Talk:Military recruit training/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism?

"This was basically imitated from the U.S. Marine Corps because the Air Force cannot develop they're own ideas." --67.186.249.241 (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: "brainwash process"

The following whole paragraph should be changed to an NPOV:

The process has been described as a form of brainwashing in which inductees are encouraged to submerge their individuality partially in favour of their unit. To that end, standard uniforms are issued and the troops are shaved and grooved upon arrival in order to have their appearance be as uniform as possible. In addition, the trainees are instructed to move and respond in unison to encourage a group mentality. At the same time, the trainees are subjected to numerous physical activity trials to both to familarize the trainees in the demands of combat and to weed out the less able and/or willing trainees, which not only strengthens the unit's overall physical ability, but also builds morale for the remaining troops who are able to meet the physical demands and continue.

Sounds like a BCT dropout! I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of websites that describe what BCT is from an NPOV. I'm just not interested in editing this article.

--Maio 01:54, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks it's not brainwashing is brainwashed ^_^' simple as that.

It pretty much is a brainswashing process. They may not call it brainwashing, but they do describe brainwashing in their description of their training program. The US recruit training units, for example, describe the process as breaking people down, giving them a new set of experiences to serve as a frame of reference for the future, and then building them back up. The word "brainwashing" is absent from that description, but the description itself is practically the dictionary definition of "brainwash".

Equazcion •✗/C • 01:42, 12/24/2007

it isn't brain washing. trust me. i live on a military base, and i see military people daily, although I'm not with the military myself. they have not lost any degree of their individuality- the stereo types of all the soldiers being the same is completely false. absolutely no brainwashing is present. mental conditioning, yes, but

thats not necessarily the same thing. i agree with maio.  I'm not sure what the rules for changing it are, may i? because that is totally false, i am around military people all the time- they are no more brainwashed then u or i.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 

Useful links

• USAREC - US Army Recruiting Command
• US Army Delay Entry Program
• US Army BCT Brochures

Remember that the article must be from an NPOV, there is no need to allude the 'greatness' of the Army or the 'gratness' of the Army values.

--Maio 03:07, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Other than the "brainwashing" quote, it sounds neutral.

I'd also remark that basic training varies widely between the branches. When I was in USAF BT, it lasted six weeks, and this included only a few days of actual combat training (one day of target shooting, one day on a "confidence course"). By contrast USMC BT is at least 11 weeks, and includes extended combat and survival training. This is the sort of hardline basic training most civilians imagine. US Navy training includes swimming, and the US Army BT is probably in between the extremes of the Air Force on one hand and the Marines on the other.

Don't get the idea that Air Force "basic training" is an easy ride. It isn't. It's not as oriented toward ground combat as the Army or Marines, but it's still tough, and there is a lot of mental stress. Also, AF BMT now includes a week-long field exercise called "Warrior Week" that they didn't have back when I was in.--MarshallStack 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Army frame

I'm going to tune the article to make it more general. Mainly the intro; for instance, Marines and sailors go to "boot camp." Maurreen 08:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As do Coast Guard personnel.--MarshallStack 06:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

About 'boot camp'

It's a fairly universal term for all branches, IMO, not just the Marines and Navy.

My understanding is that the Army and Air Force usually call it "basic training," but no biggie. Maurreen 05:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's slang, so there's no official affiliation with the term.

The Coast Guard also calls it "boot camp". The Army calls it "Basic Combat Training" and the Air Force calls it "Basic Military Training."--MarshallStack 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It was initially called Boot Camp because the recruits were called boots based on the leggings they wore. This began during the Spanish-American War. The only service that had recruits called "boots" was the Navy & hence Marines as they are part of the US Navy. Calling the Army's Basic Training "Boot Camp" stems from carelessness & ignorance.

If you go to Army or Air Force basic and call it "boot camp," a Drill Sergeant or Military Training Instructor will be ever so glad to correct you!--MarshallStack 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Does anyone disagree with removing the tag at the top of this talk page? Maurreen 05:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't. We have to discuss this topic in a very controversial way but no one actually means to be POV here. It's just that opinions are stated here.

camp for felons

I'm not exactly convinced that if you type "boot camp" in the "search" box you should be led to this article. There also is this kind of boot camp that is used for convicts, especially such of minor age, who want to shorten their term. That's not exactly got to do anything with recruit training even if the same methods are used. I think an article on its own is needed for that in order to display the various views on the subject like if it really works or if it's brutal or whatsoever. --85.74.171.208 00:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have seen such a "felon camp" that was actually inside Ft. Gordon, GA when I was there for AIT. Most of the people there looked to be teenaged, middle-school to high-school that were probably on their last stop before state prison. I don't know anything more than that about it, though, we only saw them for a few minutes as we ran past their fenced-in compound during a Brigade motivational run. teh TK 10:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of US Forces training

I don't think the list of US bases and training is appropriate: if you're going to list US information then you should have to list all training facilities from all services from all countries. The page is about Recruit Training, not US Recruit Training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.12.47 (talk • contribs)

Recruit Abuse in US Basic Training?

The different US Services - Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard - all operate their own basic training courses. I have heard conflicting comments as to whether "abuse" of recruits is allowed, or at least officers and/or senior NCO's "look the other way". Basic Training is supposed to be tough and to possibly prepare a military member for a combat situation. However, I have heard different stories about whether "abuse" and "hazing" is allowed, condoned or practiced by each service.

In the late 1990s, there were scandals in Army Basic Training (including sexual relations between some Drill Sergeants and recruits) that caused the Army to tighten standards of conduct for Drill Sergeants, both to benefit recruits and to shield Drill Sergeants from unsubstantiated accusations.

Those I have talked to in the Marine Corps - who supposedly have the toughest Basic Training - say that Drill Instructors are not even allowed to use profanity (which goes against the entire "Full Metal Jacket" stereotype), let alone physical abuse, though of course they still scream at the top of their lungs (it wouldn't be Basic Training if they didn't). Apparently Marine DI's emphasize to new recruits right away that they are not allowed to physically abuse them.

I have no information on how the Navy or Coast Guard handles this.

My own experience at Air Force basic training was that if you were "abused" or not had very much to do with the personality of your individual Military Training Instructor (MTI). There were some MTI's who would not even touch the issue of hazing, racial slurs, etc., whereas others (mine was among them) would indeed use copious doses of profanity, hazing, racial slurs and occasional physical abuse when there were no officers and/or senior sergeants around. Mine would throw things at recruits and at no time when I was there were we ever advised of Air Force regulations on physical abuse and/or hazing of recruits.--MarshallStack 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Full Metal Jacket stereotype comes from the "old Army/Marines" where the Drill Daddies (don't ever call them that to their face) -could- beat the living crap out of you, as it was well within their authority. That was back in the old days, from the 1930s up to probably around the 1980s. After that legislature change prompted the US armed forces to tighten up the behavior of their respective training cadre to prevent them from receiving too much bad press. Anyone who's been in the Army or the Marines since the mid-80s or before will usually grumble about the "new Army/Marines" and how we've got it so easy these days.. although according to the Army Times there's been even more relaxing of standards in basic regarding physical fitness - apparently now "warriors" (they're not called "soldiers" until they graduate) can do push ups from their knees, "girl style". I'm flabbergasted, as it wasn't that easy when I was in. Also, a good deal of abuse did occur (and still does to this day), but the Army at least is doing better at tracking it down and punishing those involved.

It seems that among basic training Drill Sergeants, profanity, while frowned upon by the Army in general, is one of those minor offenses that most cadre are willing to turn their heads and look the other way about (especially considering that the vast majority of them are from the "old Army" where they had it a lot worse). And while Drill Sergeants are no longer allowed to put their hands on you (except when you're handling a rifle and they do it "for safety reasons" - I got slapped upside the Kevlar once for loading my M16A2 the wrong way during Convoy Live-Fire training), that doesn't mean they can't "smoke" you (make you do physical training exercises until muscle failure sets in and you literally can't do any more) till you wish you were dead.

All in all though it's for your own good, few people are in as good of shape in their whole lives as they are at the end of basic. I would have preferred more emphasis on "real-world" combat scenario training, though, as we spent plenty of time ruck-marching out to bivouac sites and setting up camp in the woods, but very little training that was directly relevant to the situations we were likely to end up in downrange (urban fighting, for example). Supposedly the recent move by the Army to extend basic training from 9 to 12 weeks was an attempt to remedy this, but that doesn't do me a whole lotta good being already graduated, sitting on my ass in Germany and barely even getting to the range to requalify on my rifle every six months :P teh TK 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea about "girlie" from-the-knee push-ups. I went through Army basic training a couple years ago (2004 I believe) and that certainly wasn't allowed. Hands and feet are the only points that can touch the ground, each not more than 12 inches apart, back and legs in a straight line, face forward. They're very strict about it, both in PT testing and in daily PT. As for abuse, although the rule is that they can't so much as touch you, it still happens. I got a stiff hand to the neck knock me to the ground for eyeballing the drill sergeant, and on another occasion my wrist bent forcefully because I tried to keep my hands inside my sleeves when it was too cold out. I also witnessed a drill sergeant choke-out a recruit for making fun of him -- that's where they put you in a choke hold til you pass out. Even without breaking the rules, they can still put your body in a great deal of distress just from creative smoking techniques, like making you do PT in full chemical protective gear, meaning gas masks and all. It's not pleasant. It's also true that a rule is on the books that drills aren't allowed to use profanity, but that is the most widely-broken rule in the US military, as everyone from drill sergeants to company CO's to battalion commanders curse at you multiple times in every sentence from the moment you arrive at Basic. Equazcion 07:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Length of USAF basic training...

...is now 8 weeks and is to include moree m-16 training as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.201.81 (talk • contribs)

Yep, all the US Armed Forces have had their respective initial training extended. Army went from 9 weeks to 12, Air Force from 6 to 8, Marines from 12 to 16 (I believe, I could be wrong) and Navy I have no idea. Don't have a date for it either, but I'm sure it could be Googled with little effort. teh TK 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken. Air Force basic is indeed 8 weeks. Army and navy are still 9 weeks. Marine Corp Boot Camp has been 13 week for the 10 years I have been in the Corps. Bunns USMC 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Air Force BMT has been at 8 weeks for over a year now. The weapons and physical training standards have also been greatly raised over the last 3-4 years as well.

USAF BMT is still 6 and a half (3 or 4 days depending on when you ship) weeks. it will still be that way till maybe october of 2007 if AETC don't push back the training step-up again like last year. Ptennant88 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

pov ?

Quite an interesting subject historically and globally, so should it be confined quite so much to a North American pov?

Hakluyt bean 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, if anyone with sufficient knowledge of other nations' basic training would like to add, by all means.. teh TK 11:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I think I had in mind generic basic training. After all it is basic:) I wouldn't reference national training myself unless it was illustrative of eg cultural or political difference. You might end up with an impression that basic training has particular national origins or importance, and I'm not sure that's true. Seems a ubiquitous practice. Hakluyt bean

Let's all go and get a haircut, boys and girls!

In the civilian world, the phrase "shaved head" may figuratively describe the short haircut given to male recruits. But in the military, "shaved head" means just that -- down to no hair or fuzz at all. The US military does not want its troops to be confused with skinheads, so they are not permitted to literally shave their heads -- maybe throughout their military career. As for female recruits, not only would it be forbidden for them to be literally shaven, I think they can't have as short a haircut as a male recruit is forced to get. Sobolewski 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Marine Corps you can shave your head if you choose to. I'm talking down to the skin. If you doubt it you can look up Marine Corps Order P1020.34g - Marine Corps uniform Regulations. Bunns USMC 17:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Army Reg 670-1 para 1-8a(2)(a), "[h]air that is clipped closely or shaved to the scalp is authorized." As for trainees, the hair is clipped to the scalp, not shaved. Trainees don't have nearly enough time in the morning to be shaving their heads with a razor. We were usually on the ready line within a few minutes when I went through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.17.226 (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the references to shaving heads, becuase I'm not aware of that being typical. I think it's really just the US that does that. In many other countries, hair only has to be cut short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction to US Army Infantry OSUT time

The example for OSUT time given in regards to US Army infantry training was 9 weeks of basic training and 4 weeks of infantry MOS training, this number was incorrect. The number has been corrected to 6 weeks of infantry MOS training (there are 15 weeks total).

- For some reason it now says 17 weeks. Incorrect entirely. The previous comment is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.178.185 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Training for countries other then the USA.

It apears USA is the focus of this article, i believe there should either be a listing of all countries respective training. or remove US training and just put up the typical and average aspects of training. to avoid disputes on the neutrality of the article.

Yes already said this on top. Anyone can change Wikipedia so if you want a listing of all countries then it simple, do the research and change it your self. None of us are going to do the research for you. "Avoid disputes on the neutrality", What are you talking about? I have read not on statements forbidding any one from adding any new information on other countries. PS. Don't forget to sign your statements for now on. --Dandvsp (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split of US Army Basic Training

US Army Basic Training deserves to be a separate article. It's too comprehensive to be here. Please post your thoughts. Thank you. Equazcion 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Scarian^Talk 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- Hongooi 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those who posted. There doesn't seem to be an inordinate amount of interest in this discussion so I've taken the initiative and performed the split. See US Army Basic Training. I shortened the existing section here to more of a summary, but this still needs a lot of work. The section needs to be shortened more and be reworded so that it's less similar to the Army Basic Training main article.

For those who may have been hesitant to post a lot of details in this section, I invite you be to be as detailed as you want now by adding to the main article (US Army Basic Training).

Equazcion 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tear Gas Chamber

With a major option of going into the military (Navy), I am curious for more information about this part of basic "boot camp". Compare/contrast between different branches in the US, so forth, so on... Always been curious anyhow (my father told me stories of it)... KyNephi (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Changes

I deleted part from the Canada paragraph, relating to the now defunct Communication Reserve. Slowly I've been cutting this out of as many articles as I can. --Evilbred (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of an article and what this article needs

I edited this article significantly June 9, 2011, as it was a big pile of opinion and nonsense. It previously included a long paragraph on what appeared to be some philosophical rant, or psychological analysis titled "resocialization", as if basic training is essentially resocialization. In the "Talk" above, there's nonsense about "brainwashing", and abuse in training. (My goodness, when I grew up my parents spanked me, if you can imagine.) Further -- it appears as though some have simply added "comments" or "thoughts" into the article. From their comments I find it hard to believe they ever actually attended basic training, and they certainly are against it. I can't understand how you could conclude you have a right to edit articles simply because you are against something you have never experienced. I suppose we hope experts would explain necromancy but hope they don't actually do it. And you could argue since I've been so brainwashed by having experienced basic training that it isn't possible for me to discuss the subject. (I am human -- perhaps I shouldn't be able to discuss anything given my human bias.)

The effort of Wikipedia is to provide a reasonable explanation of a term or subject. It should be concise in the first two sentences. Immediately heading into controversy is not the purpose of Wikipedia, unless the subject is recognized as nothing but controversy. As "recruit training" has been accepted in most nations for millenia, it doesn't fall in as controversial. Extensive philosophical discussion of a divergent nature from the obvious does not contribute to the effort. Develop "Wikiphilosophy", or post your rants in some appropriate anti-military blog. In Wikipedia, we accept the notion that experience and training are qualifications to edit. We should require it. Stay out of editing a subject if you have no experience managing the subject. We need people with real experience to edit articles. -- Have you managed recruits for a military? Then you have reasonable experience to write about the task. Please edit the article (...and especially my effort).

In this article -- we clearly need more international facts to show the range of training. We should especially include length of training, phases, skills, weapons training -- yes, the contents of recruit training. -- U.S. Army Sergeant Major (retired) Lewis Matson 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole

DI's "do everything possible" to push trainees? Kidnap and threaten family members, Shoot laggards, use a whip and cattle prod? Perhaps the editors here don't know the difference between hyperbole and truth. All DI's can do (in the USA) is use various psychological means to motivate the trainees including peer pressure, threats of failure, threats of expulsion and discharge, threats of physical harm, etc. (unlike more extreme methods used in some countries) as well as positive motivation such as appealing to the trainees nationalism, religious and moral beliefs, group identity, etc.216.96.76.79 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased Ommission

Hello,

As a subject matter expert on the Marine Corps (former USMC SSgt) I am trying to edit some incorrect information in the Marine Corps section (for example, that School of Infantry is exclusive to infantry-MOS Marines, which it isn't) and add new information to improve its accuracy. Several times I had tried to insert the factually correct statement with official cited sources regarding Marine Corps Recruit Training: "The Marine Corps, being an infantry-focused branch of service, sends all Marines through additional infantry training after graduation and before formal MOS training, a requirement consistent with its "Every Marine a Rifleman" ethos. This additional training is a reflection of Marine operational requirements in which non-infantry Marines have been used to perform direct combat or combat support roles throughout its history."

I might add that some of these sources and lines are repeated on other Wikipedia articles about the Marine Corps (See articles: United States Marine Corps and School of Infantry).

The administrator John "Hannibal" Smith (formerly RSTech1, see talk page for context) keeps removing this line, although I could not initially understand why given that I was citing correct sources and information. When I replied and added more credible sources, he revealed the real reason why he removed it; he was/is a solder in the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne and that he "knows how the military works" and that he's a "combat veteran." I did not know that Wikipedia allowed personal experience to substitute factual sources, so I countered his assertion with the fact that I served as a U.S. Marine for 9 years and was also a combat veteran and therefore in a better position to edit an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia about Marine Corps Recruit Training than someone who served in the U.S. Army. From there, the discussion degraded into him ignoring all of my objective sources, firsthand experience, references to other undisputed Wikipedia articles stating the exact same information, and telling me to simply "drop it."

It is quite clear that RSTech1 perceives this line about the Marine Corps as "making the Army look less tough" (I don't know how else to take it) and that he is motivated purely by personal interest, given his admission about serving in the U.S. Army. If that isn't the epitome of a "conflict of interest," then I don't know what is. Per Wikipedia's Administrators/Editors guideline:

"In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about...Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins."

Therefore, in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, I request that an objective third party looks at my added line and sources and gives a sound reason not to include it. Remember, the same information is explicitly stated in other Wikipedia Marine Corps articles, so keeping my line out would set a precedent for all those articles as well. As we all know, personal conjecture, feelings, and points of view have no place in an objective medium. Thank you.

2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Friend, you completely missed the point of everything I said. You focused on using branch-centric arguments, while I was pointing out that you simply weren't proving your point, and that you were POV-pushing. You keep using that word "administrator" - I'm not an admin and never claimed to be. I simply do counter-vandalism on here. Any editor can do that. I was pointing out that you were ignoring the basic Wikipedia guidelines, and I directed you to the specific guidelines in order to help. Your edits were pushing a very non-neutral point of view, you did not cite any reliable sources. The sources you did get were not reliable sources because they were either from the Marine Corp website, which can't be a reliable source in this case because of the conflict of interest, and the fact that every branch's website is mainly recruiting propaganda. (Anyone who's been in for a while - in any branch of the military - can tell you that a lot of the great stuff we hear from recruiters when we join is pure fiction.) You have to use neutral third party sources unrelated to you to prove a point. The other sources you had were 1)a personal website, and 2) an off-topic article. (If I remember right, that last one was from CNN, so if it had been on topic, it would have been a reliable source.)

The basic point of your argument was trying to make the article say that the Marine POGs were tougher than Army POGs, and that Marine POGs got "Infantry Training". By definition, only Infantry...get Infantry training, whether you're Army or Marines. Whichever branch it is, it's far tougher than what POGs have to go through, and we like it that way. That's not bragging ...that's just reality, and it has to be that way. Infantry is a whole different life...so getting a little extra basic combat training (beyond what you got in basic/boot) or extra time doing some shooting drills, isn't "Infantry training". If they tell you that it's "Infantry training", it's just to make you feel warm and fuzzy. Honestly, all that "Marines are more Infantry-focused than the Army" jazz that you were pushing is recruiting propaganda, pure and simple. My whole adult life, many of my best friends have been Marines (both 0311s and POGs), and they would all tell you it's just propaganda/BS, and we laugh about it. Sorry, but neither Marine POGs nor Army POGs have to hump it for miles on end with a 120+ lb load, or push yourself as hard as we do 24/7. When it all comes down to it, Army Infantry and Marine Infantry do the same exact job. Every branch has different units that are more elite than others, so trying to prove who's tougher than who is a waste of time. I was in an "elite" unit (& I hate calling it that)...but I don't throw it people's face...it's not necessary. And there are guys in far more elite units, so it's pointless.

I wasn't going to point this out before, but there were some holes in your story. You claimed that after you got out of the Marines, you worked as a "Private Military Contractor" overseas. No one who gets those jobs calls it a "Private Military Contractor", at least no one I've ever met. We call it a security contractor job downrange, and they're basically just high end security guards. It's not like private contractors are going out on missions...that would never fly with the ROE. On that note, they usually only hire former Infantry for those jobs. The only other types of jobs over there are working in logistical jobs on some of the medium to larger FOBs with companies like DynCorp (cooks, IT, fire, and various other jobs required to keep things running). For the record, I'm not insulting any of that...it's all important and to be respected. Additionally, you were posting your edits from two IP addresses in the same area of VA, and one was a DOD hard line (workforce.dodiis.mil)...meaning it's a military base, and the geo-location of both IPs puts you just south of Washington DC in VA, so that's likely Fort Belvoir, which is an Army base. If you had really been in the Marines for "almost 9 years", and been serving overseas as a contractor for years after that, then how could you be on a military base right now? It's an easy answer...you wouldn't, unless you were retired and had base privileges. So something isn't quite right in your story. My educated guess is that you're either a high school kid (likely Army or Air Force kid living on base with parents) who wants to join the Marines, or you're retired from the military and something in the middle there was fiction. Personally I don't care...both are fine. Just be your real self, and it will all be good. I don't judge.

Anyway, this conversation was days ago, and to be honest I'm surprised you're still stuck on this. I think it's time to chill and let it go. As I said in our previous convo, let's drop the stick...'cause the horse is dead... If you would spend some time going through the links I gave you, and becoming familiar with some of the major Wikipedia Guidelines, you could put together some material that is constructive and contribute something useful. Instead, it sounds like you just wanted to argue. BTW, I'm happy to help people when they need it, but I'll also call someone out when I need to as well. I was pretty chill with you until went into attack mode. There's no need for all that. Let's just all relax and try to work together. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just for continuity, here's the link to the original thread on my archive page. (Not that anyone really wants to spend their time reading it, but hey.) Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you claim that the sources are not credible but don't specifically mention how. How is the official website of the U.S. Marine Corps an unreliable source on what takes place after boot camp? It isn't recruiting propaganda as evidenced by the several other sources I cited that you simply ignored. Moreover, I cited the very same sources found on other Wikipedia pages about the Marine Corps, specifically, United States Marine Corps and School of Infantry. Can you tell us why that information and those sources are acceptable for those articles but are not acceptable for this one? Is it only because other branches of service are mentioned on the same article? Hm.

Taking factual information and deleting it simply because you believe it makes the Marine Corps look "tougher" than the Army is purely personal conjecture, shows an abject conflict of interest, and I might add pushing a specific point of view as well. Note that I made no comparison to the Army in my edits nor did I edit the U.S. Army recruit training section. That is entirely your personal perception.

You are incorrect on all accounts regarding my personal background, but I'll let it go simply because I appreciate anonymity and find it isn't worth it. Your anecdotes on Private Military Contracting is completely off the mark as well as it's a lot more than just security and logistics. I won't go into details, but have fun pushing biases on Wikipedia. The rest of us know how it really is and those curious about what happens in the Marine Corps will likely find themselves looking at the main article citing the same information anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. You're trying to make a point that evidence simply doesn't support. The bottom line is that you need to prove your point using evidence (by citing reliable sources), not anecdotes or personal opinion. I have no problem being proved wrong.

If you found similar sources being cited on other Wikipedia pages, then perhaps those pages will need to be examined for factual accuracy and bias as well. I would consider using official Army websites unacceptable as well if they were trying to make similar points that boost their image.

You said, "deleting it simply because you believe it makes the Marine Corps look "tougher" than the Army" - Well, I don't believe that, and it's not what I said.

You said, "As usual, you claim that the sources are not credible but don't specifically mention how." Actually, did mention how. If you have further questions, you need to read through the reliable sources guidelines. It has the details there so I don't need to restate every one. In general though, if you're trying to prove a point about a particular party(ie. Marines), you can't use websites by that same party (Marines) to prove it...that's a form of circular reasoning. I also said that every single military branch has recruiting propaganda on their websites.

You said, "I won't go into details, but have fun pushing biases on Wikipedia." Say what you will, but I'm working hard to do the exact opposite: prevent POV-pushing on Wikipedia.

What you're calling "Infantry training" is very basic. In the Army, it's already integrated into Basic training, so there is no need for a follow-on school. The training systems are different among branches. Just because you go to "Infantry school", doesn't make it "Infantry training". When non-Infantry Marines attend SOI, they don't come out Infantry qualified, and they do not proceed to run combat missions. But they do know how to survive in combat. Straight from the United States Marine Corps School of Infantry page:

"Marines learn the basics of combat marksmanship, counter-improvised explosive device techniques, how to conduct the defense of a position, convoy operations, combat formations, fireteam assaults, patrolling, MOUT, use of the AN/PRC-119 radio, reporting military intelligence, land navigation, and the use of hand grenades, the M203 grenade launcher, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and M240 machine gun. Training also includes combat conditioning by running an obstacle course, conducting marches, physical training, and Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. Upon completion of Marine Combat Training, the Marine is to have gained the knowledge and ability to operate in a combat environment as a basic rifleman and to perform his or her primary duties under fire."

The equivalent of all of this is done in Army Basic Combat Training regardless of MOS. It's less intense for non-Infantry MOS's, but it still gets the job done, and Soldiers completing basic "have gained the knowledge and ability to operate in a combat environment as a basic rifleman and to perform his or her primary duties under fire."

It's time to put an end to these shenanigans now. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 01:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I already cited the same sources multiple times that refer to the information almost word for word (reference your talk page). "Basic infantry skills" is mentioned on the official Marine Corps web site, so it does support that assertion.

Defense of a position, counter-improvised explosive device techniques, combat formations, fireteam assaults, patrolling, MOUT, reporting military intelligence, and land navigation are all most definitely basic infantry skills ("basic infantry skills" is the official language used on the Marine Corps website as well). What else is it exactly the Marines learn when they attend the School of Infantry? Cooking skills? There is no practical difference between "basic combat skills" and "infantry skills" given that there is no other way to conduct warfare in the 21st century. If you are about to argue that SOI teaches non-Marines only individual combat skills, I would have to argue that that is not the case as they work in fire teams when they are there, per doctrine.

I don't know how the U.S. Army works, but I highly doubt its basic training regimen covers much of the same material given that the training pipeline is 10 weeks long and the curriculum greatly varies between post to post (Fort Jackson obviously isn't the same type of training environment as Fort Benning). ITB students complete the same program as well before they move on to MOS-qualifying training that depends on their infantry specialty. That is the difference between general and specialized infantry skills. It is absolutely hilarious to think that non-infantry soldiers have comparable training to non-infantry Marines in terms of combat tactics when the Army's pipeline is shorter and doesn't emphasize additional infantry training for non-infantry personnel.

Additionally, non-infantry Marines have certainly been used to conduct combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in which tailored pre-deployment training fills the gap between what they haven't done since SOI and when they deploy. This includes additional marksmanship training, conditioning hikes, convoy operations, and MOUT, among other subjects. 1/12, 2/10, and several other non-infantry Marine units were routinely tasked with conducting direct combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan during the GWOT that infantry units typically performed because there were not enough riflemen to do it. The Marine training pipeline is a direct representation of that operational reality because it is only a third of the size of the Army at most times.

I can't help but wonder why somebody who is/was in the U.S. Army is so adamant about a training pipeline has has not went through in a branch he hasn't served in, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. I don't feel the need to correct articles about U.S. Army CI or HUMINT training using the argument of "that's not how CI/HUMINT is done in this separate organization." I can only chalk it up to inter-service rivalry or occupational hubris. In either case, just know that much of what is already here on Wikipedia in other Marine Corps articles contradicts your sentiments.

Ok, now I know you're making up the whole story about being a Marine. In your last post, you just outed yourself. (If it wasn't already obvious enough from what previously pointed out about you being at an Army base when posting some of your previous edits, despite claiming to have not been affiliated with the military for many years.) I do have a problem with people who claim to be something they are not, especially service members. We weren't talking about ITB before...we were talking about MCT. However, in this last post, you switched and started talking about ITB, but that's something only Marines with an Infantry MOS go through. Non-Infantry marines go through MCT, not ITB. Anyone who's been a Marine would be aware of that. Since you want to keep going on about the Marine Corps official website, if it will make you feel better, it says the same there as well: "Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of infantry are trained at the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB), while all non-infantry Marines are trained at the Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT)." ITB is twice as long as MCT, and it covers all of the basic combat skills that MCT does, plus the additional MOS-specific skills that Infantrymen use. Just so I am speaking your language: Nowhere on the SOI website does it say that MCT teaches "Infantry skills". What it does say:

Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT) is a 29-day course. The mission is to train and conduct standards-based combat skills training of all non-infantry Marines in order to ensure that "every Marine a rifleman" is true regardless of their Military Occupational Specialty. Training includes marksmanship, combat formations and patrolling, as well as other combat related skills. Hmm, not a word about "Infantry skills".

There's quite a bit of fiction in what you just wrote. For example, this is pure fiction: "non-infantry Marine units were routinely tasked with conducting direct combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan during the GWOT that infantry units typically performed because there were not enough riflemen to do it." Proof or it didn't happen. Seriously. Show some examples from legit sites that prove your claim. That would never be an authorized SOP. If you can prove me wrong, I welcome it. That would be some fascinating reading. I'm not saying non-infantry haven't taken fire outside the wire and fought back. Conducting combat missions is a different animal though.

The only way non-infantry go on combat missions is if there are attached to an Infantry unit for a specific purpose. For example, there were a couple times we took a couple female non-infantry soldiers with us as FET teams (Female Engagement Teams) to speak with Afghani women. That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about...I'm talking about conducting combat missions.

You said, "I don't know how the U.S. Army works, but I highly doubt its basic training regimen covers much of the same material given that the training pipeline is 10 weeks long". I'm really not interested in your doubts. Your doubts don't make something true or not, and have no relationship with facts. In the Marines, all of those skills are taught in MCT in 29 days (4 weeks), and prior to 2008, it was even less, 22 days (3 weeks). So why would you think that material couldn't be taught in 10 weeks? The fact is, it can easily be taught in that time, with extra to spare. The description of what's covered in Army basic is identical to what's listed in the description of MCT. It also shows that you're lacking in knowledge of something that an Marine E6 would have been at least somewhat aware of. See, if you're in the service long enough, you end up interacting with other branches quite a bit, and you tend to be aware of some of the basics about the others. The doctine is the same for all basic training units, however the intensity and implementation varies, but the same basics are covered. Of course Fort Jackson isn't the same as Fort Benning - that would be like comparing MCT with ITB. Fort Benning (where I went) only has Basic for Infantry and armor. For Infantry, the Army combines BCT with AIT into what's called OSUT (One-Station Unit Training), which is 5-6 weeks longer.

You said, "It is absolutely hilarious to think that non-infantry soldiers have comparable training to non-infantry Marines in terms of combat tactics". My only response to that is that if you think it's funny, then you're uninformed. This statement clearly shows that you have a biased POV that you're trying to push through Wikipedia articles.

You said, the Army "doesn't emphasize additional infantry training for non-infantry personnel." To be clear...that is a biased POV statement. Again, what you are calling "Infantry training" is in fact basic combat training. Yes, Army does not need an additional school after Basic, since this is already taught during Basic. It's two different training methods that cover the same thing. This is getting ridiculous.

You said, "much of what is already here on Wikipedia in other Marine Corps articles contradicts your sentiments." Based on what? If that's true, then use evidence...cite reliable sources.

You said, "especially in the face of overwhelming evidence proving otherwise." You haven't provided a single piece of legitimate evidence (aka "reliable sources") yet.

You said, "I can only chalk it up to inter-service rivalry or occupational hubris." Nothing could be further from the truth. I have nothing but respect for my Marine brothers and sisters (along with every other branch: Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard). The extent of my inter-service "rivalry" is when a bunch of us are at the bar ribbing each other over cold beers and laughing about it. When it comes to Wikipedia, I insist on facts not fiction.

You have stepped over the line and attacked me personally. I have overlooked this for a while. I'm going to tell you to stop now. You need to learn how to be civil on here, and not attack other editors.

I'm not going to continue this conversation any more, and I'm going to ask that you stop as well. I would suggest you spend your time here doing something more constructive, rather than arguing POV. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 06:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good lord, how much time did you spend composing this reply? No need for the lawyer-ese "you said, I said." Simply because you cherry picked sites that do not mention the word "infantry" in it does not mean Marines don't receive follow on infantry training after boot camp. I'll spare you a wall of text and simply quote sources, some of which are from official government sites ergo, not recruiting propaganda, as well as literature from former Marine officers who probably know a little more about how Marine training works than somebody who spent his military career in a different branch. Behold!

"Marine Combat Training Battalion trains all non-infantry Marines in basic infantry skills." From: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a401401.pdf

"Non-infantry MOS Marines are assigned to MCT to hone all basic infantry skills." From: http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/presence-detail/-/presence/detail/pres_loc_geiger

"At Kilo Company, our mission is to create riflemen through standards-based common combat skills training; the skills that may save their life one day. Over the next 29 days your Marine will conduct tough, realistic training to prepare them for combat. The Combat Instructors assigned to lead, teach, and mentor your Marine are the best and brightest non-commissioned officers and staff non-commissioned officers the Marine Corps has to offer. These Combat Instructors bring with them a wealth of knowledge and experience in basic infantry skills, directly applicable to the current and future operations of the Marine Corps." From: http://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Units/South-Atlantic/SOI-E/Units/Marine-Combat-Training-Battalion/Kilo-Company/ (Note: Combat Instructors at MCT are not typically infantrymen)

"This film explores the genesis behind the Marine Corps approach to training non-infantry Marines in basic infantry skills." From: http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps-training/building-combat-ready-marines/3988939221001

"All male Marines reported to the Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT) after fifteen days leave from boot camp. There they received twenty-two training days learning basic infantry skills that every Marine must know since the since the Corps's time-tested philosophy had always been that every Marine, regardless of MOS, was a rifleman first. The Infantry Training Battalion (ITB) was where, after MCT, those Marines assigned to one of the infantry MOSs were taught their specific skills such as machine gunner, mortar man, etc. This training lasted an additional three weeks and was something we sorely needed. In years past, the Corps's policy was that an infantryman only required those basic skills learned in ITR; nothing could have been further from the truth-as I experienced in 2/6." From: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1475956924

"While at the School of Infantry, Marines with a Military Occupational Specialty or MOS, in the Infantry field are trained at the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB). All other Marines receive their training in the basic infantry skills at the Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT Bn). Going through the School of Infantry takes entry-level Marines and gives them enough training to become combat ready. From: http://www.infantry.com/us_marines/

"The School of Infantry (SOI) provides Infantry Military Occupational Specialty qualification to entry-level infantry Marines, trains all non-infantry Marines in the infantry skills essential to operate in a combat environment ..." From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-geiger.htm

"I graduated April 14, and ten days later I went to Pendleton, to Marine Combat Training. I'm not Infantry, but I had to go to school to MCT, which is just more combat training we all have to go through if we're not infantry. You go there to further your infantry skills, because every Marine is a basic rifleman." From: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0393243230

But wait - there's more! From Wikipedia, no less.

"The School of Infantry's training mission ensures "Every Marine is, first and foremost, a Rifleman". At SOI, Marines with the Military Occupational Specialty of infantry (0300 occupational field) are trained at the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB), while all non-infantry Marines are trained in basic infantry and combat skills at the Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT Bn)." From: United States Marine Corps School of Infantry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_School_of_Infantry

"This focus on the infantry is matched with the doctrine of "Every Marine [is] a rifleman", a focus of Commandant Alfred M. Gray, Jr., emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All Marines, regardless of military specialization, receive training as a rifleman; and all officers receive additional training as infantry platoon commanders.[26] For example, at Wake Island, when all of the Marine aircraft were shot down, pilots continued the fight as ground officers, leading supply clerks and cooks in a final defensive effort.[27] As a result, a large degree of initiative and autonomy is expected of junior Marines, particularly the NCOs (corporals and sergeants), as compared with many other military organizations." And, "Marines in all other MOSs other than infantry train for 29 days in Marine Combat Training (MCT), learning common infantry skills, before continuing on to their MOS schools which vary in length.[99] From: United States Marine Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

"Lance Cpl. Chavon Wauchope, administrative specialist, Provisional Rifle Platoon, Company A, Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, practices combat marksmanship at the indoor simulated marksmanship trainer aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Oct. 22, 2014. The Marines were utilizing the M16A4 service rifle, M4 carbine rifle and M203 grenade launcher. The Co. A PRP is made up of male and female volunteers from numerous military occupational specialties who have had no additional infantry-specific training since Marine Combat Training. From October 2014 to July 2015, the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force will conduct individual and collective skills training in designated combat arms occupational specialties in order to facilitate the standards based assessment of the physical performance of Marines in a simulated operating environment performing specific ground combat arms tasks. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Paul S. Martinez/Released)" From: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Provisional_Rifle_Platoon_builds_infantry_skills_141022-M-ZM882-026.jpg

That's like, what, 13 sources? All of which state the exact same thing that I'm trying to put in the article? I can keep going, but I think you get my point. You didn't answer my previous question - what is it that Marines learn at the School of Infantry if they aren't learning infantry skills? Sweater knitting? I might add that non-infantry Marines being trained and deployed to perform infantry duties isn't really an anomaly like you're trying to make it sound and was actually quite common during the GWOT. I would know, because this is exactly what happened to me and my unit in 2007 when we were posted in Al Anbar and in 2005/2006 when G/2/10, an arty battery, was deployed to Hit to do exactly that. It isn't so much "fascinating reading" as it it "historical fact." I don't know what else to tell you at this point. Perhaps you should stay in your lane and let Marines talk about Marine training? Or keep using your status as a self-appointed editor on Wikipedia to leave out facts that don't suit your personal agenda. Whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see that you're still really clinging to the phrase "basic Infantry skills". By that measure, all branches of the military learn "basic Infantry skills" if they learn how to shoot a rifle. Using Marine recruiting propaganda to try prove your point doesn't prove anything. I've already said that. The reality is still, that they're just basic combat skills. All basic combat skills are based on Infantry tactics. That's a given. You're trying to prove the Marines, even non-Infantry, are "more Infantry" than any other branch. That's a ridiculous point to try to make, and one that no one who's actually ever served would waste time with. All you're demonstrating is that you've never actually served. The bottom line: You still haven't proven the point you're trying to make. It's time to let this go. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really need to prove that any more than I already have though seeing as the Wikipedia pages United States Marine Corps and School of Infantry already make that abundantly clear (if you're confused, I already quoted them above verbatim). So, did you get the idea that I haven't served from the line 'I would know, because this is exactly what happened to me and my unit in 2007 when we were posted in Al Anbar and in 2005/2006 when G/2/10, an arty battery, was deployed to Hit to do exactly that.'? Methinks you're trying to deflect so you don't have to yield to what everybody else already knows, but okay. I'll just accept that the world is flat in the article "recruit training," I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please answer one question: If you were in the Marines for 9 years (non-Infantry, E6), and then a "Private Military Contractor" (your words) for many years, and no longer have any affiliation with the military, why are you posting from an Army Base? Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I never specified my MOS and I never posted from an Army Base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:7097:FF34:948B:DCC7 (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is correct, you did not give your MOS...but you did previously acknowledge my comment that you were not infantry, in the original thread (archived in my talk page archives).

Not an Army base, eh? :) So how do you explain the IP address of this edit posted from an IP address registered to workforce.dodiis.mil (Defense Information Systems Network) at Fort Belvoir, VA? Wikipedia's GEO-location link for IP address: 214.3.138.230 And, then your next edit (with nearly identical text) was posted from a civilian IP address at the same approximate geographic location. GEO-location link for IP address: 2601:14b:302:698c:b498:6dde:85d3:490f Nice try. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nearly identical? It's either identical or it isn't, so it's pure coincidence. Lots of veterans, contractors, and government workers live in the northern Virginia/D.C. area and there are a lot more DoD installations around than Fort Belvoir. Maybe another Marine vet took notice and tried to make edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how IP addresses work. They don't show exact geographic coordinates. No coincidence, because, that was the first IP address you used. Nice try. Those were all your IP addresses. It sure could have been another DoD installation...but with a .mil extension, it could only be a military base/property. Even if not Fort Belvoir, it proves the same point though...your story is full of holes. Time to stop the shenanigans. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 04:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's great and everything but somebody else's edits doesn't really have anything to do with my edits. Is the text I cited any different than the aforementioned quotes from the United States Marine Corps article and School of Infantry article? If not, why do those articles get to contain that very same information but this one can't?

Enough of this. Those were clearly your edits...almost word for word. Again, nice try. Any of your perceived issues with the article have already been resolved, as the article content has been expanded for the Marine Corp section, with far more detail than you were going to add (and properly sourced), but without the POV-pushing. Now, are you here simply to argue, or are you here to build an Encyclopedia? If you have something constructive to add to Wikipedia, then fantastic, but don't keep arguing for argument's sake. Drop the stick...the horse is dead. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you change Marine Corps recruit training from 13 weeks to 12 weeks? It isn't 12. If you are about to state that the first week of in processing doesn't count, then you would have to lower the weeks for the other branches listed as well. The comparison with U.S. Army recruit training is inappropriate and was never part of the original edits. A non-infantry Soldier's 10 weeks of basic training covers the same amount of material as a non-infantry Marine's nearly 17 cumulative weeks of boot camp and SOI? Whatever you say there buddy, this was clearly written with an ulterior motive in mind. I'm done here and will just stick with the aforementioned articles with much more credible information (and suspect many more will if they want to know how the Marine Corps works). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The information added is 100% correct, based on reliable sources, verifiable, and neutral. As referenced in the article, the Marine Corps (marines.com) states that it is 12 weeks, so perhaps you need to argue with the Marine Corps, not me. It's odd that you want to consider marines.com a reliable source when it suits you, but not when it disagrees with you. I'm not arguing with you further, as you're being disruptive. Again, I ask: are you just here to argue or contribute to building an encyclopedia? Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

References

First Ambush as a source

There are issues with the extensive use of this source. First, merely citing statistics or passages from other studies doesn't make this one valid. There's no evidence of peer review or academic acceptance. Second, much of what is being used in here is anecdotal in nature. Quoting some random recruit about what he thinks he saw isn't really helpful. Third, A few sources are being used a LOT in this and they are UK centric. But they're being used to populate the section about military recruit training in general, not UK specific training. Fourth, I'm sure it's a coincidence, but everything I saw this source being (over)used for was to cite something in a negative way. That's a good start. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Niteshift36. Thanks for taking me to task on the changes to this page. I can see some of the points you are making, particularly not to use First Ambush as a primary source, though I think it is valid as a supplementary one. However, you have deleted large swathes of text that was supported with valid primary sources. Each time you've done this I've strengthened the sources (to a degree that is not often found on other wiki pages!) and you've deleted it again. All fair enough - that's how this works... but please let me reinstate some of that now and please query it with an appropriate tag rather than just deleting it. I'll be bearing some of what you've said in mind and I won't reinstate all of it, so please bear with me... Thanks Fugitivedave (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize that it added to work for you. Let's talk about some of them before they get added in to avoid both of us doing extra work. I am continuing to oppose the use of First Ambush, even as a secondary source. A source needs to be a RS, regardless and I don't believe this one is. In addition, many of your additional sources go right back to making the section that is supposed to be more "universal" UK centric and mostly negative.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• No problem at all - I can see what you're getting at and I think the article will be improved as a result. I've reinstated some points and left out others - what do you think now? The sources generally cover the UK and US, not just the UK. I don't mind taking all references to First Ambush out, if you're not happy with it. Fugitivedave (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest, the First Ambush source feels very problematic. It's produced by an activist group that is actively trying to discourage enlistment. They have no incentive to be balanced at all. Instead, they have a POV to drive. I could expand on that with specific points, but if you're willing to avoid using it as a source, there's no real need for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK it's been reverted by Velela. I agree to taking out all references to First Ambush, but argue for reinstatement of sections on 'containment', 'desensitization', 'aggression', 'reward', 'fieldcraft' and 'physical fitness', on grounds that any treatment of the process of military training has to mention these. To my mind, my latest version referenced all these appropriately. What do you think? Fugitivedave (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC) x

Proposed removal of tag stating that this is UK-specific

Most of the examples used in describing military training are American, some are British, and a few are from other states. This reflects where most of the research on military training has been carried out.

In order of the first mention of each reference used, these are their national contexts:

McGurk et al - US Dave Grossman - US John Hockey - UK Gwynne Dyer - Canadian Peter Bourne - US Finnish Army - Finland Dornbusch et al - US Huntingdon - US British Army - UK Child Soldiers International - global

Therefore it is incorrect to say that the article presents a mainly British perspective, and I propose to remove the tag. But it would be good to hear what others think first...

Thoughts?

Armygeekboy (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added some more international references - there are now 22 references supporting the 'major characteristics' section from Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, Norway, South Africa, the UK, the US, and including one reference from an international NGO.

So I've removed the UK-perspective tag.

Armygeekboy (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)