Jump to content

Talk:List of United States Marines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Resources/Info on Rumors

There are a number of well-known individuals who are rumored to have served in the Marine Corps. Before adding new names to the list, consider checking out this site:

  • "Famous Marine Rumors". Retrieved 2007-10-20.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is another article on wannabees:
Hudson, Mike (November 16, 2003). "Real war veterans increasingly uncover truths of 'wannabes'". Roanoke Times. Retrieved March 21, 2009.

Keith James McDonald - not verified

  • This name has been posted by an anon IP. Have not been able to verify. One date initially posted by anon IP was 1991. Records show that only two Marines received the Navy Cross in the appropriate time period - McDonald was not one of them. Consequently, I deleted the entry (see edit note). The same anon IP again reposted the name today. I requested via User talk for verification. A good reference for Navy Cross recipients is Home of Heroes, which admittedly is incomplete. However, Keith James McDonald is not on the list. I am deleting again. — ERcheck @ 18:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Donald Dunne entry

Entry deleted - unable to find any verification for Dunne's role. Could be returned if verified: Unverified: *Donald Dunne — organized and co-founded American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) —ERcheck @ 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Connors - not verified as Marine - refs say Army

I removed Chuck Connors from the list. All references in show he was in the U.S. Army during World War II. Please add back if verification is found. —ERcheck @ 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Manny Saldivar - unverified

Reverted contribution by User:71.103.80.87 (04:12 UTC, May 31, 2006) — unverifiable entry on Manny Saldivar, UPS. If can verify this person and notability, can be re-entered. —ERcheck @ 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Capodanno

Vincent R. Capodanno was Navy, although he was serving with the Marines. Not sure if that qualifies him to be on this list. Jwillbur 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Have removed Capodanno from the list. Jwillbur 22:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Honorary Marines

Would it be possible for someone to start an article for individuals who have earned the title of "Honorary Marine"? I'm not sure how many people have earned this title, but I do know that Lon chaney, Sr. and Bugs Bunny would both be on the list. Orville Eastland 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to start such an article. See my note below responding to your query on Bugs Bunny. — ERcheck (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat Conroy-famous Marine?

Pat Conroy's father was a famous United States Marine but, to my knowledge, Pat Conroy never served in any branch of the armed forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brstvns (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Apparently this is true. I will remove Pat Conroy's entry. Alcarillo 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hussein Mohamed Farrah

I know who he is, but is he really a "famous" U.S. Marine? Alcarillo 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One more to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappy_Boyington

he's a warlord feared by hundreds of thousands of people, he's certainly "famous" to them. Elmo 11:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Oh and Pappy Boyington is only famous due to his actions while serving as a us marine, so he doesn't qualify as apparently this article is only on famous people who became famous after they were in the us marines. (despite what the title says (I'll drop it now :P)). Elmo 07:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny, fictional character whom "officially" was a U.S Marine?

Does it push to far to put Bugs Bunny in the list? After all he was officially "discharged" with a rank of Master Sergeant as a U.S Marine mascot during second World War. hanchi 2007 March

See my above post on "Honorary Marines". (I'd also like to add Jack Edwards and Joe Rosenthalto the list. Orville Eastland 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This list if for real people who served their country in the United States Marine Corps, not for fictional characters, or even for people associated with the Marine Corps, including "honorary" Marines. If there are enough to make a reasonable list, perhaps a "List of honorary U.S. Marines"? — ERcheck (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Reubens

Paul Reubens, aka PeeWee Herman, was recently added. However, there is substantial doubt as to whether this is true versus a widely promoted urban legend. See this snopes.com discussion. A definitive (not Imdb, yahoo.tv, etc, but official source) source needs to be found if this is to be added back. — ERcheck (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed again on May 28, 2007. Again, see Snopes.com. Please do not add back unless verifable. — ERcheck (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed again on December 9, 2007. Also see, this on Famous Marine Rumors. No reliable evidence. — ERcheck (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He did serve in the marines! Here's proof! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000607/bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.168.150 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 December 2007

  • The IMdB "Trivia" section is not proof since said section relies on information added by fans and does not cite it's source. As a matter of fact IMdB in itself is not a reliable source. Provide a reliable source such as an official Marine Corps site or anywhere where Reubens himself has publicly stated that he was a Marine and then we will take it into consideration. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This entry should not be added unless an official source verifies his service. As has been noted in sources, he have a role in which he played the part of a Marine. This may be the source of the rumors that he was a Marine. — ERcheck (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that this list should be free of redlinks. If a person is notable enough — "famous" — they can have a Wikipedia article. If there are notable people who served in the Marine Corps, who an editor feels should be on the list, they can create an article on that person (suitably referenced, of course). I'll wait for a week to get feedback, then, if there are no objections, I'll proceed (and leave a comment on the edit page). — ERcheck (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Current redlinks (as of 18 March 2007):
— ERcheck (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the article on Barrett. I'm removing the rest from the list. Feel free to add back if an article is created, and it is verifable that these people served in the Marine Corps. — ERcheck (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Title change?

Article title is inaccurate as this is a list of former marines. Suggest a change to 'List of famous former U.S. Marines' or an expansion of scope to include US marines who became famous prior to, or, during their service. 81.151.124.185 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo

"Once a Marine, always a Marine". — ERcheck (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (clarification - IMHO, "former" is not needed in the title. — ERcheck (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
Fuck this wanker. All of his edits serve to do nothing but go after the USMC. His agenda is very clear and he should take it somewhere else.--124.183.33.113 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not so, I merely think that clarity is important in an article. "have gained fame through subsequent endeavors, infamy, or successes." limits the scope of the page to people who became famous after serving in the USMC, the title should reflect that. The whole "once a marine, always a marine" is a fine slogan and shows admirable loyalty but wikipedia isn't here to show off your loyalty to the corps. In practice OAMAAM just isn't always true and certainly isn't verifiable or encylcopedic. If the word "former" offends you so, then prehaps the range of the article could be expanded to include people who became famous prior or during their active service? In it's current state, the title just isn't precise enough. SemperFideliS81 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

John A. Eastman entry - do not add back

I just removed a redlink for John A. Eastman. I did a G-search and found a page on this individual on a list of those impersonating military personnel.[1]] In 2005, a John A. Eastman was indicted for impersonating a U.S. Marine, a federal offense. Please do not add this name back. — ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List cleanup

I've been reviewing the list to verify that all entries were indeed Marines. I'm listing a few that I've removed along with the reason(s). If reliable sources (citations needed) can be found, they should be added to the person's wiki bio and the name can be added back to this list: — ERcheck (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Robert Wagner — actor (not in Wiki article; only "refs" I can find is his name on a some "Famous Marines" list (which might have had Wikipedia as their source); I found one fan note that said he was 4-F.) — ERcheck (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumored Marines

Here is a site [2] that provides a list of rumored Marines that have been debunked, or at least insufficient evidence to say they served in the Marine Corps. — ERcheck (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this redlinked entry:

Bill Lansford — film writer and producer

If/when an article is written on this person, sufficient notability established, and it is established that he served in the USMC, this name can be returned to the list. — ERcheck (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

The list introduction outlines the scope of the list:

  • Person served in the United States Marine Corps (this excludes fictional characters and "honorary" members)
  • Person has gained fame outside of the Marine Corps
    • This means that the historically important Marines, though important in the history of the Corps, don't necessarily belong on the list
    • Person needs to have fame — this is a higher bar than "notability", which is needed for having a Wikipedia article.

The additional standard that has been set is that the list does not contain redlinks — the person must already have a Wikipedia article.

  • If there is a person that doesn't yet have an article, the talk page here can be used to list those identified and are currently without an article.
  • There must be verification by reliable sources (see WP:Verify) that the person served in the Marine Corps.
  • The information that the individual served in the Marine Corps should be in the person's Wikipedia article.
    • That information should be cited in the article.

These criteria have been used in maintaining the article. Please feel free to discuss, concur, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question on this "Person has gained fame outside of the Marine Corps" does that mean the article is now to include those who've become famous due to events prior to service, or is it still only those who're famous due to events after active service? Elmo 11:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The list is intended to capture those who have gained "fame" apart from their Marine Corps service. I've added "previous" to the introduction to capture this. — ERcheck (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing names

I hate to, but since criteria is to be following I am removing the following names.

Lou Diamond, John Freeman Mackie, Samuel Nicholas and Louis Cukela.

In accordance to the following statements of the established criteria:

  • Person has gained fame outside of the Marine Corps
    • This means that the historically important Marines, though important in the history of the Corps, don't necessarily belong on the list

These names are listed in the "List of Historically Important U.S. Marines".

Tony the Marine 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gracin

The main Josh Gracin article says he's still a marine(although presumably If that's the case he should be fighting not singing to crowds of twelve year old girls?). If that's true then he shouldn't be included as it's fame whilst he's still with the usmc.

...also out of interest, does anyone know what happened to his face? that's some serious distortion, spine injury?. Elmo 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of names

The fact that Johnny Micheal Spann was the first Marine officer to die in Afganistan, does not make him famous nor notable. Death is not a claim to fame per se.

Josh Gracin was "fourth" place in American Idol. It is a ridcules assumption that he is famous. He is no more famous or notable then the person was in last place.

Nor "fame" or "notable" criterias are met. Tony the Marine 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He was in the usmc at the time of gaining fame (his unit was sitting around involved in the war on pop music at the time) which would also disqualify him from the list. Elmo 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional names removed:
      • Daniel Daly — though famous as a Marine and military hero, he does not meet the list criteria — subsequent fame outside of USMC service
      • Nate Dogg — no reliable sources to show his USMC service
      • John Fogerty — in the U.S. Army Reserve and U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, not the Marine Corps
— ERcheck (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Pyle - ?Marine?

The name Artimus Pyle — 1970s drummer for Lynyrd Skynyrd — was recently added. The Wikipedia article is unreferenced and the text of the article contains no references to Pyle being a Marine. If his service in the Marine Corps is cited in his article with reliable sources, then the name can be returned. However, without reference, please do not add back. — ERcheck (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Article Title

Much to my surprise this article is specifically for Marines who gained fame outside of their Marine Corps service. This seems too narrow for the title of this article. I recommend that we use this title to reference together all the lists pertaining to Marines and use separate article specifying that they were Famous for their actions as Marines, Prior to being Marines or after. For instance there is this article which seems too narrow in scope based on the title that I recommend we rename to something more specific like List of Famous Marines (this is just an example). There is also a list of Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients, and the list of lists of Marines goes on. Basically, what I am saying is that we need a page to tie all these lists together to be more useful and accessible to the reader. Let me know what you think.--Kumioko 23:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article title, until 23 August 2007, was List of famous U.S. Marines — I'm not sure why it was moved/renamed. I agree that the new title is not ideal. I think it should be moved back to the original title. I agree that there should be additional lists. I have created a number of articles on Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients, and in fact, have a draft List of United States Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients. Another helpful list could be List of historically significant U.S. Marines, or similar name, to capture Marines such as Chesty Puller, Dan Daly, Smedley Butler, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with ERcheck that the current tittle is not proper, since it would give the wrong impression that anyone who was or is a Marine could be added. The "List of famous U.S. Marines" was much better. User:Kumioko sugestion that maybe sub-divisons can be created to incorporate the other lists into this one is something to think about. Tony the Marine 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, there already is a List of Historically Important U.S. Marines (doesn't follow standards for title capitalization]]. — ERcheck (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Title move

I moved the page back to "List of famous U.S. Marines" I mean the title of the page sould match the subject or subjects. The title as "is" really makes no sense at all, to the casual reader it call be misunderstood that it can refer to almost anyone who was or is a Marine. Tony the Marine 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ray Mercer - need reliable sources

I've commented out Ray Mercer for two reasons:

  1. There is no mention of USMC service in his Wikipedia article.
  2. The reference used is more in passing — "ex-marine" — and doesn't give any indication of sourcing. I've found Mercer's name on some lists of Marines, but I've also found a reference that indicates that he was a Sgt in the U.S. Army.

Both need to be addressed. Is there a clear, reliable source to show Marine Corps service; other that some lists of famous Marines. — ERcheck (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rm redlink names - Shaffer and Sherman

The following names were removed. No Wikpedia articles. Can be replaced if article written. Feel free to write an article — be sure to be aware of WP:BIO, WP:VERIFY, and WP:COI.

  • Gerald L. Shaffer]— businessman, founder of Leatherneck.com.
  • M. Zachary Sherman — writer

— ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Illitch

This unsigned comment was left at the top of the talk page:

Michael Illitch: Owner of the Detroit Tiger's Baseball Team, The Detroit Red Wings Hockey Team, owner of Little Caesar's Pizza.Former Marine.

Note that this name is already added. — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Pace and Smedley Darlington Butler

Removed Peter Pace from list. His name should go in the "List of Historically Important U.S. Marines" since this list is reserved for those who have gained fame outside of their Marine Corps serve. Tony the Marine 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


The same goes for Smedley Darlington Butler who gained his fame as a Marine and for his Marine Corps service before becoming an outspoken critic of war profiteers and a Police Commissioner for the city of Philadelphia. Tony the Marine 14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rick Romley

From what I can tell, Rick Romley was a District Attorney not Attorney General as stated on the list (at least that is what his article states). Does anyone have a ref for him as the AG so I can update? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A Google search finds sources that indicate the was speculation about Romley's interest in a U.S. AG post, but no appointment was made. The best place for further discussions on Romley is on his article talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point on discussion for Romley, but I was looking for assistance in updating the entry on this list since that is where this info is presently located. I was looking to change the entry to "Attorney General for XXX Administration". My apologies, I should have been clearer. In absence of a ref, I recommend changing this entry to “Court Attorney of Maricopa County, Arizona”. Any objections? FieldMarine (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked names remv

I removed two redlinks from the list — Johnson and

It seems that LouAnne Johnson be notable for an article. If one is created, then the name can be returned. With respect to Yeadon, a G-search returns entry that might be relevant. However, it seems to be a commercial link, i.e. it is seems to be advertising. Again, if an article is written, and the subject is notable enough for the article to be kept, then consideration can be given to whether the person has appropriate notability for the list. — ERcheck (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also removed this redlink — which has no G-hits except for Wikipedia and Wiki mirror:

— ERcheck (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

who rates the USMC navbox?

I've already added the Template:US Marine Corps navbox to all of the historical Marines, I figured a few of the folks on this list would need it added to thier articles. But whom? Obviously, icons like R. Lee Ermey are significant enough to deserve it, but who else had the Marine Corps a significant enough part of thier life to rate the navbox? bahamut0013♠♣ 11:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of names

I have removed some names because I couldn't find a verifiable reliable source indicating USMC service. If anyone can provide a source on any of the names which I removed, please feel free to add once more with the proper citation. There are a couple of names which I removed because I questioned not only their service, but also their notability. Keep in mind that I maybe wrong however, people should have more then "5 minutes" of fame and their notability should be long lasting. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

what about Ken Ryker. he has references. the IMdB is considered to be the leading source of references for actors.70.7.54.99 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not in accordance to Wikipedia policy. You must remember that IMdB bios are submitted by fans and so on without any references. I am sure that if Ken Ryker served in the Marines that there has to be a reliable verifiable source (such as newspaper articles, magazine interviews and such). Find a truely reliable source and then add his name. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Iwo Jima Flag Raisers?

Shouldn't they be added into this list, cause they pretty much did become famous for that picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.223.136 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the list introduction outlines the criteria for inclusion, including "gained fame outside of the Marine Corps" - therefore those of historic importance to the Marine Corps do not automatically qualify for this list. If their fame occurred from events apart from their military service, then they might qualify. In the case of those who raised the flag on Iwo Jima - this event occurred in the scope of their Marine Corps service -- thus this does not qualify for "outside of the Marine Corps". The appropriate list is List of historically important U.S. Marines. — ERcheck (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks

Bias

Where are all the infamous Marines, the murderers, the rapists, the wako snipers from a clock tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • There are rules to follow for this list which clearly states that the person "must" be notable and that reliable verifiable sources must be cited and provided which can proof that said person was a Marine, it doesn't matter if the person is famous or infamous. You are more then welcome to create a list of those who have disgraced the uniform if you wish. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Donald E. McQuinn

I have removed the name of Donald E. McQuinn from the list for the following reasons:

  1. The reference cited is a Wiki article (see: Revision as of 03:00, October 3, 2008) and not a primary verifiable source as required by Wikipedia policy. Note: Wikipedia is not to be cited as a reliable source.
  2. The article Donald E. McQuinn is a paste job from Fantastic Fiction (see: Fantastic Fiction) a website which is copyrighted as "© 2008 FantasticFiction". The website itself does not confirm but, "questions" McQuinn retiring as a Major in the Marine Corps after 20 years of service. As an article in violation of our copyright policies, said article should be "Speedy Deleted".

Tony the Marine (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of this entry based on the above comments. Using an "about the author" in one of the authors books as a reference does not constitute a good 3rd party reference...it's a marketing piece by the publishing company promoting a book. Also, many Marines write books. IMHO, what needs to be included to stay on this list is what makes this author notable because just writing books is not. From what has been included so far, this entry has not reached the threshold of notability IMHO. FieldMarine (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Compare the page history of Donald E. McQuinn to the Internet Archive history of the Fantastic Fiction entry to see which came first. Note also that the source for adding McQuinn to the list was never the Wikipedia article (nor any other online source), it was always the Del Rey Books About the Author bio.
For books that are not self-published, the source for an About the Author is the publisher not the book's author. Such bios meet all the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources. Random House (the owner of the Del Rey imprint) certainly meets the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. As for such bios being "marketing pieces", the same can be said about the WWE citation used for one of the names on the list.
As for famous (a subjective term), he is the author of a number of published novels in more than one genre; and while the original syllabus is no longer online, his first book was used as a reference text for at least one university course on the Vietnam War. —MJBurrage(T•C) 06:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Readding this entry passed the 3R rule as two editors already removed it for the reasons noted above. This entry has not met the threshold of notability with good third party sources as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Not questioning that he’s a Marine – what makes him notable? That has not been established as discussed by two editors. FieldMarine (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1) The source cited was never the Wikipedia article itself, the information has always come from the same source, a biography by the publisher Del Rey.
2) Tony was completely off base with his groundless accusation that the Wikipedia page was a "paste job" from some where else. As I have said many times I wrote the original Wiki entry, and it is older than the page he says was copied, just check the history of each page, as Tony should have done.
3) The edits from two days ago do not meet the spirit behind the 3 revert rule, because it was not a dispute over whether the entry should be here, but rather the unusual citation requirements of this list and my attempts to meet them.
The page says all entries must be sourced, but almost none are, which very strongly implies that the source need only be listed on the Marine's page. After I was informed that this was incorrect (not stated well in the guidelines) I attempted to fix it by giving the source here (again a publisher bio), at that point the entry was deleted for "citing the wiki entry" which it did not. I made this clearer with a better worded citation, and the Tony congratulated me on "finally getting it right".
Separate from all of that you brought up the issue of McQuinn's fame, but fame is not defined any ware in an objective fashion. Notability is, and this author is a best-selling author, whose notability/fame came after retiring from the USMC. (exactly the listed criteria for this page).
Anyway he clearly fits the listed criteria for this page. He is not the most famous entry, but he is not the least famous either, and I will be restoring his entry. If you still disagree with his inclusion, please point me to the objective criteria used here to define famous as separate from Wikipedia's definition for notable. —MJBurrage(T•C) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List management

I just noticed than an anonymous editor had added a name, and it was quickly removed as uncited. I understand the reasons for keeping unsourced names off the list, However a quick check of the link showed both a mention of the USMC on the persons page, and the source cited at the bottom of said page also mentions his being a US Marine.

Given that, it would be better to simply fix the addition if the details are that easily checked. At the very least the addition of a fact tag would be better than simply deleting such future additions, since such deletion seems to fall under Don't bite the newcomer. —MJBurrage(T•C) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I support removing the entry of Paul Romanovsky Ilyinsky. I support keeping an entry on this list for a mayor of a big city like NY or LA, but not Palm Beach (population ~10K). Nor do I believe that someone is notable just because they are the grandson of nobility. IMHO, we have dropped the threshold level for inclusion on this list in the last few entries. Thanks FieldMarine (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment, No one here is "biting the newcomer". The instructions are posted and are very easy to follow. Why should we, who manage the list, have to go through the trouble of looking up every article of every addition to verify the person's notability and Marine Corps service? We shouldn't have to go through the trouble of adding a "fact" tag, when it is more simple to add a reference as explained, which in itself is a norm in Wikipedia. I really don't see what's the big deal, plus I agree with the comments of User:FieldMarine. We have made this list reliable and have maintained it. No one has complained until now, therefore I fail to see what the problem is. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The list does indicate that a source is needed, but since the vast majority (over 90%) of the entries do not have a source, it is entirely reasonable for an editor to assume that a source on the subjects page meets that criteria. When one edits a page, and has that edit quickly reverted with no more explanation than a repeating of a guideline they truly believe they were following it can be quite off putting. I would imagine that that would be even more true for a new editor.
Currently less than 10% of the entries have a reference, should we delete all of those? If not than the list needs a better explanation with respect to the grandfathered names.
As for the inclusion of any particular notable Marine, what exactly is the criteria you are suggesting that would exclude someone already considered notable. Because "fame" is far too subjective a term with out some well defined criteria behind it. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
In the past, the names that have been removed from this list did not have a reliable source on either this list or the subject page that: 1)verified person was a Marine & 2) showed notability. If you have a recommendation for improving the wording for inclusion criteria, please suggest. We are open to improvement. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
In the past, we went through the trouble of verifying every single name (the 90%) in the list, as FieldMarine has stated and as I have explained to you in your user page. That was a lot of work and since then we have set up a criteria to follow. We do not use the term "fame," however there are two important factors that must be considered to make this list, 1) that the person is "notable" in accordance to Wikipedia policy and 2) that the person was a "Marine." You should already know that articles in Wikipedia require reliable verifiable sources and the same goes for the "lists" if these are to be considered reliable. All newcomers must follow Wikipedia policy when writing articles and in order for us to manage this list, we have provided them with the rules which are within Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
One more comment & this is purely my personal opinion. I believe the onus for showing that a name should be included on this list rests with the person adding the name, not with the editors who watch this list. Before adding a name to this list, there should be no doubt the Marine rates inclusion. Thus, the article on the Marine should be written in such a way that demonstrates clearly to the editors who watch this list why that person qualifies to be on it. IMHO, this was not done on some of the recent adds. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1) I am not disagreeing that the onus should be on the editor that adds a new name, rather that the guidelines for this as they currently exist are unclear. I am not new to Wikipedia, and yet it took many rounds of edits before the fact that the old names on the list had been vetted without a source here but that NEW names could not be vetted the same way, rather they had to have an explicit reference here "in addition to" any reference on the persons own page. This is not the standard for most other list pages and so would not be expected here even with the current opening. nor was this explained well when my first addition was reverted, instead I got one line from the intro repeated without any of the clarification I eventually goy by asking you guys questions.
2) I agree that "a former Marine", and "notable by Wikipedia standards" are a workable set of criteria. Both are clearly defined, however just above FieldMarine suggested that a mayor of a small city was not famous enough, but a mayor of a big city would be famous enough. We need to either stick to the established guideline for notability or have a stricter policy. However such a stricter policy would have to have objective criteria not subjective ones. "how famous is famous enough?"
In summary:
  • The list introduction needs to clarify that existing names have been carefully vetted, and that all new names must have a footnote citation on this page (explaining that such a reference on the subjects page is not good enough anymore even though it once was).
  • If the criteria for inclusion is not simply that the former Marine is notable by Wikipedia standards, than whatever criteria are used need to be very carefully spelled out in non-subjective manor.
  • If a name is added in good faith, but does not follow the guidelines above, it should be given a fact tag for a couple of days before it is removed. As long as this list is managed differently than most lists on Wikipedia, the benefit of the doubt should be given to editors who do not realize that even after reading the introduction.
All of this is meant to improve the list and prevent edit warring, not to change what the list is. —MJBurrage(T•C) 09:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment As mentioned earlier, the criteria stated for this list is different than the criteria for notability in Wikipedia. The person must have become notable in endeavors outside serving as a uniformed member of the Marine Corps. For example, while Paul Romanovsky Ilyinsky possibly may warrant an entry in Wikipedia, being a mayor of a small town does not justify notable accomplishment for inclusion on this list. Neither does being born into nobility (IMHO). FieldMarine (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you include your recommendation for exact rewording of the inclusion criteria here if you have a better idea on how it should be written. Then editors can comment & gain consensus for adoption. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Any former Marine who is notable enough (separate from their actions as a Marine) for a Wikipedia article meets the existing criteria for this page. The page has no objective criteria for "fame" so until it does notable is the standard.
Paul Ilyinsky is famous enough to meet the objective Wikipedia notability standards, and such notability is separate from his service as a Marine. Hence he represents exactly what should be on the list as it is described in its own introduction. If you have an objective standard that is narrower than notability that the editors can agree on than that standard could be described properly in the introduction. But just to say "being a mayor of a small town does not justify..." is very subjective, ask 10 people how well known someone has to be to be "famous" and you will get 10 different answers. The same would be true of "notable", however that term has an established criteria based definition on Wikipedia. Until fame has a similar definition her, it cannot impartially be used to judge an entry. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hum

  • 1. I believe that a clarification of the list's introduction, as suggested by MJBurrage, is a point which can be worked on.

2. Notability Vs Fame - Fame is a state of mind and may be a temporary thing. Most people, like myself, have their "15 minutes" of fame and are known today and forgotten tomorrow. Those are not worthy of being in this list. However, those who are "notable", in accordance to Wikipedia policy, will pass the test of time and will be remembered years after their death, even if it's by a small group of people. In accordance to our policy these are notable people worthy of having their own articles.

3. The point that I personally do not agree on is posting the "fact" citation even though I will oppose if someone did it. I firmly believe that all those interested in our project and have the knowledge to post names, also have the knowledge to read and follow simple instructions. That is my opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


I disagree with the comment about what constitutes notability for inclusion in this article or about inclusion in Wikipedia generally. IMHO, mayors of small towns, grandsons of nobility or authors of a book (unless the book was in some way ground-breaking, award winning or classics of some sort) are not notable. As for the Paul Romanovsky Ilyinsky article, my guess is it stands as a legitimate article for Wikipedia because of the historical value of the article, not because of the person himself. IMHO, I doubt he would be included in Wikipedia if it was not for his connection with Russian nobility or if he was only the mayor of Palm Beach, Florida (nothing against the man or about Palm Beach...it's a beautiful place). Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Ilyinsky

There has been discussion above on whether Paul Romanovsky Ilyinsky should be included on this list. Please comment:

  • Strong Include: Subject is notable for reasons unrelated to USMC. "Fame" has no working definition that can be applied here impartially and until it does we should follow existing notability guidelines, which can be applied impartially. If an editor believes that Ilyinsky is not famous/notable enough for Wikipedia than a request should be made for deletion of his article. If the srticle is deleted, than his name would be removed from the list. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify. Do you believe that he should be included on this list because he was the mayor of Palm Beach or because he was the grandson of nobility? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a package deal, the subject is notable separately from the service in the USMC.
While it is likely true that he only got the attention because of the two details combined, he did get enough attention/fame to be notable.
Note, that I am not saying that we could not develop a set of defined criteria that are more restrictive than notability; but they would have to be objective enough to be applied separately from personal feelings on any particular entry. Absent such criteria, fame is synonymous with notable. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: As noted above he has gained fame wholly unrelated to the USMC (or even the U.S. military), and as such he meets the pages requirements exactly. The introduction does not say very famous; and even if it did, such a requirement would be meaningless without objective criteria. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John Raymond Rice

What does everyone think about John Raymond Rice? While his notability is technically separate from his service in the USMC, it is essentially tied to his death while serving in the U.S. Army. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, John Raymond Rice, himself, was not notable nor did he gain fame through previous or subsequent endeavors, infamy, or successes. The article itself is basically based on the circumstances surrounding his burial and not on the person per se. It was a common practice at that time in some parts of country that cemeteries buried those of different races and religious believes in segregated sections (see: Felix Z. Longoria, Jr.. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No, for same reason as above. FieldMarine (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Interesting story, but falls more into the "15 minutes of fame" group. — ERcheck (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Only tangentially related to the list, but prompted by Rice: Aside from Army personnel who became Air Force personnel when the latter was formed—how common is serving in more than one branch of the military? —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It happens, I have known of some cases. I knew this guy in the Marines that once was a Sgt. in the Army. According to what he told me, if a former Marine joined the Army, he wouldn't have to go through basic training and could enter with the rank that he held in the Corps, however if a former Army soldier joined the USMC, he would have to pass our boot camp and start from scratch. True or false, I don't know. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Many National Guard were former Marines or from other services. FieldMarine (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Through my own personal experiences, it is very uncommon, but not unheard of. One of my subordinates in my previous unit was a Specialist in the Army, left in 1999, then enlisted in the Marines in 2005, starting from scratch (we had a hell of a time finding Army ribbons for his uniform three days before the ball!). On the other hand, I've been getting letters from recruiters from the other services, trying to get me to do an interservice transfer. The Army is advertising quite a sum of money, a promotion of one grade, and my choice of MOS if I tansfer, without going to boot camp... just a two week familiarization course with army custom, uniform, culture, etc. I of course, wrote back and told him to stop wasting money on postage. bahamut0013♠♣ 01:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ilario Pantano

There has been discussion above on whether Ilario Pantano should be included on this list. Please comment:

  • Strong Not Include: Vote strongly to not include as most of his endeavors are related to his Marine Corps activities. There are hundreds of authors who are Marines. IMHO, publishing an autobiography based on military service is not noteworthy unless it is award winning. This one has not passed the test of time. FieldMarine (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not Include, I agree, one auto-bio., unless a "best seller", does not make you notable. As a matter of fact his so-called bio. in Wikipedia is about 90% focused only on the incident in which he was involved, therefore it seems as if the incident is notable and not the subject of the bio. That is my opinion, but then again "What do I know?" Tony the Marine (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not Include, Given that his work to date is a memoir about his time as a Marine, and the killing and its resolution were while he was a Marine; his notability is not separate from his service as a Marine. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not Include: his notability seems too closely tied to his wearing of a uniform, if not completely about it. The criteria is clear: notability independant of military career. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not include: For all the reasons above. — ERcheck (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Title change, redux

Technically, the current title would apply to anyone in Category:United States Marine Corps personnel or any of its subcategories.
Should this page not more correctly be named List of famous U.S. Marines or more specifically List of separately notable U.S. Marines, such that the title better fits the instructions and contents. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is merit to renaming the list based on your comment about distinguishing it from the category for USMC Personnel. For renaming, my thought is List of famous U.S. Marines. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Man, I agree with both of you, but I did that once see: List of famous U.S. Marines and it was redirected by one of those "Do not use the word "famous" in your list" people. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

I had thought it was once before at List of famous U.S. Marines, but was changed to the current ambiguous title for some obscure reason. I suggested List of separately notable U.S. Marines because it is accurate, and because it goes well with the existing List of historically important U.S. Marines. If we went ahead with the move, afterwords the current title could be used for a disambiguation along the lines of:

List of U.S. Marines could imply any of the following:

—MJBurrage(T•C) 15:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "List of US Marines" seem to be all-encompassing. However, "List of separately notable U.S. Marines" seems overly complicated and not very intuitive for a reader to find. I say we revert to "List of famous U.S. Marines" and let the "famous"-haters eat crow. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree: although List of separately notable U.S. Marines is technically correct & understandable to Wikipedians, I think it may not be as clear to the general public & may come up short on google searches. MJBurrage, your suggestion to change the name has a lot of support & was a great recommendation. I say go for the move, but make it "List of famous U.S. Marines." Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I was also thinking about a list or category specifically for Wikipedians who are/were Marines... Currently, there is Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. military, but that doesn't really encompass retired/discharged members (which are the majority of the Wikipedian Marines I know). bahamut0013♠♣ 13:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Go fot it User:Bahamut0013, count me in. FieldMarine (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Here is an idea. Since some people will object to the word "famous", we can change the name to "List of notable U.S. Marines". I know that noone will object to that because I once did that to a list and it worked. It seems that since the term "notable" is defined by policy that it would be more acceptable.

Then we can establish a criteria for inclussion to the list. Here are some well founded suggestion by ER:

Reliable sources: I don't find tv.com or imdb reliable sources. There has been a shift on AfD from saying that imdb proves it to imdb is completely not a reliable source for notability. Since we are being stringent, I think we need to make sure that "rumor" sites, blogs, etc. are not used. This makes it harder for some of the cases such as Bea Arthur's, but I think it is essential.

Including sources: Since there has been such a bit of discussion recently, and some could jump on folks for WP:OWN, I think that it would be a good idea to, over time, add reliable sources for all of the entries.

Formatting: Perhaps worth making it a big project and adding more info, if available, such as when they served, highest rank achieved, and reliable source - perhaps in a table format - though tables are hard to maintain for non-table experts.

Front page notice: I think it a bit unsightly. What do you think of a short note with a link to the top of the talk page? Something like - "This list has specific criteria that must be met before a new name is added. Please read before adding to this list." Then put a link to the talk page with the disclaimer that is there now.

If you all agree, then lets proceed to have a consensus here before we make the changes to make things official. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I've started adding reliable sources for the names on the list. — ERcheck (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Names for "fame" review

Two people for review for appropriate for inclusion in this list. While they have notability for having a Wikipedia entry, please comment on whether they have sufficient "fame" for this list:

— ERcheck (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In both cases, their notability is separate from their military service, so they should be on the list. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that their notability is separate from their USMC service, however, the list is not meant to include every person with a Wikipedia article who served in the Marine Corps. — ERcheck (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

By themselves notable and famous are both subjective terms. However notable does have an objective definition within the context of wikipedia. Hence without specific objective criteria for how famous is famous enough, we really should simply use the existing notability criteria, with the one stated proviso, that the subjects notability is separate from their military service.
If enough people feel that that is too broad for this list then we need our own set of objective criteria for "famous enough". While I would not object to such an endeavor, it would in essence be reinventing the wheel.
Basically, it seams to me that if the subject of an article really is not famous/notable enough to be listed here than what should actually be done is to question their inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place (unless of course they are notable for their military service itself) —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Opinion

1. At first I wondered about Rod Bernard's service, because his article states that he oganized a band after returning from boot-camp and therefore it was unclear if he did finish boot camp at all. However, further research tells us that he was in the Marine Corps Reserve. I may be wrong, but I do believe that he should be in the list since he was a notable musician.

2. In regard to Blackbear Bosin, his "stub" does him no justice and I would have considered him un-notable. However, I discovered that he was an accomplished sculptor and artist to the point that the National Geographic gave Blackbear Bosin his first national recognition in March 1955, with the publication of his painting, "Prairie Fire." Not only that he was commissioned by the Franklin Mint of Franklin, Pennsylvania, to contribute to a metallic Historical series and by the United States Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C., to create several paintings. Therefore, I consider that he is notable and that he should remain on the list. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Need reliable source for Bob Bell/Bozo

Need a reliable source for Bob Bell/Bozo the Clown? The sources I've found, including imdb, are not generally reliable sources. Anyone with a good reference? — ERcheck (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I could not find a reliable source on Bob Bell either. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The best I could find for Bell is a quiz by Scott Baron and a bio written for WGN-TV. Everything else was citing Wikipedia, IMDb, or unreliable. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, do you guys think that John Wayne Bobbitt deserves to be on the list? Bobbitt, I believe is not a notable person. The case and the circumstances surrounding what happened to him made the news, but by no means made him notable. I doubt if many people even remember the case, much less Bobbitt. I say that he should be off the list, what do you all say? Tony the Marine (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately his wife made him quite notable, over 1500 references in just the last month. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Article class

I upgraded this article to C-Class. Please comment. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it is a good call. Ercheck, started the admirable task of posting reliable sources after each name. I think that it is a great idea because it will help make our list one of the most reliable and complete in the Internet and that we should join him in the task. Any thoughts? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

James Brady

How do we feel about adding James Brady (not the same guy who got shot with Reagan)? I recently saw a column about him in the Feb 9 2009 edition of the Marine Corps Times (I'd post a link, but you have to pay a subscription to access the electronic addition). I'm kind of split: he is a fairly well known author, but most of his writings regard the Marine Corps, so it seems to be in a grey area regarding how his notability is independant of his military service. The remainder of his writings... I dunno if that would make him notable on thier own merits or not. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I'm inclined to support if someone writes notable historical writings about the Corps & not inclined if it's an autobiography, unless it is award winning. In this case, I support the addition. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
From this New York Times obit it seems clear to me that he is more famous for his work as a columnist and publisher, than for his military service or memoir (which itself was up for a Pulitzer), hence he should be on the list. —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I also support the addition of Brady's name on the list. The source provided by MJBurrage is good enough to be included as a reference after the posting of his name. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Beckwith

I do not recommend placing Alan Beckwith on this list. In fact, IMHO, he should not even be listed in Wikipedia. FieldMarine (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur — low level notability at best. In addition, though he may have served in the Marine Corps, it is not reliably sourced. The Freebase article says it was taken from Wikipedia; iMDB is not considered a reliable source, and the other source also appears to be a wiki-like source. — ERcheck (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
While this discussion continues, I am removing his name. The citation on used on this list does not qualify as a reliable source. Anyone can add their name to the list of members of the class. — ERcheck (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree: not notable for listing, and probably not notable for an article period. The article article itself is pretty poor, incomplete sentances, etc. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Donald Conroy

Removed this entry. Notability by association. His notability comes from USMC service; outside notability is by association. — ERcheck (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree: possible candidate for List of historically important U.S. Marines. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Only ref in article is from a eulogy given by his son, which would not qualify as a reliable source. Don't think he is notable enough for historical Marines. — ERcheck (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with not placing on this list; possibly on List of historically important U.S. Marines. FieldMarine (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike Connors

Mike Connors, actor — need to find reliable source. Most of the online sources say he was a Marine, but this site says he served in the USAF. — ERcheck (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly notable enough (a Gold Globe), but without that reliable source, we'd best remove him. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've done a little looking for a source. Any help would be appreciated. — ERcheck (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Finding sources that say he was a USAF fighter pilot.[3][4]. Removing from the list. — ERcheck (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Status of citations - Done as of 24 March 2009

As of 23 March 2009:

  • A-P, T-Z — all done (just R (3) & S (14) left)
  • total unique references = 182
  • Still more to go. Most, if not all, have information in their Wikipedia articles that is referenced, though I did find a few that slipped through.
  • Please note that IMdB is not a WP:RS, nor are personal websites honoring Marines.

— ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DONE: 199 unique source citations.— ERcheck (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Great work ERcheck...BZ! I say we change status to Class B. FieldMarine (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed / For discussion

From an external link describing his role with Howard Hughes: "Hughes managed to get out of the plane and laid next to it as it was still burning. A Marine visiting friends across the street from the Myers residence, Master Technical Sergeant William L. Durkin, risked his own life by pulling Hughes away from the burning wreckage, saving Hughes' life."[5]
Agreed. Should not be on list. FieldMarine (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed - notability related to USMC service: Adam Kokesh is known for his protests against the Iraq War — this notoriety came in conjunction with his Marine Corps service, thus he does not meet the criterion for notability apart from his service. While he may still be getting notice after his discharge, it is still from his protest and actions during his service. — ERcheck (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Should not be on list. FieldMarine (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed - notability related to USMC service: Michael Mori — Defense lawyer for Australian terrorism convictee David Hicks; legal service for Guantanamo detainee is while serving as USMC Major. Therefore, does not meet criterion of notability separate from USMC service. — ERcheck (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Should not be on list. FieldMarine (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed - unable to verify: Hari Rhodes — actor. If references can be found, please comment on level of notability for inclusion in the article. 03:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Should not be on list. FieldMarine (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed - Notability concern: Listing said attorney general - but was County Attorney, not U.S. Attorney General - Rick Romley[1] — County Attorney, Arizona
— ERcheck (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Should not be on list. FieldMarine (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations

  1. ^ Goddard, Terry (July 12, 2007). "Rick Romley Made Many Contributions". Arizona Attorney General. Retrieved March 24, 2009.

Question: Peter J. Ortix

I believe that Colonel Peter J. Ortiz gained his fame and notability as a Marine and not as an actor (Hell I can't even recall seeing him in a movie). Shouldn't his name be placed in the List of historically important U.S. Marines instead? Tony the Marine (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply Tony, but I agree that he should not be included on this list based on the info on his Wikipedia article. In the future, maybe his acting career will be expanded in his article. Then we can make a better determination about including him on this list. FieldMarine (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bea Arthur

Bea Arthur There is nothing on her WP bio on her being a Marine or a link to such evidence. I'm going to remove her name.--Colin 8 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read and respond to this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beatrice_Arthur#Was_Bea_Arthur_a_Marine_or_not.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See section Bea Arthur Part2 below for more discussion on Bea Arthur. FieldMarine (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

fictional

Would a list of fictional US Marines (or fictional parodies of the USMC, like in the movie Aliens) be significant enough to warrant a short section and/or its own article? I'm sure there are plenty, but would they carry the weight to deserve mention, or would it just be cruft? bahamut0013♠♣ 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a bit in the past. I think that this list is not the place. It is for real people. I do think that a fictional list might not make it without being put up for deletion — as you said, some find deem it "cruft". — ERcheck (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I know ERcheck is aware, but FYI to everyone else, there is Category:Fictional United States Marines. God bless President Jack Ryan. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bea Arthur Part 2

Attention my fellow comrades. User:Chrisrus, has proved us with the site: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PUgDa1jy4) in which Arthur is supposed to have stated (I say "supposed" only because my internet connection is so slow that I haven't looked at it) that she was never a member of the United States Marine Corps. We "must" look into this because if it true then her name must be removed. Please take a look and make recommendations. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The interview seems conclusive to me...she says she was not a Marine. I recommend taking her off the list. FieldMarine (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the video, at 5:30 in Part 1, she is asked if she was a Marine, and she says no. While the interviewer makes some mistakes later on (confusing "Star Trek and Star Wars), Arthur's answer seemed pretty clear.
Having said that, the USMC itself said she was a Marine in Marines magazine (Vol. 36, #1, January–March 2007)
So what do we do with someone when the the Marines say yes, and they say no?
—MJBurrage(T•C) 04:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Qute a gray area! According to the one ref ([6]), it says that she volunteered for service, but not that she actually served (the other ref I cannot view, quite ironic that I cannot view content on the Marine Corp's own website because of the Marine Corp's own networking policies!). Perhaps she was never accepted or made it into the service for whatever reason. I also would think it reasonable to say that Marines magazine was incorrect; records from the 1940s are notorious for being erroneous, incomplete, or lost. I say it is entirely possible that the writers for that article based thier research on references that were not internal (such as the listed one) and thus fallable.
In either case, I would say that she has little reason to falsely claim she wasn't in the service (in fact, the opposite woud be more likely, I'd expect people to falsely claim service that did not happen). Her own words should trump possibly flawed research. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I watched the youtube video. Looking at the context, they were discussing the World War II period and after. The interviewer asked (5:17) "How did World War II affect you?" Her answer was "like everyone else....traumatic". Then, (5:31) "I had read somewhere that you joined the Marines." BA's answer was "oh no". Hmm. But here[7] and here Official Marine Corps Magazine, it says she was a Marine, and the first one says it was prior to WWII. At this point, the Marine Corps Magazine is a reference in this List, and one would generally consider an official USMC publication a reliable source. I wish the interviewer had asked a followup question or that BA had elaborated. The "fact" that she was a Marine has been out there for a long time, but this interview is the first information I've seen to dispute it. With erroneous reports, usually there are a number of places that tell otherwise; and, often clarification from the subject. The video interview would not likely be considered a RS. I'd leave it in; possibly with a footnote directing to the talk page or mentioning the interview. — ERcheck (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See these:
I'd think that Quiz Bowl questions would be carefully screened.
— ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, like I hypothesized, if the Marie Corps erroneously claims she was a Marine, everyone else would accept it as gospel fact and follow suit. I could see how every other reference would be willing to accept the Corp's claim at afce value and leave it at that. The one ref references a page that was copied straight out of Wikipedia, so we've come full circle. :P
But you are right, given the context, she might not be referring to her service as a Marine, but simply a lack of WWII service as a Marine. It is unfortunate that the interview is doesn't explore that more; and I also accept the fact that we can't really source Youtube conclusively (though I doubt much that the video is false or doctored). I'm inclined to believe her own answer over what could be the same mistake repeated over and over and over...
There is some discussion at Talk:Beatrice Arthur and the consensus there seems to be "no", but I think it is worth bringing up there again to see if consensus has changed. Regardless, this article and her bio should match, they currently conflict. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that until there is new information, her entry should reed as follows:

  • Bea Arthur (uncertain)[] — star of the television series Maude, and The Golden Girls

With the footnote being a brief summary of the conflict between her interview, and the USMC source. The same summary should be in her article as well I expect. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done this since—absent a clarification from the USMC itself—this may never be properly settled. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have since been asked on my talk page why keep the Stanford source as well as Marines. My thinking is that "multiple sources" should have multiple examples. As for why Stanford; they are generally known to do their own fact checking, and it predates the Marines article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive

This talk page is getting a bit long. I'd like to set User:MiszaBot to work in it if nobody objects. The parameters I think would work are as follows: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:List of U.S. Marines/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}

This would update any thread that is over 30 days old to the archive, until it reaches 100kb in size, then starts a second archive. It would leave at least 10 threads at a time so that the page doesn't look empty. I can tag the first thread to linger, because it seems to be a generic notice and some resources rather than content discussion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If we adopt this, my recommendation is to create an index in the beginning of the talk page with links to the sections on the discussions of individual people so we don't end up restarting the same conversations again. FieldMarine (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
We could do that, but then I'd have to do it manually, I think (the index, not the archiving). Not a problem if the consensus if for it, as I have this article watchlisted, but the updates will only be as timely as I am. :P bahamut0013wordsdeeds 04:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll help too, but I'm on deployment so free time is limited. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
An alternative is having a separate talk page just for name inclusion discussions. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented the bot template. I will monitor what it does when it cycles tonight, then note the names discussed on the index. I think that a seperate talk page would be impractical for two reasons. One, the majority of discussion has been about inclusion of name son this list; two, an editor that isn't normally involved in discussion here would probably not see a notice about a sub page. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I chose not to include in the name listing those Marines who are on List of historically important U.S. Marines. Our scope is pretty clear, and if an editor doesn't regard that and ask why Chesty Puller isn't on the list, then he or she isn't likely to notice a previous discussion on that name. Please make any typo correction you deem necessary, I did mostly a copy and paste job here. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Watson

An anon added today: Bob Watson - Houston Astros star 1st Baseman and later GenMgr. Served in the USMCR late 1960s attaining the rank of Sergeant.

The article makes no mention of Marines service, and a quick Google search reveals that there are a LOT of individuals named Bob Watson. I believe that this page refers to the same individial as the article, but do we consider About.com a reliable source, especially for a BLP? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bea Arthur part three

To the editor called Eleccion seems to have posted this to the references for the entry Bea Arthur:

"However,service record at National Archives under Bernice Frankel/Bernice Aurthur service # 755 043 shows service 3/26/1943-9/26/1945 with the Marine Corps Women's Reserve, mostly in the motor pool at Marine Corps Air Station,Cherry Point,NC where she achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant."

My purpose of this section is to ask if this seems to be legit to you all. A few points.

  1. The user has almost no history and no talk or user pages, so I don't know how to ask him about it.
  2. The citation has many small details, such as a service number, that make it look legit on the face of it.
  3. The story differs from those of the other citations, which had her as a medical technition/technologist, as opposed to the motor pool. It's the only source so far that says she was in the motor pool.
  4. How do we know that this is the same Bernice Frankel?
  5. Has "Eleccion" actually seen this record?

If you are satisfied that this citation is real, feel free to re-insert it. Chrisrus (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You could always start a talk page to ask him, but judging by the user's history, it may be a while before he returns to see it.
In any case, Tony has promised to verify the claim when he's at the National Archives this fall, but if somebody can check with them sooner, then we can see if this is a hoax or not. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is true. Either I or one of my comrades will look into the situation at the archives this comiing fall. If said document does exists then she will stay in the list, if it doesn't then out she goes. If for some reason my group is unable to look it up,then she will stay on the list as doubtful. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If a record with the number given does not exist, that would only prove that Eleccion's edit was no good; not that Arthur was, or was not, a Marine. Can anyone look up a former Marine by name at the archive? If no, then where could one do so? Her service record (presuming it exists) should be publically available somewhere by now. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military Personnel Records Center has records dating back to 1905. Does anyone live near Missouri? Lets hope it wasn't lost in the 1973 fire. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't live in Missouri but I do work a few blocks from the National Archives (at the Washington Navy Yard) so I could look this up if you like? Also, most of the records that where destroyed where army, so we should be good. (although some USMC and Navy records got water and or smoke damage. --Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Great idea, you'll do all of us a favor if you looked up the records. Who knows maybe you will be able to help solve this mistery, something which she should have cleared up while she was alive. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: Felix Rigau Carrera

Recently I received from a fellow researcher newspaper articles which established that Felix Rigau Carrera was the first Hispanic fighter pilot in the USMC as member of the First Marine Air Squadron in WWl. He was also the first Puerto Rican pilot and a businessman. I want to know the opinion of my friends is his name should go in this list, where I posted him, or the "Historically important" list. What do you guys say? Tony the Marine (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I saw the entry on my watchlist this morning, I was going to question it, but reading the article a little closer, I decided not to. I think that his aviation pursuits are sufficient notability, regardless of service, not to mention that some of them were done during the periods when he wasn't actively commissioned. I would say he could serve on either list. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, first Puerto Rican pilot, first airmail pilot on Puerto Rico, and having actively served in all four branches of the military (is he the only one) would put him on this list. First Hispanic fighter pilot in the USMC should put him on the "Historically important" list.
Why not both lists for anyone who is both historically important to the USMC, and also separately notable enough for an article? —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
O.K., I also added his name to the other list. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_Marines/Archive_1&oldid=1257909563"