Talk:G.I.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] No, it's GI!

At least since 1956, when I was a GI, there have been no full stops in this term. Neither Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) nor the New Shorter Oxford (1993) use full stops.


[edit] Galvanized?

Where did anyone come up with this derivation? The understanding during World War II was that the term derived from Government Issue. Can anyone point me at a pre-1945 citation for the galvanized usage?

This was definitively confirmed and documented back when the text was still on the Military slang page. In addition, I can personally confirm it from interviews with soldiers who served during the time of the galvanized iron trash cans (which was during WWII). Some soldiers and many civilians mistook the "GI" abbreviation stamped on the cans for "government issue".
If you want a second thread on confirmation, remember that when used as a verb, to GI the barracks means to clean it thoroughly. That usage makes no sense if GI is a generic abbreviation for "gov't issue" but makes a great deal of sense if the abbreviation was stamped on the trash cans. This thread is not proof but does support the galvanized derivation. Rossami (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! The barrack got GI'ed because it was GIs who cleaned it. --Cubdriver 19:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've sourced my findings. If you think you can rebut it, I challenge you to cite your sources. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terms

"GI" in GI brush is not actually an adjective but rather the attributive part of a compound noun; it's acting "adjectivally" but still a noun. "GIish" would be an adjective. Marskell 18:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to Wiktionary

This article was purely a discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of an abbreviation. After reflection, I realized that it belongs in Wiktionary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have moved it there (and copied over the attribution history in order to preserve GFDL). Please make any future edits at wikt:GI. Please do not re-create this article unless you are sure that you can create an article which will be significantly more than a mere dictionary definition. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Earlier today, SimonP reverted the article with the comment "quite a bit could be written about the history and character of GIs". First, nothing more has yet been written. The current text is still a dictionary definition. Second, anything to be written about the history and character of "GIs" should be written either at soldier or US Army. I disagree that there is any significant expansion that is appropriate at this title. I will withdraw my objections when something more than meaning, origins and usage is appropriately added to the article. Until then, I'm returning it to the soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

A significant error, in my opinion, especially in an era when GI is returning to common usage (replacing the sometimes-condescending "grunt" of the Vietnam era). I agree with SimonP that quite a bit could be written on the subject, and in response to Rossami would point out that very little is likely to be written if there is no Wikipedia entry on the subject! --Cubdriver 19:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (former GI :)

[edit] Disambiguation

Discussion of what a G.I. is or is not certainly belongs on either the fully spelt articles (eg. government issue) or on Wiktionary. However, this article should exist as a disambiguation link to help the user choose between government issue and galvanized iron. So I've re-written it as a disambiguation link. I recommend discussion about millitary personnel should happen over at government issue . - Andrew Oakley