Talk:75th Ranger Regiment (United States)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Famous Rangers
- 2 Term -Daring- overused in the article?
- 3 Madslashers merge
- 4 Four time volunteers
- 5 Major changes
- 6 Separate the battalions to a separate articles
- 7 Ties with the Chinese
- 8 Linage and honors cirt
- 9 75th
- 10 New "controversy" section
- 11 Regiments post GWOT role
- 12 Merrill's Marauders
- 13 Cisterna - Darby's Rangers
This is one of those slightly unnecessary sections that some editors seem to think anyone worth noting should be listed. But really, many fail the notability test -- which should certainly be rigorously applied here. (see WP:NN). For instance, I removed one name, a former Ranger who's running a military film consultancy company. Not to disparage that person's accomplishments, but hat's it. Please lets not turn this list into a former Ranger directory, and instead keep it for notable (ie decorated or otherwise noteworthy) soldiers. Thanks. Alcarillo (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that there was a nearly identical section for Famous Rangers on the United States Army Rangers page. To avoid confusion, therefore, I removed the one here and reposted it in that article's section. In addition to being the more recent text, it also allows for the listing of famous Rangers who served before the Regiment was founded in 1942. Alcarillo (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In the section notable rangers is the name of Randy Stuttgart he was an Delta at the time of the battle of Mogadishu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Term -Daring- overused in the article?
Not to seem overly nit-picky but reading over the article the term daring seems to proceed every assault, raid or what-have-you. As a former member of the 3/75th I personally agree, naturally, that these actions are well described but shouldn't we use a wider variety of adjectives? I'm struggling with this wiki-interface thing or would alter it myself. Just a thought. joliver375 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're right on it, Ranger buddy. Just because a word's accurate, doesn't mean that it's not being overused. Incidentally, I'd like to invite you over to the forums on Army Ranger.com EvilCouch (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oliver you fucking shitbag, did you get RFS'd yet?! It's a long time coming.
If the article gets merged, it should get merged to 2nd Ranger Battalion (United States). Platoon nicknames are far too incidental to get merged into the Regiment's page. Virtually every platoon has a nickname and many of them change fairly frequently. The Madslashers article is really lacking in depth and in the event of a merge, there's not much usable information that can get transferred over. Something along the lines of: "1st Platoon, C Company, 2/75 has been unofficially known as The Madslashers since (date missing), when a Ranger nearly cut a man to death with the man's own knife in self-defense." EvilCouch (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do not support: looks like a possible candidate for deletion. Not a single source. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: I oppose the motion for deletion of this article.
- Comment: Serving members of the 2d Ranger Battalion know the names of their platoons. There may not be other sources, in the conventional sense. I will do some research into this matter. It is quite possible that there is confirmation on websites like www.armyranger.com, or www.socnet.com, for example.
- Further, while some platoons may not have permanent names, many do. Many of the most storied and famed platoons have had names for decades now. -estéban (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
- If it is that storied and famed, finding a couple of NPOV sources and making the article longer should be very simple, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: There's a couple of issues with this article, namely, it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia "A Wikipedia article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it." (See WP:WIAA). Is the article encyclopedia worthy material that should be published on this website? I am doubtful that it meets such criteria and is worthy. The Madslashers also lacks any credible sources or citations. -Signaleer (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do not support: Agree with Niteshift36, the article should be deleted, there is no source and should be deleted. -Signaleer (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Even if someone came up with a WP:RS, what we are really talking about here is the unofficial nickname of a group of 40 people. Where is the notability in that? The most notable sounding thing in the article is a conversation between an unnamed battalion commander and an unnamed company commander over the conduct of a single member. One editor posted a thread on ArmyRanger.com, asking for any documentation to help the article nearly two months ago. There hasn't been a single response to the request. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: That is correct. Assistance in fleshing out the article was requested, and it languished. Part of the problem is that folks who actually remember the original events in question are now senior in rank and consequently a bit busy. Not making an excuse so much as an observation. I personally have no dog in this fight. I was not a MadSlasher. In the event that better information becomes available, the article can be resurrected. Personally, I think that a directory of Ranger platoons which include the history of their naming should be created. It is asked, for example, "where is the notability in the unofficial nicknaming of 40 guys?" The answer is, we are talking about Ranger platoons, whose members have gone on to perform great feats. These actions are often remembered only within the special operations community. Creating a series of pages about storied Ranger platoons will unveil some of the details behind these actions. That is noteworthy, in my opinion. In the meantime, the current page links to nothing, and nothing links to it. It is in effect a placeholder page awaiting an editor with time and information. In the event that I locate sufficient information, I will edit the page and improve it. Estéban (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It must not be that "storied" if no references exist. If you look at this archived discussion at the Military History project:  , you will see that I am not alone in thinking that not just this platoon, but platoons in general aren't usually notable enough for an article. Let's face it, many battalions aren't that notable and they have multiple companies under them. Then the multiple platoons under that. What you have here is an unsourced legend about an unofficial nickname. There is no real assertion of notability. What makes that platoon worthy of a separate article over the other platoons in the company, battalion and regiment? As for your theory that most of the guys involved are too senior to bother now......... the date you give for one incident is 22 years ago. That means most would be retired. That's when guys do that sort of writing and researching. The unnamed company commander in the unsourced conversation with the unnamed battalion commander would almost certainly be retired by now. Step back and look at this objectively. If I wrote an article about how a particular bridge was named and gave NO sources, NO real dates and relied on undocumented conversations between unnamed people, can you honestly say you wouldn't be thinking the same thing I am? Aside from that, PFC Redwine may very well still be alive. We are stating he committed a crime without documentation to support that. There could be a whole separate WP:BLP issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is 3-time volunteer: Army, Airborne, and Ranger training.
Four time volunteers
Under Mottos, the author seems unsure about why rangers are called four time volunteers. I remember it being volunteers for the Army, Airborne, Rangers, and combat. I unfortunately do not have a source for this information other than my own memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I never heard of the 4 time thing. Nobody (as a group) actually volunteers for combat. You sign up to join the Army, to request Airborne and Ranger, but there isn't a form to volunteer for combat. Many veterans of the Regiment never saw 5 minutes of combat. There was over 10 years between the end of Vietnam and Grenada, another 6 between Grenada and Panama and then 11 years between the Gulf War and the WoT. Plenty of members of the regiment came and went in those time periods without earning a combat patch. Rangers might be more likely to see combat, but they aren't volunteering any more than a member of the 82nd (who was in all the same conflicts), 101st, 7ID etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I always heard it was volunteering for the Army, the Infantry, Airborne School and then RIP. The vast majority of the Rangers I served with were infantryman but not all. Everyone didn't even hold a combat MOS when I served with the 3/75th. But those are the 4 steps of volunteering that could bring you to the 75th Regiment that I remember.
I was taught in RIP back in the late 80's that the four time volunteer 'thing' refers to Army > Airborne School > Volunteering to serve in the Regiment and then Ranger School. There are too many other MOS's involved with the Regiment for it to be Infantry. I was in the infantry but there are oodles of other 'occupational specialties' involved with the 75th. I also served with the 3rd Battalion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There have been some big changes made to this article lately and no discussion is happening. I'm not opposing them at this point, but I think there should be some talk about it. Also, I see merger tags going up and no corresponding discussion section on the page. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Separate the battalions to a separate articles
While the battalions mentioned and detailed here are now part of the Regiment the actual 75th Ranger Regiment did not come into existence until the end of the Vietnam War. I think it would both serve to clean up this article and provide and clear delineation of the history of the battalions for the reader to move them to a separate article. I'm not an expert on the Rangers so I'm looking for some input from other, more familiar, editors on how to move the pre-Regiment battalion history. My immediate thought is to expand and separate the individual batts on their own articles and trim that pre-Regiment content here. Other options that come to mind are moving that pre-Regiment info to the generic Ranger article or creating a "pre-Regiment Ranger" article and consolidating all that info there. Thoughts? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ties with the Chinese
The Chinese version of the article seems to suggest that the top left SUN on the insignia is to commemorate the time spent fighting alongside KMT's army against Japanese invasion in China. Is that valid? And if so, shouldn't it be added to the article? Darksign (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds like a make-me-up. I'm assuming that it's Mandarin Chinese and probably written by a Taiwanese person. If you read/speak Mandarin what is the source provided? As far as I know there were no Ranger Battalions in China in the Second Wrold War, only one in th Pacific at all in fact. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered that. I still doubt it but I suppose it's possible. I'll see if I can look up the MM unit crest and find anything. TomPointTwo (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- From the US Army Institute Heraldry: Shield- The colors blue, white, red and green represent four of the original six combat teams of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly referred to as Merrill's Marauders, which were identified by color. To avoid confusion, the other two colors, khaki and orange were not represented in the design; however, khaki was represented by the color of the uniform worn by US forces in the China-Burma-India Theater during World War II. The unit's close cooperation with the Chinese forces in the China-Burma-India Theater is represented by the sun symbol from the Chinese flag. The white star represents the Star of Burma, the country in which the Marauders campaigned during World War II. The lightning bolt is symbolic of the strike characteristics of the Marauders' behind-the-line activities. Crest- The organization's service in the China-Burma-India Theater of World War II is represented by the chinthé (a gold Burmese lion). The blue annulet symbolizes the Presidential Unit Citation awarded for service at Myitkyina, Burma, the "gateway to China.” The gold embattlement in base refers to the unit's combat service in Vietnam while the six merlons represent six Valorous Unit Awards; the two Meritorious Unit Commendations earned by elements of the Regiment are denoted by the scarlet disc at center. . Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- 75th Ranger Regiment is a direct descendant of Merrill's Marauders (5307th Composite Unit (Provisional) -> 475th Infantry -> 75th Infantry -> 75th Rangers). Even the crest is exactly the same.  There is no doubt of the relation with Chinese nationalist forces with whom they fought with against the Japanese. I know everyone likes to feel nice and cozy about the spiritual descendency from Roger's Rangers et al., but give credit where credit is due. I'm disappointed Merrill's Marauders are not given any mention in this article, even though it is the most legitimate relation of all. Tablecat (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Linage and honors cirt
New "controversy" section
Todd Boyle, a Kirkland anti-military and political activist, has added a "controversy" section the article. The basic thrust is that a member of the 75th committed suicide and it's the fault of the Regiment. The only provided sources to back this alleged controversy is material by the widow recorded by him and hosted on his youtube account assisted by a political action group he's associated with, the IVAW, which has long targeted Army units in their political campaigns. There is no sourcing that would constitute a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, no mainstream, independent journalists, medical professionals or military experts who claim this to be a "controversy" much less the fault of specific policy instituted by the Regimental command structure.
I already removed this material once with an explanation and Mr. Boyle re-added it with an counter explanation that seemed to indicate he doesn't understand how we source material or how the scope of articles are established. I'm not going to get into an edit war, instead I'll leave it up to other interested editors here with the expectation it will at least be addressed in the near future. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed it, too. Let's try to encourage him to participate in this discussion. Rklawton (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure removing the information on grounds of the reliability of the information is sufficient. By all accounts, it is a controversy that was widely reported in the news (the accuracy of Regiment being at fault is what is in question). On the other hand though, is this "controversy" worthy of being on the page? 100 years from now will one suicide define the Regiment? Nah. I'd say keep it off on the grounds of non-notability.188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I also removed his "Controversy Section" on the term Ranger for the reason his argument is convoluted and confusing and is not appropriate in an encyclopedia.Icemanwcs (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Regiments post GWOT role
I think it is a good idea to add a section detailing the evolution of the Regiment in the post 9/11 world. The modern Ranger Regiment is virtually unrecognizable to the pre-GWOT force, both in capabilities an mission set. There are numerous pieces written around the web describing the Rangers change, many written by Rangers themselves who have been with the Regiment long enough to see this evolution, and be a part of missions that they previously would have been the security element on. Even the Army itself has changed its description of the force. The short description is that they are a far more mature, and finely tuned direct action force, no longer only used in large scale special operations or blocking operations, but entrusted with a much more complex mission set. Here are some good sources to get started,
What would be the best way to bring material on the Marauders into this article? Perhaps something like this Lineage section from the 75th Infantry Regiment article? How about something about the crest/badge and in the WWII section? Any thoughts from Ranger experts out there? Thanks. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Cisterna - Darby's Rangers
The majority of casualties (KIA and WIA) were suffered by the 4th Ranger Bn when they attempted to break through the German lines. The 1st and 3rd Bns had about 700 Rangers captured. So it is a bit dishonest to make it sound like it was a last stand to the last bullet and so forth. There is no disgrace in surrendering to overwhelming forces but it seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by Rangers? to make this battle be some kind of legendary, heroic encounter with a great many casualties.
Also this entire articles seems to be drawn from 75thRR or US Army PR publications and as such may not truly reflective on the history of the unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)