Talk:Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois

Article naming

Generally its proper to propose a name change before simply pushing the article to a new location. Isn't Recruit Training Command Great Lakes the proper name of the recruit training facility in current usage by the US Navy? Were there not at least 2 other "Recruit Training Commands" (San Diego and Orlando)? If the purpose of this article is to discuss recruit training in the Navy wouldn't United States Navy Recruit Training be more appropriate? Bottom line is that this should have been discussed first. What about United States Marine Corps Boot Camp? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dual freq. Page moves usually shouldn't be unilateral. the present name is (IMO) proper, but the move should have been briefly mentioned. As for the two other RTC's, there were, but thanks to the work of the honorable former congressman from Waukegan (Haha, my spellchecker suggests "Milwaukee" instead of Waukegan), they are closed down and the only place boots go to get pushed is cold in the winter and sweltering in the summer. :) Protonk (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur that it should have been discussed first. USMC Boot Camp article is about current boot camp in general, much like this article. There are separate articles for the RDs, such as Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island that are about the facilities. I'd support reverting this pages move back to the previous name. "Boot camp" might have been slang sixty years ago, but I don't believe that's the case any more. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the sticking points is that the navy has spent a lot of time and effort "professionalizing" the service, pushing down the vernacular, borrowing heavily from corporate speak. Lots of terms, habits and phrases were rightly pushed aside as hazing, but in some cases (IMO) the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. Officially, boot camp is RTC, and we should respect that, just as we would title an article on IBM as IBM, not "Big Blue" (though big blue redirects there, of course). Protonk (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

IBM is the company, comparable to US Navy, not to Boot Camp. Also, the USN's own webpage on Boot camp is is titled "Boot Camp", and the term is used elsewhere on the site. Sounds like someone needs to have a talk with the Navy's webmaster about professionalism! :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why I ough'da... Chalk it up to the failure to convert the new navy over. News flash. Chiefs are still fat, sailors still swear, and....well...let's not mention overseas visits. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So we have United States Navy Basic Training, United States Navy Boot Camp, United States Navy Recruit Training, Recruit Training Command Great Lakes and the current United States Navy Recruit Training Command to chose from. The RTC Great Lakes one would require a slight shift in focus, from USN boot camp in general to just RTC Great Lakes. Are there any other suggestions I've missed? --Dual Freq (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to moving this article to United States Navy Basic Training? --Dual Freq (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh. I don't have a strong reason to object but I'm also not too concerned. We could just make a redirect page from basic training to this one. There aren't going to be (in the foreseeable future) other RTC's, so to me it seems like leaving it as it is would be pretty harmless. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, its moved to United States Navy Basic Training. That matches with the United States Army Basic Training article and keeps the focus on training in general as noted above. I could see United States Navy Recruit Training as a viable alternative, but I think the word command focuses on the current single command in Illinois as opposed to the history of Navy Basic Training. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming RTC

First of all, United States Army Basic Training is carried out at several different Army posts around the United States. United States Navy Basic Training is only carried out at Recruit Training Command

Second, the Army Basic Training article is about the Army's basic training, not the history of the bases that conduct the basic training and not the facilities that are on those bases, which is what the Recruit Training Command Article is about.

Therefore, the title that Danswezy assigned to the article originally is more fitting. This article IS about Recruit Training Command not just about Navy "Boot Camp"

I don't believe that the changes dualfreq made at this time increase the accuracy of the article. A lot of the content that I have been adding was to support an article on RTC. Like Protonk said, the Navy calls is Recruit Training Command (Officially) even though they recognize it is also "Boot Camp", but note the parenthesis that always enclose those words. Rossusna02 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who reverted the article title to United States Navy Basic Training just hours ago. You made no previous comment on the naming so it looked to me like you were in agreement that this article was about US Navy Basic Training in general, not RTC Great Lakes. --03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When I look at the history page it looks to me like dualfreq reverted it, I only reverted the article to clean up the intro paragraph section as someone used terminology that made the article less accurate. Rossusna02 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page you reverted the title of the article in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Navy_Basic_Training&diff=227728035&oldid=227727990 If you didn't want the article named United States Navy Basic Training why did you restore that title in bold letters to the lead paragraph? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Navy_Basic_Training&diff=226744690&oldid=226694047 this edit show you changing it from Boot Camp to Basic training. If you didn't want the article's name to be "United States Navy Basic Training" why did you change it to that at least twice? If this article is solely about Recruit Training Command Great Lakes, then that should be the name. US Navy Recruit Training Command is not the name of the command. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I guess if the system shows me changing it, and I didn’t mean to change it, I will change it back. Thanks for the advice. Rossusna02 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've successfully made it worse. Now the article name doesn't even mention the Navy. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe one of my suggestions was Recruit Training Command Great Lakes not "Recruit Training Command" which forgets other services may use similar terms and other military or police groups throughout the world might use that name. Also, I think you fail to understand that the lead paragraph bold print name is supposed to match the articles name. WP:MOS is a good place to start for the manual of style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First sentences says "If possible, an article title is the subject of the first sentence of the article", that's waht I'm talking about. I never said you moved the article, just changes the lead sentence so that it no longer matched the title. I assumed that meant you agreed that the title should be United States Navy Basic Training. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dual Freq, you bring up a good point that Recruit Training Command may be too ambiguous. Adding Great Lakes to the title sounds like a good decision. Before I jump to fast again, I will let this post sit here for a bit to make sure nobody else has a better idea. The reason I didn't respond to the earlier posts on this discussion page, is quite simply, I am new to Wiki and didn't realize this page was here. Also, as I'm sure it is very evident by now, I am in the service and have a VERY busy schedule, so I don't always check this page each day. If this is an article you are interested in helping me make better, I would be eager to work with you, as I am with Protonk. Please feel free to e-mail me for a much quicker response. I will update my Wiki e-mail to route to my office computer. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How about, "United States Navy Recruit Training Command" instead of "Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes". This way the article title reflects that it is the United States Navy's Recruit Training Command, which I think is more important than the fact that it is a Recruit Training Command located in Great Lakes. If there are no objections, or better ideas, I will try to implement this change on Monday night or Tuesday. Rossusna02 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that I don't agree with the name United States Navy Recruit Training Command, I wouldn't have moved the article in the first place if I agreed with that name. This article was originally named United States Navy Boot Camp until it was changed by the other editor last week. If this article is about a single command, then it should be named the same as that command, ie Recruit Training Command Great Lakes. If it is about Navy Boot Camp in general it should be named without "Command". If the two of you want to commandeer this article and convert it into an article solely about RTC GL instead of the original focus of Boot Camp in general then it should be named Recruit Training Command Great Lakes. If we are to return to the original focus of the article then we need to return to something similar to United States Navy Basic Training (like the Army article), United States Navy Recruit Training or United States Navy Boot Camp (like the United States Marine Corps Boot Camp), no "command". The current Recruit Training Command name is not acceptable. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

DualFreq, as I mentioned earlier, this article is about so much more than just the Army Basic Training Article (which covers several bases), while this article only covers one base, Recruit Training Command. I looked at the official seal of Recruit Training Command, and it is Recruit Training Command Great Lakes Illinois, so I suppose that would be the most proper title of the article, and that would go more along the lines of what you are proposing. Just out of curiosity, who exactly do you think is trying to commandeer the article and why do you think that? Rossusna02 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made the move, does anyone think that the intro paragraph has to be updated with the location in bold too? I don't. Rossusna02 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on the Enterprise Building

There is an article on the Enterprise building that some people want to delete. They have already replaced the article with a redirect. The article is reproduced below:--Toddy1 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC) USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)
Great Lakes, IL
Commissioned: May 27, 2005]]

USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is a commissioned building located at Recruit Training Command on Naval Station Great Lakes in Great Lakes, Illinois.

The USS Enterprise Recruit Barracks Building was built as part of a $763 million recapitalization program. This USS Enterprise is particularly notable since even though it is a building it has been commissioned U.S.S. and it was commissioned while another USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was still in service. Currently this is the only building in the history of the United States to be commissioned USS Enterprise. Approximately 4,775 civilians are transformed into smartly disciplined, physically fit, basically trained sailors aboard this ship each year. The building has a Ship's Officer, who fills the role of Commanding Officer, a Ship's Leading Chief Petty Officer, who fills the role of Command Senior Chief, and a Chaplain.

The building is named after the eight United States ships that have borne the name, including the two famous aircraft carriers pictured around the building's "quarterdeck". The first is CV-6, which was a ship of the Yorktown class launched in 1936, and one of only three American carriers commissioned prior to World War II to survive the war. The nautical flags hanging on the quarterdeck of BLDG 7115 are from CV-6. The second is CVN-65, the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Many of the displays on the quarterdeck of USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) were donated by the CVN-65 Enterprise.

USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) has 120,000 square feet (11,000 m²) of space, enough to accommodate 16 recruit divisions of up to 88 recruits each. This facility integrates berthing, classrooms, learning resource centers, a galley, and quarterdeck, all under one roof.

USS Enterprise and the other new barracks are located in a section of Recruit Training Command called Camp John Paul Jones, a 48 acres (0.19 km²) parcel of land that was acquired from the United States Veterans Administration.

Recruit Training Command’s recapitalization project includes the construction of Battle Stations 21, a full-size ship simulator with state-of-the-art special effects designed by the entertainment and theme park industries.

Good source but possibly a copyvio

Resolved

This new material looks like a direct word for word copy of http://books.marcoa.com/military/great_lakes_ns/display-magazine.php page 46. Page 3 states the book is copyrighted but published for the USN. Some of the material may have been written by the Navy, but we have no way to tell what parts are USN and what parts are not. I don't think we can just direct copy and paste from this book without knowing what was provided by the USN. It looks like a good source and interesting material, but I'd feel better if it was rewritten, since it has some tone issues as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC work for hire for the government doesn't fall under the blanket PD provisions. Should probably rewrite it. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

History section is slightly rewritten. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor rewording doesn't fix copyright problems, the whole section should be redone. There are still whole sentences that are verbatim from the source. Template:Copyviocore says "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement" --Dual Freq (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I looked at that source. I disagree that the article in current form is a slavish copy of page 46. Before I got to it, yes. Whole paragraphs were lifted. But the current article clearly identifies the source of the information and presents that information. Which sentences in the current revision represent a copyvio? Protonk (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the entire article is one big copyvio, just the most recent few paragraphs. "Navy boards investigated 37 sites around Lake Michigan." is a word for word quote page 46. "called “The Father of Great Lakes” for his efforts, today North Chicago’s Foss Park--which is immediately north of the base--bears his name." is a direct quote except for it is missing the word "and". "Great Lakes was a pioneer in racial integration of the Navy. In mid-1942, the Navy began accepting African-American enlistments for general service." is a direct quote from page 49 as is the rest of that paragraph. I appreciate the effort that is being made here, I just wanted to point out that much of this edit is a copy and paste of the above source. Since the work appears to be copyrighted I think it needs to be reworked. We're all trying to improve the article, but dumping copyrighted material into the article is not helping improve its creating more work for others. We also have information in the history that is duplicated by the newly dumped / merged building information. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the entire base directory, somewhere in there it says that the information supplied was published by the Public Affairs Officer unless otherwise noted, since it was noted in that article, that is therefore the Navy's official released info. So I typed it into the article, and referenced the document which gave me permission to do so (and where it came from). I understand the need to protect Wiki from copyright issues, but seriously, do you think the Navy is going to sue you for placing an article online which shows how great RTC is becoming? If anything they would send you a medal... Rossusna02 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You honestly think its right to dump material word for word from a copyrighted publication onto a website that has as one of its cornerstones the exclusion of copyrighted, or potentially copyrighted material? As I said before, we don't know who wrote that, it comes from a publisher's web page from a document that says Copyright 2007 on page 3. If this was on some USN PAO website of Great Lakes with some sailor's name listed in the by line, I wouldn't have any trouble with this being PD-USN. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, as a US government publication, copyright law states that it is public domain. I don't have time to re-read the directory now to find the page with the disclaimer, but perhaps you can, before you critique any further? Rossusna02 (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright is disclaimed by US government employees acting in their official capacity. Companies working under contract for the government can claim copyright for works they produce. The work displays a copyright claim and prior works of the same style are registered with the copyright office. It is not extreme to suggest that they would pursue copyright claims. they have a right to control distribution of the work and the page should respect that. Let's remove or modify the offending sections in order to eliminate a possible claim of infringement. It doesn't look like there is too much more to do. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead

I made some changes to the lead that have been undone, with the comment that the changes I made reduced the accuracy of the article. I don't think that's the case, but I'd like to get the feelings of the group. My attempt is here, the current (at the time of this posting) is here. I initially made the changes because the lead refered to "United States Navy Basic Training" but was titled "U. S. Navy Recruit Training Command". That issue has been addressed. The remaining issues that I see are: 1. I think the lead should highlight that only enlisted training occurs at RTC 2. Reduce the use of jargon without explaning unfamiliar terms, such as "major tenant command" and "A-schools" 3. Remove the excessive capitalizations and MOS type things. Any thoughts? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. We do not only train enlisted at Recruit Training Command. We have recently undergone a pilot program to help train select Officer Candidates as well. I'm not sure how much detail I can go into, but stating that we only train enlisted is not a true statement. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

2. I can work on explaining the unfamiliar terms. "Tenant Command" and A-School are words that I think are important to keep on the page as they are major descriptions of RTC and what happens after RTC. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I will look at the excessive capitalization. I always thought it was proper to capitalize any person, place, or thing, but I am not an English Major, I'm an Engineer. It is local practice to capitalize Sailor, and Recruit Training Command, but not to capitalize recruit, even though I did so in the article. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you get a chance to adjust it, fine, otherwise I will do so later today, trying to observe the points raised here. I still intend to add a line about recruits = enlisted, but I'll certainly qualify it to indicate that at least some officer candidates are trained there as well. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Done! The intro reads well, you have added more factual information, but kept it so that everyone hopefully can understand it. Thanks. Rossusna02 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

redirects?

Can we arrange a redirect when someone links or searches "RTC Great Lakes"? New guy here trying to be helpful, but I'm not sure how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.155.10 (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Shotguns or no Shotguns?

In the "Week 4" section we have a direct contradiction. One paragraph says recruits are trained with shoguns, Mossberg 500s to be precise. The very next paragraph says shotgun training has ceased "after several years."

Which is it? Both statements can't be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStiv (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Naval Recruitment Stations?

I have just one question about the article in the Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois#Facilities section. Are those all the stations that train Navy recruits, or are there more that this article is not listing? Faithful15 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)