirely reasonably, getting on with the work at hand.
   Still, for my own satisfaction (and not to suggest anyone should already have done so), and perhaps not entirely in vain, i now restate, IMO more clearly, what the IP (77.17....) probably had in mind:

   In the (enclosing) section above, a colleague rejected the "G-for-government, I-for-issue" theory. This link [unlike the preceding ip editor's link to an error-msg] goes straight to a live Web-page: a long (for me, about 60 screens) first-person essay "Losing the War". (The 'graph the IP quotes above can be quickly found, in its context, by searching for "charming bit" within the external-link page; it lies near the middle of the essay.)

   I offer no opinion about the proposed "G-for-general, I-for-issue" theory, except that the essay is neither proof of it, nor evidence in favor of it, even if it turns out to be a lead toward finding such evidence.
   I do indulge myself by making the observation that every war is one hell of a big place (WWII especially so), and that even being there is insufficient to make anything but death and taxes "obvious". OTOH, IMO, it's credible and makes it seem worthwhile to seek reliable sources that agree.
--Jerzy•t 03:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Officers too?

I think a GI has to be an enlisted man, a long-suffering Willie and Joe-type enlisted man.
Can an officer be a GI?
Varlaam (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The term dates from WW II. The US Army has always been among the most egalitarian in the world and was even more so during that period. The distinction between an enlisted man and a junior officer was not all that great. So, yes, officers were sometimes lumped in as "G.I.s". Rossami (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good, there's my answer.

But let's not overstate the egalitarianism of the segregated US forces.

It was the Pennsylvania Guard's cosy nepotistic old boys network that made them a target for attack in 1944, eh.

Varlaam (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Most" is still a relative term. And you are right that there are always exceptions. Rossami (talk)

"Pennsylvania guards cozy nepotistic old boys network"  what does that mean?  I'm from PA so I'm curious to know. Solri89 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Troop

When did the term "troop" become acceptable to refer to an individual soldier? I think it was during Desert Storm that I became aware of, and confused by the term. A troop should refer to a unit of GI's. Flight Risk (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a common bit of slang or short form for "trooper". Not in any dictionary as such. Since we don't have WP:RS (that I can find with my very short search), we should not add it to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to remember tents being called GI as well.

As in GI Big/ GI Little. I've always assumed that meant government issue. Or was that just slang also? Solri89 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You're thinking of "GP Large" Medium and Small. GP being "General Purpose". See http://www.armytents.com/index.html for more. – S. Rich (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh he'll you're right! It's been a few decades. Thank you my friend! Solri89 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidence?

If the story of the "G.I" waste can or even various "G.I."-marked equipment is true, then it should be easy to prove it with historical photos or photos of war gear from that era.
It seems to me that everybody believes this story, because somebody else wrote it. A classic urban myth? I don't buy it until I see evidence. Links to dictionaries don't prove anything.--Teakhoken213.150.228.38 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved buidhe 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

G.I. (military) → G.I. – At least when spelled with the period after each letter, this seems to be the primary topic for this term. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS it should be moved to the non-disambiguated name. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per SMALLDETAILS. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – SMALLDETAILS never says one should distinguish topics by small details. Rather, I think it discourages this. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing-- the ordinary American soldier

With five million of articles, it's amazing how deeply Wikipedia covers historical topics, especially those involved military themes. I was caught by surprise today and noticed that the history of soldiers in World War II is superficial. American soldiers are briefly noted in a few places such as this article, Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 and Military history of African Americans. I think we need a new article on the American soldier in World War II so I would like to get started on it. I would like to begin by building up a bibliography. Does anyone have comments or suggestions? Rjensen (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You are building a bibliography on a topic without a main article? That is dangerous with so many deletion-happy editors around. Anyway, is there a book on the social background of these soldiers? Dimadick (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

i think we all have an idea of the GIs based on the many MANY movies on the topic--which I think gave 95% of their attention to the 5% or fewer who were in hand-to-hand combat to Save Private Ryan. That's a good point about delitionism, so i will add the main cites to this article. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new article on social history of soldiers and veterans

This article is about the word--we need an article about the GIs from the GI viewpoint . I propose adding a separate new article on "Soldiers and veterans in United States history" -- it would emphasize the social history of the soldier. This article is the view from the top commanders; I think the typical officer, enlisted & veteran experience needs more coverage. Who joined, why did they join, what did they learn, how did it shape their lives and society? the social history from the last 50 years is large. How were Blacks and women fitted in? The outline I propose looks something like this--what should I add or change? Any comments? 1. Colonial-- English colonial policy; Southern colonies; New England; Mid-Atlantic; wars with France & Spain & Indians; 2. American Revolution; Continental Army; Steuben & European methods; State militia; loyalists. 3. New nation; Veterans land benefits; Peacetime Army; bureau system;. Indian wars; International wars. Military academies. 4. Civil War and Reconstruction; Union Army; Confederate army; Conscription & bonus system; Black soldiers; Reconstruction roles. 5. 1877 to 1917: Veterans and GAR; Climax of Indian wars; War with Spain & Philippines; Root reforms; National Guard replaces militia; intervention in banana republics. 6. World War I: Conscription; Medical services expand. 7. Interwar: Veteran bonus; Technical training; Army runs CCC; Air Corps expands; Army Reserves; ROTC. 8. World War II: Selective Service; Marine Corps roles; Air Force independence; Women’s roles. 9. Cold War: GI Bill; Defense Department; Racial integration of the army; use in Deep South; NATO; Korean War; bases across the world; Vietnam; Antiwar activism; Voluntary army. 10. Recent: Afghanistan, Iraq; New roles for women- Bibliography. -Rjensen (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

OK I just started Social history of soldiers and veterans in United States history and would welcome suggestions. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)