Jump to content

Talk:3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 4, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
May 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 24, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 24, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

GA status

[edit]

Please remove this article from GA status for the time being until the two sections with the expand tags can be updated. Really can't give it a serious look when the article has two big holes in it. It is well on its way but it is still too soon.--Looper5920 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm currently in this battalion. I'm trying to get my command to help me expand the article, especially the post-Vietnam section, but need to get at least GA status before I can talk to them. Palm_Dogg 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Americas Battalion" Stuff Needs Reworking

[edit]

I think the "Americas Battalion section and related content needs to be reworked and consolidated.

More specifically: I don't know why the "General Charles Krulak, the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps served as Battalion Commander from 1983–1985 and is credited with giving 3/3 the nickname "America's Battalion" in the notable 3/3 section isn't in the "Americas Battalion section. I'd also like to suggest that certain traditions be treated as traditions as opposed to credible facts without some sort of independent verification and I don't think a marine museum employee relating a conversation with a General at some previous time is exactly research grade work. Perhaps the material could be proffered as "a possible source of the name". --Nogburt (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 


 General Krulak told me, personally, that he was on board and naval vessel off Beirut in 1983. The terrorist group that blew up the barracks sent him a letter stating that if come upon Lebanon soil they will be destroyed. The letter was addressed to "America's Battalion" and that is where the title comes from

GA hold

[edit]

This is on GA hold for 7 days for these reasons: 1) lead does not summarize article, it's more of a brief history that also jumps from WWII to modern era, then back to other things. Make it a summary of the key points of the article. Remove "has" from the first sentence, 2nd para. The one MOH is a detail, not a summary 2) footnotes are should show more info. See Scouting for good ref fmt, suggest cite fmt for refs. 3)need fn on first para of WWII section 4)the 4 items in refs are not in same format 5) why is official website not a ref? 6) Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines. 7) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed reformatting the citations, but ran across a few possible discrepancies — which I've listed in the section below. Also, the citations were to websites and I didn't go back and add original access dates. (Palm Dogg, are you game to do this?) — ERcheck (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better! But, 1)first para WWII still has no ref, 2) first para 1991-2004 has no ref and it should as it list several details, 3) only a couple web refs have retrieve dates, you need consistency here. Fix these and I'll promote it.Rlevse 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — ERcheck (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation questions

[edit]
Citation question #1

The following citation:

  • Otto J. Lehrack (2005). America’s Battalion: Marines in the First Gulf War. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

is used. However the actually points to a review of the book:

  • Leo J. Daugherty III. "Review of Otto J. Lehrack, America's Battalion: Marines in the First Gulf War". International Journal of Naval History. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Is the citation for the book review or for the book itself?

I removed the url from this citation and added the page number. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation question #2

Citation [13] is for:

However, the url points to

Is this an error in URL, or is it something referred to in the above text?

— ERcheck (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an error, but it looks like you've fixed it. Thanks. Palm_Dogg 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you meant the Admire article, I found the correct citation. It is not readily available online; only from the Gazette archives, which requires a paid membership. Here is the citation that I added:
BGen John H. Admire (August 1991). ""The 3d Marines in Desert Shield"". Marine Corps Gazette. 75: 81–84.
— ERcheck (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all the citations, references, and external links have been made more specific, per reviewers suggestion above. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Battalion 1st Marines

[edit]

I served with 3rd Battalion 1st Marines, which was replaced by 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, and we were the ones who took over the three cities that 3/3 occupied. We set up the Forward Operating Bases. We were the ones who started working out of the cities as opposed to the Haditha Dam. This took place when we conducted Operation River Gate in October 2005.

current deployment

[edit]

they're back in Anbar. Shouldn't this be added to the current history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.138.15 (talk) 01:24, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I needed to wait for an official Marine News article so it wouldn't be OR. Palm_Dogg 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

I note that there's inconsistency in the formatting, which would be cleaned up at the same time. Tony (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFA request

[edit]
  • 1. Can someone double check the recent changes to the 10 deadlinks now fully contain the relevant information on the sources, ideally.
  • 2. The images have no alternative text, see WP:ALT. It is standard that FA articles have alt text on images now.
Much better. Still the streamers to do. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Streamers done! Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. Is the part about 'deploying to Afghanistan in 2010' WP:CRYSTALBALL? Is it 'almost certain to take place' being the critical part of that policy. I have no idea whether it's crystal or not, just asking for consensus on it. By the way is it deploying or redeploying?
  • Negative, that was from a press release by the I Marine Expeditionary Force on what units would be participating in the Afghan War for the year 2010. Yes it is deploying (redeploying is when we come home). Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that had now been removed.  Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. The sections are labelled (or maybe structured) illogical. Table of contents section '2 History', yet a subsection is '2.9 Afghanistan (II)' which being future is definitely not part of history. My first thought is that history is not a good section heading and having a sequence of events is perhaps not the most engaging way to present the information. Maybe check how other similar FA articles are structured.
Quite an improvement.  Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. The lead; there seems to be no mention of the section "America's Battalion" which according to WP:LEAD is an issue. The award and Notable Marines also doesn't sit nicely in the lead, which maybe related to the structure above. So lead wants a good checking. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly greatly improved. Await to read opinion of others. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Battalion,3rd Marines Deployed for 1956 Suez Crisis!

[edit]

Gentlemen: Although it was long ago, the summary of the 3rd Marines in 1956 is incorrrect. You say we were "alerted' for the 1956 Suez Crisis. Since I was in the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines and Lt. Colonel White's radio Operator, I can remember, with many of my mates being hurriedly rushed aboard the USS Telefair (an APA) in late October 1856 and leaving in convoy with an AKA and an LST. We steamed from Yokuska Japan the entrance of the Red Sea before holding station there. We stayed on station in Indian ocean for about a month and slowly steamed back to Japan, arriving back in late January, 1957. We wer designated as "BLT 3/3" or Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. In those days, expeditionary Marine Forces, with supporting tanks and artillary were designated as "BLT's". Your data is incorrect--I hardly think that spending 3 mos afloat awaiting orders to go ashore constitutes an "alert" as described in your coverage

James S. Underwood Sgt USMC 1955-1959 71.251.88.146 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt Underwood. The reference cited is the official history of the 3rd Marines Regiment, which says, "During the Suez crisis in late 1956, BLT 3/3 was alerted [italics mine] for possible employment in the Suez Canal area, but it only cruised in the Southeast Asian waters, "showing the flag" in Borneo's Brunei Bay, Bombay, Karachi, and Singapore, and then returned to Japan." However, I have attempted to reword it to conform with your personal observations as much as possible. Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

Ign'r'nt question: Why, when discussing individuals, is "marine" often capitalized, but "sailor" and "corpsman" (for example) typically are not? It seems very inconsistent. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Marines: must it always be capitalized? Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tet and Its Aftermath (1968)

[edit]

Since it appears to be commentary, I moved the item below from the end of the Tet and Its Aftermath (1968) section. I was also unable to confirm the source by title alone. Please supply author, title, publisher, year and whatever else you can, ISBN, web link, etc. Thanks --Dual Freq (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Mike 3/3 did not "blunder" onto the 325th NVA Division. This was a planned assault against what was thought to be an NVA batallion but turned out to be a NVA regiment. The battle lasted all day into the early evening with accurate and adjusted artillery from the NVA and air strikes from Marine and Navy aircraft. 'Another Viet Nam Retrospective' page 60" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.104.150 (talk • contribs) 20:36, March 19, 2015‎
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

[edit]

I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. This article was promoted in 2007, and has not been maintained to current FA standards; if the following cannot be addressed, the article should be submitted to WP:FAR:

  • There is no WP:LEAD.
  • There is uncited text.
  • Listy prose (see sample in "Organization" section)
  • There are image layout issues (MOS:ACCIM and MOS:SANDWICH)
  • There are extremely long paragraphs and excess detail.
  • There is no sense of current activity.
  • Independent sourcing (over-reliance of press releases) is problematic.

This is not an exhaustive list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3rd_Battalion,_3rd_Marines&oldid=1232470104"