Talk:United States Army Rangers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for United States Army Rangers:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup :  :need sources for all sections and any potentially contentious material
    cleanup "citations" later in article. External links in the article body are unsat. They should be inline citations that point to the notes/references section.
    obtain sources for 75th Ranger Regiment section - probably from the 75th article itself.
  • Copyedit : prose throughout needs some polishing - but only after sources are found and incorporated
  • Expand : need a bit more info on Ranger School. E.g. year began, etc.
  • Update : add all sources from "notes" section to "references"

Korean War Rangers[edit]

Under the listed modern campaigns, the Korean War is omitted for what reason I do not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.139.159.127 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Term "Army Ranger"[edit]

The limiting of the term "Army Ranger" to people who have served with the 75th is perhaps too narrow. While that may be the point of view of some currently with the 75th, it does not reflect how the term is used in the rest of the Army. "Ranger" is commonly used to refer to any tabbed soldier. While some may say that should not be the case, it remains true, and should be addressed in this article. For example, those tabbed are qualified to enter the Ranger Hall of Fame [1] join the US Army Ranger Association [2] and win the Best Ranger competition, and are referred to as "Army Rangers" by those organizations. Asserting that the only Rangers are those in the 75th excludes too many who can be and are referred to as "Ranger": Ranger School grads, colonial Rangers, and those who served in Ranger units before the relatively recent creation of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and may represent a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Perhaps the article should be split. "US Army Ranger" should lead to an entry discussing what a Ranger is and does, while a seperate article should discuss the 75th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.204.45.218 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

While I'll agree that the Ranger Life section needs to be adjusted for POV, I strongly disagree with changing the article in a manner presenting Ranger School graduates as part of the official lineage. Regardless of what terminology is commonly used, soldiers are Ranger School graduates outside of the Regiment have no special role. They do not engage in special operations missions, they don't train separately, they do nothing differently than their untabbed brethren. They are not a separate unit. They graduated a particularly difficult school, but they are not fulfilling the role of Rangers. Thus, the reason they get little mention in the article.
Had Rangers always existed under the 75th Ranger Regiment, I'd have just moved the article to there, however Ranger history in America extends back prior to the formation the the USA and only in the last 20 years have they had the same regimental structure that they have today. The article could still evolve that way, but the articles on every major Ranger unit would have to get beefed up before I'd even consider that to be a valid option. EvilCouch 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because it does not accurately reflect the points of view in question. Let me explain.
  • Tense change from "Rangers that served in Ranger units"
intentional. I speak with fellow Rangers from every major conflict since Vietnam on a daily basis. Most of them do not consider those that are solely Ranger School graduates to be Rangers. Simply stating it as "serve in Ranger units" does not reflect that there are countless Rangers that are not currently serving that do not agree with that usage of the term.
  • From "confusion" to "more broad"
That implies that both meanings are fully accepted as true, which is not correct.
  • From "outside Ranger units" to "in the rest of the Army"
This does not reflect that most civilians do not understand the difference between Ranger Regiment and Ranger School.
Hope this explains some things. EvilCouch 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of Rangers[edit]

How many Army Rangers are there? Is it somewhere around 300 or more or less?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.92.252 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2006

There are about 20,500 Rangers total.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.206.99 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2007(PDT)
How in the world did you arrive at that figure? 3 Battalions, 1 Regimental HQ and if you want to get picky, the new Ranger Support Battalion technically qualifies (although you'll probably have a hard time selling that perspective to a Batt-boy.) EvilCouch 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK , how many Rangers are there ?--Jonybond 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're never going to get a completely accurate answer to that question, as the current figure falls under operational security. The best, helpful answer to give you would be: somewhere in the low 4-digits. EvilCouch 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

____________

LOL!!! @ you thinking there are 20,500 Rangers.. LMAO! this made my day.. theres maybe 20,500 tabbed soldiers in the army, but the 75t Ranger Regiment has about 2,100 troops. - Former 3/75 Ranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.177.40 (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


There are approximately 2200-2500 Ranger Regiment personnel. 20,500?!??? Wtf are you smoking.

- D. former 3/75th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.120.233 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 2004[edit]

I have rearranged the format and the context of the article. I need help on the following:

  • unit specialties
  • unit organization (regiment, battalions, command and control, deployment, etc.)

There is a lot of information available at http://globalspecops.com/ranger.html and http://www.specialoperations.com/Army/Rangers/ but I don't know if it's public domain -- even tho I have seen the information posted on dozens of sites.

Any help from a BTDT or a former Ranger would be greatly appreciated.

Maio 07:00, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just to point out there is a lot of Public Affairs (ie public domain) information available - the problem is that some of it is historically inaccurate and more a celebration of accomplishments than genuine history. Almost everything posted on the above referenced sites is in the public domain but should be used with caution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.102.46 (talkcontribs) 04:35, 25 January 2006.

vandalism and becoming a ranger[edit]

Some ex-batboy type keeps mucking up the "becoming a ranger section" with stuff like "cherry 2LT's" and using ranger slogans, denigrating other army units etc. While that may be all well and good, it doesn't belong in this article. I had to roll the page back about 15 edits worth. Swatjester 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Agreed - however what there is now is nonsense. Regular army Ranger School graduates arguing that if you aren't tabbed out you cannot be called a ranger is nonsensical as that has nothing to do with the unit which in fact assigns that term to the individual. If you are assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment you are a Ranger. Period, Fullstop. No ifs ands or buts. Even if you aren't airborne qualified or have passed the Ranger Indoctrination Program (and yes this indeed has happened). Everybody else is a soldier, a dogface, a leg or whatever but certainly not a ranger. And do bear in mind another entire discussion can be had on whether or not Ranger School should be called that as it is a Leadership school. SO maybe the tab should be renamed LEADER. And if regular soldiers with the tab want to be called Army Rangers then they ought to join the Regiment! That is not to say that there aren't some excellent soldiers out there or that there aren't some shitty Rangers in the Regiment. The point being - there is only one Ranger unit and its members are Rangers - everyone else is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.102.46 (talkcontribs) 04:52, 25 January 2006

Some information for the page[edit]

Futher reading: Can we agree to list it alphabetically? Because one former Ranger keeps switiching it around to the detriment of standardization originating from 195.238.38.189 (Peter Neves from armyranger.com).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.50.200 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 20 December 2005. Additonally one Ranger owned websites seems to be constantly deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.102.46 (talkcontribs) 11:11, 28 December 2005.

I did minor editing of the "Notable Rangers" section - moved Merrill's Marauders to 20th Century because for some reason they were listed as Revolutionary War era. While that was a clear error, where in the 20th Century section it belongs isn't clear. Alphabetically? I'd think Chronologically would be better, but I don't have the background information to do that. It also seems like there should be a 21st century or Modern Army section (make a chronological break at the Korean War). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.155.232 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


I am, what some people consider, obsessed with the Rangers and Special Forces. I know that they take part in light infantry tactics and missions. All Rangers must qualify for Airborne before taking Ranger School. Their motto is "Rangers lead the way". They are a very old unit. Although they may not have been a public and important role in the earlier period of their existence, Rangers have existed since some time around the Revolutionary War.

Ranger school is one of the US Army's toughest groups. Although my age may prevent me from becoming a Ranger just yet, in one year's time, i may be able to provide a little more info on them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustylee (talkcontribs) 12:08, 20 February 2005.

I suggest, you use that time, to learn how to use, commas. 67.171.100.105 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Background[edit]

I made some changes to the Korean section as it was far too HOOAH. "Scaring the enemy" et al is not appropriate as an entry. Neither is the fact that 5000 volunteers from the 82nd showed up. We don't list the number of other volunteers throughout history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiatLux (talkcontribs) 05:55, 25 January 2006.

Tillman[edit]

Famous Rangers: Pat Tillman - professional American football player who left his sports career to enlist in the Army to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 To be placed in this category the Ranger ought to have done something Ranger memorable and not been someone famous or pseudo-famous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.102.46 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 10 January 2006.

I have once again removed this entry and will continue to do so. It is insulting to list Tillman with Ranger greats such as Darby and Mucci as these men genuinely contributed to Ranger history. Tillman did not. By no fault of his own Tillman did not do anything unusual or outstanding to receive this honor. He may have turned down a career in sports - so what? He got killed - so what? By friendly fire no less. Plenty of other Rangers have turned their backs on civilian careers that probably could or would have surpassed that of Tillmans'. So let's restrict this to people who significantly did something outstanding for Ranger history. Bad enough that the Ranger Hall of Fame is full of unqualified people and civilians to boot - a very political organization - it does not represent real rangers but represents the various and ongoing power struggles within the various "ranger" associations and affiliates. This section should only be for genuine Ranger greats.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.102.46 (talkcontribs) 05:01, 25 January 2006.

But he is both famous and a Ranger. A good deal of his fame comes because he chose to become a Ranger. That he died in a friendly fire incident does not make him less famous or less a Ranger, does it? So, while he did nothing more notable than any other Ranger, it may be appropriate to list him here. On the other hand, I suspect from how he consciously avoided any attempt by the media to focus on him, he probably wouldn't want to be listed anyway. --Habap 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
He is not a famous Ranger and did nothing to contribute to Ranger history. Just like thousands before and after him. His fame comes from his civilian life. And how famous was he really? Not at all I would argue. Mark Twain is famous and was a Ranger and he would be more qualified for entry as he actually wrote a literary piece about Rangers. In Twain's case he contributes to Ranger history by having written an account of his service - though this is tenuous as really his genuine contribution to Rangers was non-existent - just like thousands before and after him. Same for Abraham Lincoln.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiatLux (talkcontribs) 05:45, 25 January 2006.
You really lost me in bringing in Twain and Lincoln. I didn't think that Rangers existed in their era.... --Habap 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well Rangers/ranging units did exist back then. Point is neither Lincoln nor Twain are famous rangers - they are just famous, just like Tillman. With Twain one can make the argument that at least he wrote a literary piece about his experiences as a Ranger during the American Civil War and therefore has at least contributed to the history of Rangers - unlike Tillman. And yes, I will continue to remove Tillman from that section until powers that be decide otherwise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiatLux (talkcontribs) 12:42, 27 January 2006.
I found the story of Twain's time as a Ranger. Rather comical, so I don't think his experience as a Ranger should be noted any more than any other member of a Civil War company that referred to itself as "Rangers". Good read, though: The Private History of a Campaign That Failed by Mark Twain. I am sure his actual experience was not nearly as comical as the story, but neither would it merit the same standing as anyone who has gone through modern Ranger training. --Habap 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
re-added back in. Tillman is famous for becoming a ranger. His fame came from giving up his prior lifestyle for patriotism, and dying in the process. That's what made him famous. It does not hurt the entry by adding him. Also, I'd like to point out that comments like "and I will continue to remove him until the powers that be decide otherwise" are an example of bad editing practices. There are no powers that be. Your other editors are powers that be, and thus far it appears that you are the only one who wants him out of there. Please do not remove Ranger Tillman's name until there is a consensus amongst the editors that it is appropriate to do so. Swatjester 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
re-removed it. First of all, you're opinion is no more valid than mine though I would argue that as a former member of the Ranger Regiment, former board of director member of a Ranger association and Ranger author, I probably am more read on the subject than most. So if the majority of editors veto the removal so be it -- populism does overshadow fact often enough. I will reitterate my argument - Tillman did nothing that contributes to the history of Army Rangers. Emotion should not overrule fact. Facts are that the other Rangers significantly contributed to Ranger history. FiatLux


You said it yourself. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. So I'm readding it back in, and it will stay there until a decision on consensus can be made. And your position as a former batt boy doesn't impress me, plenty of people in my unit were batt boys and think Tillman is a famous ranger. Read the listing again: it's not about contributing to ranger history. It's about famous rangers. THAT is the name of the subsection. Tillman was famous, and he was a ranger. Therefore he is a famous ranger. The subsection is not entitled "Rangers who have significantly contributed to Ranger History." If it was he wouldn't be in there. Oh, and just so I don't have to put it in a different paragraph, I'm temporarily removing your edit about the motto possibly being "lead the way rangers"...if you're going to cite an eyewitness account, you need to provide citation as per WP:CITE and WP:V. Swatjester 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


FIne. Thank god people like you are such experts on editing -- I see no citations elsewhere. I'll take my ball and play elsewhere. FiatLux

I didn't edit Tillman, but felt compelled to respond. Tillman's name SHOULD be there. No he did not do anything extraordinary during his time in the Regt., BUT his choice to enlist and become a Ranger creates more positive reinforcement of the type of person who becomes a Ranger. Call it 'good press' if you will, but at the end of the day, this man decided to walk away from his life and career to serve his country. How many Americans would turn down $3 million to make $1800 a month? Unfortunately not too many. SO- I agree with the others that his name does indeed belong on this list. One final note- I WAS a Ranger, A Co 3rd Batt., but that doesn't change my opinion....

I strongly disagree. If Tillman had never been in the NFL, he would have just been a Ranger who was killed in action. Only his prior affiliation makes him famous. The section is not called "Notable Rangers", which would mandate that any person who served in the Regiment and meets the basic notability criteria as per WP:NN could be listed here. This section should be only for those whose actions as Rangers have earned them lasting "fame" (I use the word "fame" delicately here b/c some of the soldiers on the list have given their lives in service.) Alcarillo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This needs some cleaning up; perhaps instead of arguing over whether or not Pat Tillman's name deserves recognition, we should instead split this article into two sections: 1) for Notable Rangers, i.e., Rangers who made significant contributions or brought great distinction to the unit, and 2) Famous Rangers, i.e., individuals who served as Army Rangers and also, at some point in their life, attained some kind of celebrity.

Speaking of which, was James Earl Jones in fact a Ranger? It is not cited here.

Also, while I am aware that Kris Kristofferson served in Vietnam as a helicopter pilot, he should not be quantified as a Ranger simply on the merit of having graduated Ranger school. In order to consider one an Army Ranger, he must have been assigned to a Ranger unit, which since 1974 has involved graduating RIP or ROP IOT be authorized wear of the tan (once black) beret and scroll. Graduating Ranger School denotes a qualification, like Airborne School; a soldier can be Airborne qualified, but if he is not assigned to an Airborne unit, he is not a Paratrooper, even if the school calls him 'Airborne' while attending. The same concept applies to Ranger School; a soldier in the regular Army who graduates does not suddenly take on a new role within the unit to which he is assigned, though it may improve the pace of his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink170 (talkcontribs) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • That is an on-going debate. Graduates of the Ranger school (tabbed Rangrs) are considered by some to be Rangers. Others, like you, feel only those who are in the Regiment are Rangers. There is no clear cut answer. I look at the criteria for membership to the Ranger Association, which admits tabbed Rangers, even if they didn't serve in the 75th and at the annual Ranger competition, which not only admits those not in the 75th, but is often won by Rangers who didn't serve in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Ongoing debate indeed. Please keep in mind that the Best Ranger Competition is held by the Ranger School, most the cadre of which have never served in Ranger Battalion, and thus by extension invites all Ranger School graduates (although when the competition began this was not the case). It is, in all respects, a competition; the ability to fight wars effectively as a cohesive unit versus winning a physically intensive trial involving multiple combat focus tasks are not the same thing. Thus, the fact that there exist many physically fit individuals Army wide is neither a surprise to me, but neither does it demonstrate that those individuals who do win the competitions can perform the same job as a special operations soldier on the basis they were able to best the competitors hailing from the Regiment.
    • Additionally, when higher says "send Rangers", do they get a group of tabbed guys from the 82nd together and put them on a plane? Of course not; they send the unit, because that's what Rangers are, members of a special unit, not simply graduates of a school. When a tabbed soldier from the 82nd gets an award, the papers read "Paratrooper Awarded Silver Star", not "Army Ranger." When a Ranger from the Regiment dies, the press release says "Army Ranger KIA." I believe that to equate a two month regular Army school with a special operations unit plants false perception in the minds of less informed that having a tab is the same as holding membership in a selective unit that, by the nature of the unit, performs difficult and dangerous missions. By the way, the Regiment sends all of its constituents to Ranger School, and requires them to earn their tab to remain. The only people who contest the right to the title of Ranger are those who were not able to serve in the Regiment but want the recognition it brings. Since there are far more tabbed soldiers than members of the Regiment, civilian organizations and regular Army constituents will always be bursting at the seams with members who want ownership of the title and what it represents. Ink170 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.196.62 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The operation in Grenada?[edit]

There is a whole paragraph on Grenada which was inserted by the IP 70.27.90.186 in June. The same IP had inserted a paragraph on Operation Eagle Claw in May which was consequently dropped. As much as as I can understand the enthusiasm of the author, the English is terrible and the amount of text used to portrait the Operations considering the length of the overall article is much too long. I took the liberty of shortning that paragraph considerably. --Ebralph 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Direct Action Link[edit]

The Link to Direct Action in the second paragraph doesn't lead to the desired target article. Maybe someone should clean this up. I'm not sure what would be better: Disambiguating Direct Action or a new article Direct Action (military).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.123.225.69 (talkcontribs) 10:17, 27 October 2005.

Becoming a Ranger[edit]

That is the career path of Enlisted men to becoming rangers, but what about officers? What is the career path for Ranger Officers? User:128.208.41.86 00:20, 9 November 2005

The above was added to the article in the "Becoming a Ranger" section; I moved it here. --A D Monroe III 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Tabbed/Scroll Ranger[edit]

"The fact of the matter is, if a soldier earns the Ranger tab, he is a Ranger. Otherwise, he would have failed Ranger School."

This statement is contentious, at least. I think it needs a little more support than it has in the article.

--68.41.122.213 05:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It also needs to be rewritten to be less biased in favor the rangers. While the information in the article is correct, it's heavily laden with pronouns and personal comments. The Rangers are indeed an elite unit, but too much hooah on part the author. Gibson Cowboy 17:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- if you graduate ranger school you are a ranger qualified soldier. You are not addressed as ranger in your regular non-ranger unit - in fact you are not a 'serving' ranger. If you are a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment then indeed you are a ranger even if you did not attend ranger school. In a ranger unit you are addressed as ranger. Another example, if you graduate airborne school you are not a paratrooper unless you are stationed with a parachute unit - you are merely airborne qualified.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.250.187 (talkcontribs) 08:22, 16 November 2005.

  • I can further suggest the following analogy: Taking a course in Math does not make one a mathematician, nor does taking a class or course in chemistry make one a chemist. Similarly, attending and graduating from Ranger school does not make one a Ranger..simply a ranger qualified soldier (usually with a V identified placed in the MOS for enlisted soldiers). There are about 1200-1500 Ranger qualified soliders grauating From Ranger School each year, but only about 1800 full time Army Rangers assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment. These men can be identified by the Tan Beret and the regimental scoll affixed to the uniform. Unless you see the scroll and the tan beret, the soldier cannot accurately be called an Army Ranger.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.158.201.50 (talkcontribs) 08:59, 22 December 2005.

I'd like to add to the above statement. Going to Airborne School and earning your jump wings, does NOT make you a paratrooper, it makes you nothing more than Airborne qualified. To become a paratrooper you must serve with a jump unit. This is the definition of the term paratrooper and your free to look it up in any dictionary. How is the definition of 'Ranger' any different? I've met many students at Ranger School and other tabbed soldiers who stated that they would not serve in the 75th because it was too much work. Why do the work when the title comes relatively cheaply? This issue is as simple as the difference between a paratrooper and a graduate from Airborne school. I think anyone who reveals themselves as a 'Ranger' without explaining they didn't serve in a 'Ranger Unit' is misrepresenting themselves and is acting in a dishonorable fashion. Then again I may be biased having worn scrolls on my shoulders. Maybe the 75th should just take their tabs off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.216.110 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Two possible inconsistencies.[edit]

I haven't learned to edit pages yet, but wanted to throw these items up here in case anyone knows differently.

When I attended RIP in 1989 we were taught that the Motto “Rangers lead the way.” Was ‘Altered’ from General Cota’s quote.. The general said, according to the Ranger leading the discussion, “Goddammit, Lead the way Rangers” which was changed to ‘Rangers lead the way.’

Now the instructor wasn’t the scholastic type and I distinctly remember being rather tired during the class. Also another instructor was ‘known’ for quoting from ww2 movies so perhaps the facts presented to me were muddled but maybe this is worth looking into.

Also..

Other forces wore Black Berets. Navy Seals did for a time and I believe certain Armor units as well.. The page states,

“The Rangers adopted the tan beret when the decision was made to issue black berets to regular soldiers; prior to this, only Rangers wore black berets.”

Scuttlebutt was the other units who wore these berets did so without authorization but it was also said the Ranger Regiment did so without authorization as well, at least for some time.

I wouldn't mind hearing the Ranger leading that class was mistaken and hate to throw salt into the 'black beret wound' but this is how I remember these facts. When I learn how to edit pages myself, I'll try and back up my memory with whatever facts are considered valid enough to warrent a page change. Originally posted 21 March 2006 Re-taged/signed due to new account. - Joliver375 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Joliver. Edit articles in the same way you edited this page to add your comment (on talk pages, you should also add your signature with ~~~~ or by clicking the sig icon at the top of the edit box, but on articles, leave that out).
I think that you're right about Cota having said it that way, but we need to provide a source - I imagine any number of D-Day books would have it definitively.
Not sure about the berets. I know that in the 1960s, the Special Forces were wearing the Green Beret despite not being authorized, so it wouldn't surprise me if several units were wearing unauthorized headgear. --Habap 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

not only did rangers wear black berets, you are right about the SEALS in vietnam wearing them, but also up to this day, members of the navy SWCC (special boat units) similar to the ones seen on "apocalypse now" wear black berets and also the air force "tactical air control parties" (TACP's) wear black berets and are assigned to army units or air force STS units.68.93.63.151 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)j.crowson

In popular culture[edit]

There needs to be a popular culture section. Like how you are part of the rangers in the game Call Of Duty 2.

That section would be huge and would practically require its own article. In fact, if there was to be a section about Rangers in popular culture I would probably immediately tag it to be split into its own article. EvilCouch 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Pop culture sections are not acceptable in WikiProject MilHist per recent consensus. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been tagged for no refs for the past 3 months and just keeps attracting more unsources trivia. I finally removed it per WP:MILPOP. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lineage and honors sections[edit]

I hate trashing other editors, but it's very clear that the information was pulled from the Blue book, a press release from Regimental S-5 or some other military reference. Although being a public government document, it's public domain and there's no copyright issue there, the reference was written really poorly for an encyclopedia. If the document's available online, it should be referenced, but the information in it should be chopped up and prepared for the reader.

Additionally, the honors section should probably be axed entirely and replaced with a much shorter description of the campaign honors. What would be nice to sort of take from the honor section is to compile a list of what battles and such the Regiment fought in, as the list in the infobox probably cannot reasonably fit all of them, once there are wikipages for all major battles that they fought in.

I've not been doing major work in the Military Wikiproject so I don't know if seperate pages for all the battles a unit has been is has been done before or not, but I think that'd be a page worth having.

Additionally, we have such a dearth of information, thanks to the lineage section getting yanked from an Army pub that I would almost want to see a seperate article for Ranger history anyways. At this point, I'm kind of talking myself into it, but I would like to see what others think of the idea. EvilCouch 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm always for more information rather than less. I'd rather not take more information out, such as the honors, and split articles off into a main/sub section. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I ended up condensing it down considerably. I think it much more readable now, however, I'm still working on integrating the raw data into the History of the United States Army Rangers. EvilCouch 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From USASOC's Veritas historical publication the numbers for the 1st Rangers of WWII: 281 - 34th ID; 104 - 1st AD; 43 - Antiaircraft Artillery; 48 - V Corps Special Troops; and 44 - Northern Ireland based troops. Will post later. ktinga 19:47, 08 Dec 2006 UTC

Honors

The 75th Ranger Regiment has been credited with numerous campaigns from World War II onwards. In World War II, they participated in 16 major campaigns, spearheading the campaigns in Morocco, Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio and Leyte. During the Vietnam War, they received campaign participation streamers for every campaign in the war.

In modern times, the regiment received streamers with arrowheads (denoting conflicts they spearheaded) for Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.

To date, the Rangers have earned six Presidential Unit Citations, nine Valorous Unit Awards, and four Meritorious Unit Commendation, the most recent of which were earned in Vietnam, Haditha, Iraq, and Vietnam, respectively.

→Vietnam is in there twice 71.145.138.216 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)asdfkj71.145.138.216 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is intentional. The most recent President Unit Citation was earned in Vietnam. The most recent Valorous Unit Award was earned in Haditha, Iraq. And the most recent Meritorious Unit Commendation was earned in Vietnam. EvilCouch 09:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Officers?[edit]

How come there is no information pertaining to officers in the Ranger 75th? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.221.195 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

What are you talking about? EvilCouch 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ranger Life...[edit]

I don't see how this section explains life in a ranger unit at all. If it was meant to mean something else then its a bit misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.221.195 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

True enough. I had thought that the name was kind of crappy, but hadn't really come up with a more appropriate heading. EvilCouch 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Page Needs Refocus[edit]

There is some fine work done on this page. However, despite some recent discussion above, some editors remain committed to excluding US Army Ranger School graduates from the lineage. There are several paths to becomming a Ranger that have been recognized by the Army. Presently, one may serve in the Ranger Regiment and/or one may graduate from Ranger School. Full stop. To quote the above, "For example, those tabbed are qualified to enter the Ranger Hall of Fame, [3] join the US Army Ranger Association, [4] and win the Best Ranger competition, and are referred to as "Army Rangers" by those organizations." Also see the army's official Best Ranger 2007 site [5], which states that Ranger School grads are Rangers. Official Army positions (and one civilian organization). Some may not like them, but there they are. Tabbed soldiers are Rangers.

Therefore, the thrust of this article should define what a ranger is: either a member of the Regiment or a grad who is specially trained to...et cetera. The well written and researched history section should make an appropriate reference to the establishment of Ranger School and that branch of the lineage. For starters, the intro paragraph should define Rangers generally, as individual soldiers with certain training and capabilities, and not just define the 75th. The one sentence in the Controversies section is pejorative and exclusionary, designed to negate the standing of tabbed Rangers as an asterisk. The search term "75th Ranger Regiment" needs to direct to its own page, as the Regiment does not have a monopoly on the term "US Army Rangers" any more than Ranger School does. The list of Famous Rangers needs to be expanded to include tabbed Rangers as well. May I suggest Colin Powell be the first.

I understand this is going to be a sensitive update, so I intend to wait a few days before including tabbed soldiers into the page. There are many ways to be a Ranger, let's make sure no one is excluded because of a POV issue at odds with the Army's positions.

--Togetright 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been excluding them from the lineage, because they're NOT part of the lineage. Rangers, since their inception, have been a special operations and light infantry unit. Throughout all of Ranger history, they've fill a unique role. Ranger school graduates have no role, other than what their parent unit defines for them. For example, a sergeant from the 101st goes to School and graduates. He's not going to be going on any secret squirrel missions just because he has his tab. He's going back to the 101st, to do whatever they want him to do. Whether or not he's earned the title of Ranger is infinitely debatable, however under a blanket article that pertains to all American Rangers, tabs are indeed a footnote.
Aside from the school and select individuals, they have not done anything that particularly distinguishes them from other soldiers. Ranger School graduates are not a unit. As a group, they have participated in zero battles and zero campaigns. This is why I've been marginalizing them. They might deserve more attention than I've given them, but the fact remains that when it comes actually Rangering, they, as a group, haven't been doing it. EvilCouch 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
While your opinion is interesting, it is your opinion, your POV, and should not influence an encyclopeadic article. The army defines Rangers more broadly than you do as an individual, please see the sources I quoted above. If this article were entitled "US Army Ranger Units," then iyour argument might have standing. However, it is called "US Army Rangers", and should cover all uses of the term. The Army made a deliberate decision in the early history of Ranger School to switch to training individuals instead of intact units. It was their belief that individual graduates would then return to their units and be able to conduct Ranger type missions in line units. This represents a branch in Ranger history, where Rangers were trained and pushed out to the big Army as leaders instead of remaining in specialized units.
Since you admit to marginalizing individuals who deserve to be included, any more argumentation along the lines of "not part of the lineage/not distinguished" should be read as your personal bias and not rooted in fact. You have offered zero evidence in favor of your argument. I have. I still intend to update this page as per verifiable, official sources.
--Togetright 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ranger students are not a combat unit. That's verifiable in any reference for Rangers that you choose to read. Focusing the article on graduates of a school over soldiers that were actually performing Ranger missions makes no sense. Now, if you were talking about expanding the lead-in to disambiguate the term, as well as adding a paragraph or two to the history section to explain how School fits into Ranger history, that would be fine as it is part of Ranger history. Famous Ranger school graduates should be added to the Ranger School page. EvilCouch 04:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying that Ranger students are a combat unit. Just that Ranger grads are Rangers. And actually, I'm not saying that, the Army is. This article, again, is not called "Ranger Units," it is called "US Army Rangers." The difference being that individual Rangers not affiliated with Regiment should be included on a page called US Army Rangers. Therefore, Ranger grads will be treated on equal footing on this page with members of modern Ranger units, since both are "Rangers". That includes the Famous Rangers section. We should also begin discussing the creation of a seperate main article for the 75th Ranger Regiment. Please offer sources or some reason related to the organization of Wikipedia articles why this should not proceed, as your personal opinion is not sufficient. --Togetright 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Ranger grads are not Rangers; they are Ranger qualified. That RTB invites tabbed soldiers from RA to attend Best Ranger or that they have their own Hall of Fame and Ranger Memorial does not indicate that "the Army" considers tabbed soldiers to be Rangers. The "sources" cited all root from RTB, which does not speak for the DA. The BRC's definition of a Ranger does not automatically become the Army's definition of a Ranger, (for which there is not actual, set in stone definition) simply because there is ACU pattern slathered about the source page. That a Ranger School Grad can donate money to RTB in exchange for a brick at the RTB memorial does not make one a Ranger. The US Army Ranger Association does not officially define who is and isn't a Ranger; it is a civilian organization. There are numerous soldiers with tabs who for many reasons did not or could not join the Regiment but still want the recognition of being called a "Ranger" when a 61 day school, was, for many of them, all the Rangering they ever accomplished. These sources are inadmissible. On the path as a Ranger, one must graduate Ranger School; this is not an alternate route, but rather a segment of that route. That RIs call students at Ranger School "Ranger" does not make them Rangers upon graduation any more than it would make them paratroopers for graduating Airborne school without assignment to an airborne unit. The concept of the Ranger has always been unit-centric; the tempo of training and nature of operations is much different than that of Regular Army where the handful of tabbed soldiers in their midst perform the non-ranger tasks asked of them by their non-ranger unit. I don't see how one can argue this is as one's POV. To argue that a Ranger School grad and a member of the Regiment possess the same level of proficiency in conducting special operations is misleading, and false. How can one be fulfilling the role of a Ranger simply by virtue of wearing a Ranger Tab on his class A's, without training like a Ranger on a daily basis or executing Ranger missions with other Rangers?
The article is entitled "US Army Rangers" because there exists a long lineage of Army Ranger Units preceding the 75th Ranger Regiment, and to name the article "The 75th Ranger Regiment" would marginalize the pedigree. In another section of this discussion page, someone made the analogy that taking a math class does not make one a mathematician. If the article were entitled "US Army Paratroopers", would you included Airborne School grads who did not serve in an Airborne unit? There is no such thing as an "individual Ranger not affiliated to Regiment" because there is no such thing as "an individual Ranger," which is an implied lesson in Ranger School. There is an article entitled "US Army Ranger School;" if you are so dedicated to providing a list of soldiers who have, at some point in their life, become famous as well as graduated Ranger School, a paragraph could be included there. I don't mean to detract from what it means to have a Ranger Tab, but it is misleading to imply to the uneducated reader that the lifestyle of a Ranger qualified soldier in the regular army and a Ranger are the same; they are not.
When higher says "We're sending Rangers over there," do they assemble a group of regular Army soldiers with tabs? Ranger School was designed to assess leadership skills using basic infantry tasks as the medium; it teaches absolutely nothing about the nuances of conducting special operations. Thus, Rangers and ranger qualified soldiers cannot be "generally described" in the opening paragraph because they simply are not the same thing; they are linked by a leadership school, and nothing else. Ink170 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This argument seems long gone. But I'll add two cents. Wikipedia does not represent "truth". It represents "verifiability". If RTB sources consider BRC grads as Army Rangers and there are no other sources that contradict it, then those verifiable sources are the only ones that are relevant here at Wikipedia. WP:SOAPBOX is a relevant policy here. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The Army does not consider soldiers who graduate Range School to be Rangers but are instead designated "Ranger Qualified" which is different from being an "Army Ranger". This is because since Rogers' Rangers, Rangers have been special operations personnel and not soldiers who have graduated a school, which has only come into recent existence whereas the 75th Ranger Regiment is the latest incarnation of series of units that date back to before the Revolutionary War.

Editorial Standards[edit]

All right. I've been tied up for a few months and couldn't get to editing this page, but I see no one came up with a refutation to my arguments below (under Page Needs Refocus). I want to start amending this article based on the following editorial standards, which are derived from the below discussion:

1. Tabbed Soldiers are Rangers according to official Army sources, though by a different means than Soldiers from Regiment.
2. Soldiers serving in Regiment without a tab are Rangers according to official Army sources, though by a different means than Soldiers who have earned a tab.
3. The page "United States Army Rangers" should not focus exclusively on the 75th, nor on graduates of Ranger School, nor on any other group due the title of "Army Ranger" from history. Each deserve it's place on this page, and may be the focus of it's own main page should one be necessary.
4. Every attempt will be made to honor the service of Soldiers who have gone above and beyond the call and have earned the title of Ranger. In the spirit of professionalism, none will be disparaged.

--Togetright 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I made revisions in keeping with the above four points. Basically I ended the redirection from the 75th Ranger Regiment page so that it is now it's own main article. It has all the original copy that was on the former "United States Army Rangers" page. I have no interest or unique insight into how that page should be edited, but am sure that it will be well kept. The USAR page is intact minus the 75th info box and some of the passages that pertain only to the 75th. I've added a quote to the Becoming a Ranger section from page iii of a Vietnam era RHB that I wish I'd found before yesterday. It should go a long ways towards justifying the need for these changes. There's no date in the RHB, but the vehicle identification (here: threat equipment) section has a T-62 tank but no T-72. So it should be somewhere in between. Maybe an editor can help me with a proper citation. Please discuss before reverting. I will be in the field until next weekend, so please don't take my non response for concession or disinterest. I thank you in advance for your politeness and professionalism and look forward to your comments. --Togetright 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said, we should not disparage any Rangers, which includes the tens of thousands that have earned their place in history. The only way to avoid any favoritism is to ensure that each of the 50+ Ranger units and Ranger School graduates get equal share. Thus, I've changed it out to a proper disambiguation page, including a few red links that need to get done. I'd prefer that each of the Korean and Vietnam War companies get their own page, but seeing as how I'm the only one that has added any information regarding the units to the WP, I'm skeptical that the pages will ever get the proper attention. This is probably not at all what you intended, but as you said, we have to be fair and that means that all the US Army Rangers be displayed equally. RLTW EvilCouch 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've done a bit of work on templates and getting pages started, it occurs to me that what this page needs to be is what is currently the history page. The history page covers all of the units and in an hour or so, will have a section covering Ranger School. EvilCouch 06:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CAP Rangers[edit]

I am adding a See Also section, and placing Civil Air Patrol Rangers there. I don't want to imply that CAP Rangers are a predecessor or descendant of the Army Rangers, so I'm open to any suggestions for clarifications. Mjf3719 (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that the See Also section has been removed, with the edit summery of: Civil Air Patrol has nothing to do with the U.S. Army Rangers. I would beg to differ - CAP Rangers have been aspiring to emulate the Army Rangers (as much as possible with High School-age cadets). As I see it, there are only a few concrete differences between an Army Ranger and a CAP Ranger: The Posse Comitatus Act, CAP falls under SECAF and not SA, and (most) CAP members are civilians not subject to the UCMJ. I believe that a link in a See also section is justified. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC), (Formerly Mjf3719)
On the contrary, there are numerous differences, namely the United States Army Rangers are United States military personnel (namely Army) who have served with Ranger units or have completed the U.S. Army Ranger School. Where as the Civil Air Patrol are civilians and of high-school age cadets, from what I've read regarding the Civil Air Patrol Rangers "A Civil Air Patrol Ranger is a volunteer of the Civil Air Patrol who has undergone training for emergency situations.", that is diametrically opposed to what U.S. Army Rangers do. "The United States Army Rangers or simply Army Rangers are specialized, elite American light infantry special operations forces capable of conducting direct action operations." One could argue that there should be a See Also for U.S. Army JROTC Ranger Club. I see no similarities or reason why either should be noted as See Also for the article. -Signaleer (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary; having a a link to Army JROTC Ranger Club, CAP Rangers, and perhaps even the Army ROTC Ranger Challenge all demonstrate: A) The Respect and Honor that the term Ranger conveys in America, B) Numerous other organizations have been founded based upon the success and drive of the US Army Rangers, C) Other organizations in the United States are known as Rangers. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You have failed to address the first point, there are few differences in your opinion about the two organizations. -Signaleer (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to include the CAP Rangers. They happen to include the word "Ranger" in there name. So do Park Rangers and the Texas Rangers. Including them would make as much sense. The CAP Rangers, fine bunch of folks that they are, simply aren't remotely similar. The CAP is a volunteer search and rescue organization. The Army Rangers are a professional search and destroy organization. Besides, the CAP rangers aspire to earn and pink belt and there is no way the Army Rangers would even own a pink belt. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your arguments that a S&R team isn't the same as a S&D team; my point by putting a link in is that there are other Rangers in the DOD than the Army Rangers. Well, how are Civilians in the DOD you ask? When performing missions assigned by the AFRCC, CAP personnel (to include CAP Rangers) become assets of the USAF. CAP Rangers are those personnel who, in addition to completing normal S&R training, have voluntarily completed Ranger School (such as Hawk Mountain Ranger School), are in constant demand for S&R operations, and continually upgrade and maintain their qualifications. Therefore, CAP Rangers are specialized, elite American search and rescue forces capable of conducting sustained SAR operations. It's even listed in the national Search and Rescue manual. I fail to see how there's any differences other than age, Posse Comitatus, mission, and SECAF. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't want to get into an extended debate about the word "elite", but I think it's being overused. I'm not trying to take anything away from the CAP Rangers and the fine work that they do. As for your "they're part of the DoD" reasoning..... not exactly. They are SUPPORTED by the DoD, but it is not considered part of the reserve force, nor are the members subject the the UCMJ. They are a Congressionally chartered, federally supported, non-profit corporation. If an Air Force fighter crashes in a mountain region, state and local search teams will also assist, with the AF coordinating them. At that point, they are an AF "asset" too..... until the operation is over. CAP funding comes as much from coporate and private donations as much as federal funding. And in exchange for some donations, they agree to perform tasks that the AF has no interest in. They aren't part of the Army, they don't share a similar job, they shouldn't be a "see also". BTW, there is no exclusion of the CAP based on Posse Commitatus. They aren't considered part of the military, therefore not excluded. Real members of the military aren't even required to salute CAP members. Why? Because they aren't part of the military. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that avoiding an elitist argument is a good idea, I simply wish to explain where I see things coming from. (CAP is) a Congressionally chartered, federally supported, non-profit corporation. If (x), state and local teams will also assist; but the Air Force does not pay for their training, reimburse costs incurred because of the mission, provide medical insurance for those personnel while performing duties during the mission. It's not that the Air Force has no interest in these things; it's cheaper to have volunteers perform these tasks than to maintain units specially trained for these operations throughout the country. Posse Commitatus comes into play for CAP more-so than for Army Rangers because of where we operate - I hope the day never comes where Army Rangers need to perform their tasks inside the United States; CAP Rangers, however, operate almost exclusively within our borders, with/for Americans. I don't understand why there's so much resistance to mention other Ranger's here simply because "they aren't a part of the Army." Would there be just as much resistance if the topic were Irish Army Rangers or the 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment? My point is this: No, CAP Rangers are not Army Rangers. However, WP:Link states that relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. I think that linking between CAP Rangers and Army Rangers helps those unfamiliar with the topic understand the definition of a Ranger: a keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region to protect the area or enforce the law. IMO, a link is justified, especially from the side of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States; but I'm willing to concede if that's the WP:consensus. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the subject matter relavent to the main article? Absolutely not. -Signaleer (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Explain please? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
See comments above, "*There is no reason to include the CAP Rangers. They happen to include the word "Ranger" in there name. So do Park Rangers and the Texas Rangers. Including them would make as much sense. The CAP Rangers, fine bunch of folks that they are, simply aren't remotely similar. The CAP is a volunteer search and rescue organization. The Army Rangers are a professional search and destroy organization. Besides, the CAP rangers aspire to earn and pink belt and there is no way the Army Rangers would even own a pink belt. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)" -Signaleer (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable list[edit]

I am pasting this from a user talk page in case anyone wants to weigh in: Novaseminary (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift36, I may not have been clear in my first edit summary for United States Army Rangers. In addition to redlinks, I was deleting individuals who do not have a wikiepdia page. Unless an individual has a wikipedia page, they should not be listed on a notable list. For more, see WP:Lists. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation is incorrect. A person doesn't have to have an article to be notable. For example, per WP:MILPEOPLE, winning the Congressional Medal of Honor would pass notability standards. Lazlo Rabel won the MoH. That means he passes notability standards. Just because someone hasn't taken the time to write the article yet doesn't mean he isn't notable enough to be included on the list. What SPECIFICALLY in WP:LISTS do you feel prohibits listing people who don't have current articles? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
From WP:LISTS: "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.". These are sourced, so WP:V is not an issue, nor is WP:OR. And the reason for their inclusion is stated neutrally, so I don't see the neutrality issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right that a person doesn't have to have an article to be notable (though they do have to be notable to have an article). But to appear on a list, they have to have an article. From WP:LISTS (with italics added): "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." This applies to embedded lists. And I would also note that one of the deleted individuals was deleted as non-notable per an AfD, so even with your reasoning, that one should be out. Another doesn't even have a full name listed. Feel free to self-revert or not. I'm going to mark the article for cleanup (it has several other problems) and you can duke it out with another editor later. Novaseminary (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That doesn't say that they have to have an article. It says the articles (if they exist) should be linked. There are others you deleted that would pass notability if someone takes the time to write the article. And yes, I saw you were successful in deleting a number of people. It's a shame that AfD slipped by so many people, mainly because of the bulk nomination, because some of those did pass notability. Instead the AfD went unchallenged. I think the bulk nomination was what let those slide by without anyone showing the notability. In any case, you're interpreting WP:LISTS incorrectly. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I presume you mean "J Robinson" is the one that isn't a full name. J Robinson IS a full name. His first name is J. Nothing more. If you'd bother to look at the source for the entry, you'd see that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I stand corrected (though I am not sure he is notable, nor do I really care). And seeing as he is purportedly notable for something other than being a Ranger, I'm not sure why he is relevant to a page about Rangers. We can agree to disagree. Your comments seem to hint at bad faith on my part. Please remeber to always assume good faith. Take care. Novaseminary (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And as a post script, the AfD banner appeared on every article that was deleted. All I did was nominate. Nothing slipped by anywhere (or at least that wouldn't have slipped by with individual nominations). Novaseminary (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Robinson is on the list because he is notable (per WP:ATHLETE) and was a member of the Rangers. The list isn't only people who did something notable while serving in the Ranger Battalion. It is for those that were notable AND served as a Ranger or those who did something notable while a Ranger. You can pretend to hear bad faith if you want. I really don't care one way of the other. Stebbins was more than a BLP1E. But since I don't bookmark every article, I had no reason to check it during that week. Others on that list could have easily passed GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split notable member list to seperate list article[edit]

I propose that the list of notable U.S. Army Rangers be split into a stand-alone list per Wikipedia:Embedded_list: "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." Moving the notables to a seperate list article would lead to less disagreemnet as to the propriety of including particular individuals. If they have a wikipedia article, they could be in regardless of the reason they are notable, or they could be listed even without a wikipedia article if they are notable for one event that relates to being a Ranger.

If seperately listed, as I read Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people, people who are notable for one event and do not have a wikipedia page would only be listed if the one event relates to being a U.S. Ranger. And even if the notable Rangers are not broken out to their own seperate list article, I wonder if including individuals notable for something unrelated to being a Ranger is appropriate in this aritcle, an article that is supposed to be about the Rangers. Novaseminary (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't support the proposal. I don't see what the issue is, this list isn't overly long. And I still disagree with your interpretation that WP:LISTS requires a person to be notable and have an article to be included on an embedded list. I'm not sure what your sudden interest is in ridding Ranger information from articles, but that list is what is left over after regular editors to this article cut out the excess. There are only 5 on the list that don't have articles already. 1 is a Medal of Honor winner and, as I told you earlier, most certainly passes notability under WP:MILPEOPLE criteria #1: "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour" . A second passes notability under WP:ATHLETE. The third had an article until you put it in a bulk deletion of Rangers and Delta. Stebbins article may re-appear soon as he was not a 1E in the first place. That leave 2 entries.....one is a General officer who was the Regiment commander. He would pass under WP:MILPEOPLE #3 and would of course be notable to the Regiment as a past commander. That really leaves one......the only man to win the Best Ranger competition twice. Since this is a televised event, and the results covered by reliable sources and he won it twice, which eliminates the one event issue....well, he'd make it under GNG too. So really, the only one that might be iffy is Stebbins. Not sure why the presence of his name rankles you so much, but he's the only one that is even disputable. But given his Silver Star and the coverage about it, then the later coverage of his criminal issues, I'd submit those are 2 seperate events that both got coverage in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. What if the list were to stay exactly the same (or expand, as you see fit), but become its own list article per WP:Embedded_list? That is what I propose; nothing more, nothing less. Even if the list is not "overly long," it is a list in what should be, and otherwise is, a prose article. As for the contents of the list, I really don't care who is on it. Since I, like you and the other "regular editors", don't own the aticle, I have already agreed to stand down on who is on the list and will defer to you entirely unless others speak up and raise the issue again. But why not split the list from the main article, link to it from the main article, and then expand the list to include every single person with a Wikipedia article who was in the Rangers (and any others who qualify for inclusion on the list)? I don't want to rid any article of "Ranger information;" I'd rather see more of it. Novaseminary (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the proposal. I'm addressing more than one thing. I don't see where this has grown to where wee need to spin it off into a seperate article. And what other Rangers do you know of that have articles but aren't on the list? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any notable Rangers not already on the list.
Really? You didn't notice the omission of Hackworth, up until his death a few years back America's most decorated living soldier?


And I realize you were addressing more than one thing. That is why I tried to direct you back to the only issue upon which we need to reach consensus (no need for you to grab defeat from the jaws of victory on the contents of the list). You say you do not see that the list "has grown to where we need to spin it off into a seperate article." But, you have yet to address WP:EMBED: "lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries." Do you have a reason in mind that this article is unique so as to justify contravening the usual practice? Or do you have a problem with WP:EMBED? Novaseminary (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I don;t see a need for a seperate article. I've stated this. I'll see what other have to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You have stated that, but not once addressed any Wikipedia guidelines or given any reason other than, apparently, your gut reaction. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Process: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." Novaseminary (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There isn't sufficient material to justify yet another semi-stub article. It's fine here, reasonably well referenced and in alphabetical order for you. What is the pressing need to spin it off now? If it grows too big, then sure. Right now? Just don't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Split it. It is not true that each item on a "List of" article has to have its own separate article. See List of largest optical telescopes historically and many other lists for proof of that. You can try to interpret the policies on this in an overly rigid manner, but see WP:Bureaucracy for details on that. Splitting will improve the article. It's not "that big" now seemingly because items were recently deleted from the list (because they didn't have an article). It can easily expand and will eventually need splitting. Finally, when I was writing articles and they started getting too big, I was hesitant to split them initially. After it was done and their contents reflected as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style), the original article was better off. Read: "the split was a good thing." Take a look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles to see if they have unweildy lists like this. They don't. Those are Wikipedia's best articles. You can use them as a guide for how an article should look. If someone had the time and motivation, this article could reach that standard too (reaching the Ranger objective...) --Airborne84 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Who said each item on a "list of" article had to have its own seperate article? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Novaseminary in the above thread unless I'm misunderstanding the discussion. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And his interpretation is completely wrong. There is no requirement for a person to be notable in their own right to be on a list. For example, many articles about minor league baseball teams list their players, coaches etc, yet most don't qualify for their own article. Likewise, the outcome of many AfD's about biographies is to take the subject, merge their info to a list and redirect the name. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Split Long enough to justify its own article, will be easier to maintain and to review edit history. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  • The section shouldn't even be titled as it is now. It places too much emphasis on the 75th. It should be simply titled "Notable Rangers" and left at that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a duplicate page[edit]

How is this page fundamentally different in its subject matter than 75th Ranger Regiment (United States)? If this page is to exist, it needs to assume a more general definition of Army Ranger, although I saw the objections above - apparently by current or former members of the 75th.
This adds little to the 75th article. Why is the "List of famous Rangers" limited to those who were in the 75th? That might look good on the wall of the 75th Regimental HQ, but this is Wikipedia. People might be interested to know if their Senator or favorite actor went through Ranger School. The lede is 90% "75th Ranger Regiment". Ranger School is only mentioned in the context of "no connection to the 75th". Strange.
Since the term "Ranger" is verifiably sourced as "a Ranger School graduate", then it is a notable topic on Wikipedia. It bears inclusion here. It does not bear inclusion on the 75th article page except as a link to the Ranger School article in summary style.
Look for changes in the next few weeks. Feel free to debate them here. However, I'm not that interested in random opinions. Please use Wikipedia policies and guidelines in couching possible objections. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with 75th Ranger Regiment[edit]

I don't see how this subject matter is different than the 75th Ranger Regiment article. Unless someone can explain why it should stand alone as an article instead of a simple redirect page, it should be merged. There's about the same number of people that visit both articles, but the 75th article is more comprehensive, so that should become the main article, and the focus should go to making that a Good Article or a Featured Article. Diluting between the two is a waste of focus.

I see the discussions about people that are Ranger Qualified being considered as Rangers, and that's true. However, if this article is to be defined as "United States Army Rangers" (plural), then it will probably be difficult to find a source that mentions Ranger School graduates with those exact four words. Merging this article with the 75th article and creating a separate page called "United States Army Ranger" may be the answer there if a source cannot be found to accomodate its inclusion here. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The regiment has it's own history. Rangers, which can included members that aren't in the 75th, don't necessarily share the same history. The info on the 75th alone is sufficient for a good sized article. Trying to move this one into it will probably make that article bigger than it should be. Some of the other moves you've made are ok, but this one seems to be over-reaching. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand the argument. Here's my points:
  • Most of the information here is already in the 75th article. I don't see anything here that couldn't go there. Even the section that should be called "List of Notable Rangers" is called "Notable Members of the 75th Ranger Regiment or linage units." Everything revolves around the 75th. Thus, it wouldn't require moving that much material "into" the 75th. It would probably require the movement of a bit of minor information, dropping all repetitive information, and turning this page into a redirect article that points people to the 75th Ranger Regiment article.
  • I understand your argument about "Rangers who aren't in the 75th." I also happen to agree with you. Yet, there is no source in the article that makes this article notable in a manner that is separate from the 75th article. This article is defined as "an elite American Special Operations Force capable of conducting direct action operations". That's the 75th.
If this article were called "United States Army Ranger" (which exists only as a redirect page to this article), I would say it should remain and its scope should encompass any individual who could be called an "Army Ranger". That would include historical Rangers, and might exclude those in the 75th that are not Ranger qualified. The singular is used in titles at Wikipedia, see WP:SINGULAR, unless there is a specific reason not to.
I see a few options:
  • The name could be changed to singular which allows other Rangers to be added through a source.
  • A source could be found to include individuals not in the 75th in a WP:RS that identifies them in the context of "United States Army Rangers" (plural). I looked briefly. There are plenty of sources which provide for "Army Ranger', but not the "Army Rangers" that is in this title. I only looked briefly on the Web and in some books though.
  • This article, which only has sources linking the 75th to the title, could be merged and used as a redirect page. A "United States Army Ranger" page could then be constructed, instead of only being a redirect page, that includes all types of "Rangers"—which exist as plural in the article, but not the title.
I'm not saying all mention of "Ranger" outside the 75th should be expunged from Wikipedia. It actually needs expansion. Yet, this article was designed in such a way as to make its expansion here very problematic. Until one of these options are pursued, that will not change, and we'll be tiptoeing around semantics without a source. I'm happy to leave this page and make changes that include those not in the 75th (E.g. changing the section header in question to "List of notable Army Rangers"). Without a source though, it will continue to remain just a lower-quality duplicate page. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC Name change[edit]

This RFC is in regard to changing the name of this article from "United States Army Rangers" (plural) to "United States Army Ranger" (singular) in accordance with Wikipedia policies on naming conventions (singular).

There are numerous threads with people arguing against including anyone not from the 75th Ranger Regiment in this page (such as graduates from Ranger School)—preferring to restrict it only to those serving or who have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Since there is already a page for the 75th Ranger Regiment, there is no need for a second page that is restricted to that topic. However, those who argue that other individuals should be included have not provided any sources that fit the plural title of this article. Changing the name to the singular is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, makes sourcing the inclusion of those outside of the 75th possible (in fact very easy), and allows a lot of duplicate material to be summarized here with links to the 75th article. There are other benefits. The section, Notable Members of the 75th Ranger Regiment or linage units can be changed to "Notable United States Army Rangers" within the expanded scope of this article.

Alternatively, this article could be merged into the 75th Ranger Regiment article and retained as a redirect. There is information on "other" Army Rangers in the article, but it is unsourced. Since no source has been provided for some time, it can be deleted. However, changing the name to singular is more in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and will allow editors more time to obtain reliable sources. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Change to singular or delete

If the article is about the Rangers, meaning the 75th, then is is a duplicate and should be deleted. If it is intended to be more general, as in 'A United States Army Ranger is a member of any of the...', it is better to use the singular. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article "United States Army Ranger" is a redirect to this article, which is only sourced to encompass the 75th. The two topics need separate articles. I'll make the changes in the next week or two unless other editors weigh in with logical reasons why it should not be done. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold on Airborne. You took this to RFC. RFC's normally run 30 days. You don't get to decide arbitraily when to end them. If a consensus is reached before that, then it ends. One guy agreeing with you isn't a consensus. I posted a request at the Military History project to see if we can get more input. I would tend to agree with the change to a singular title, but that isn't the way you presented it before.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry. I know these run for 30 days and, if necessary, I've no problem waiting the full 30 days if a clear consensus doesn't develop before then. Given that there hasn't been much interest in my last thread, I figured that not too many people would chime in. If I had a "hair-trigger," I would have just started making changes instead of starting an RFC—for the reasons I stated above. The RFC will run its course until there's a clear consensus.
Thanks also for posting the request at the Mil History project. The greater ramifications for the recommended name change is the long-term plan on how we are going to handle the issue of "Ranger" vs. "Rangers". The optimal "what should these articles look like in 5-10 years" solution should be identified now so all efforts go toward that endstate. With that in mind, more eyes are better. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, this has gotta be the dumbest reason to support a change ever! When I first saw this request, I thought, "No, it has to be Army Rangers" plural. That's the way it is, and that's the way it always will be. But then I recalled, the old cadence march, I want to be an Army Ranger/live in trees/and piss on strangers. This diddy shows that "army rangers" is not exclusively used, thus as a person who is coming here solely due to the RfC, I support the change. (Note, if there is a merger between this and the 75th, I would prefer the merger to end up here.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Balloonman, since you decided that was your reason....The cadence says "I" singular, so you could only be a ranger, singular. But the article isn't about a single Ranger, it is about RangerS, the collective group of people who complete Ranger school or serve in a Ranger Battalion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "RangerS" can still be used in the article. For example, if you look at the article Lion, you will see the word "Lions" used throughout, especially when talking about a "pride" of lions. The plural form is fine in the article, but changes the meaning of the article when used in the title. Calling that article "Lions" would only allow the article to be about "prides" of lions, not the individual lions themselves—limiting the article unnecessarily. A name change to "Ranger" here allows inclusion of "Army Rangers" as a group (the 75th) and an Army "Ranger" (historical Rangers and Ranger School graduates). This is the reason why Wikipedia's naming conventions follow the singular (except for exceptions like Scissors).
The WP guideline is to use the singular unless it is always (or almost always) in the plural. There appear to be enough examples of Ranger being accepted, that the singular would fit the guideline.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Guidelines are guidelines, not mandates. In this case, a person is a Ranger. The collective group are Rangers. Since this article isn't about an individual, but the grouping. Think of it like this: A person can be a Boy Scout, but talking about a number of them would be Boy Scouts and you join the Boy Scouts, not the Boy Scout. A formalized group, like a Scout Troop is singular use because it is one troop, just like a Ranger Battalion would be singular. Since you like cadences, how about mottos? Do RangerS lead the way, or is it Ranger lead the way? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. However, there are two issues. Most Wikiepdia readers will not understand the subtle nuance that you are describing (although I do). Also, that interpretation of "Rangers" does not have a source. You and I can agree all day long, but without a source that defines individual "Ranger"s as "Rangers", we are going to be tiptoeing around semantics forever. With a name change, everything becomes simple.
  • In all honesty, I don't think most Wikipedia readers will notice if it is singular or plural, much less care. And I'm not sure what you're looking for a source to say? If you want a reliable source using the plural Rangers, look no further than the motto I already mentioned, which is certainly reliable. Are you asking me to provide you with sources that use the term "Army Rangers"? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This article as "Rangers" is sourced only as the 75th Ranger Regiment. Everything else is unsourced and must eventually be deleted. In that light, it is (or will be) a duplicate page. If it remains as "Rangers" then we will have to decide which one is to be the page covering the 75th - "75th Ranger Regiment" or "United States Army Rangers". The other should be reduced to a redirect because it is a waste of editors' time and effort to update two articles that cover the exact same topic. If this course is followed, and both articles are merged into this one, then the article, "United States Army Ranger" should be created to cover the rest. That article exists now, but it is only a redirect to this one. Thus, I thought it better to take the material in this article, place it under the "United States Army Ranger" title, and make this page a redirect to the 75th article. In simple terms, that involves changing the name of this article to the singular. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No, we won't have to decide. The 75th Ranger Regiment article should stay seperate. Period. Again, it is a seperate regimental organization with a long, well-documented history that can certainly stand alone as an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not set on changing the name if it's not in the best long-term interest here. It may be that all of this should be consolidated under one article—this one. If that is the case, everything changes once a reliable source is found to include an individual "Ranger" in this article. I did a quick search online and went to a couple of bookstores to flip through some books, but realized it was going to be tough to source individuals under this article. There may well be a source out there. If a reliable one can be found and added here, this RFC should be dropped. However, a non-stable website wouldn't be a good single source to use. If it goes away, there are going to be people that come here and demand that individuals be dropped from the article because the "website doesn't exist anymore". --Airborne84 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, an individual Ranger is a Ranger, singular. But this article isn't about a person. Richard Marcinko was a SEAL, but the article is about United States Navy SEALs. Babe Ruth was a Yankee, but played for the Yankees. About half of the notable Rangers are already sourced. Many of the ones who aren't simply haven't been because it's in their Wikipedia bio already and nobody took the time. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, here's the problem:

  • You and I both agree about what you're saying.
  • Your and my opinions are meaningless on Wikipedia. Only reliable sources matter here.
  • There is no source to support the inclusion of anyone but current and former members of the 75th in this article given the title.

The situation as it is cannot stand for long without a source. Anyone that happens along can freely delete anything unsourced in the article. When it is stripped bare, it only includes sourced material about the 75th (and its history). Yet, there is already an article about the 75th. What is the long-term solution? I'm certainly open to alternatives on how to handle the issue. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Wait a minute. I'll leave the "your opinion is meaningless on Wikipedia" thing alone for now. (You're wrong, but that's not important at the moment). You keep talking about lack of sources. This article is sourced. What SPECIFICALLY are you claiming is not sourced? And where are you getting this claim that "there is no source to support the inclusion of anyone but current and former members of the 75th in this article given the title". What do you think needs sourced? That list included people who completed Rangers school (Rangers) or those who served in the 75th Ranger Regiment (Rangers). Both are Rangers, both are included, most already have or can easily be sourced. Are you trying to pull this "if they weren't in the 75th then they weren't Rangers" bit? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I've already said twice that I agree with you on that "bit". I'll try to be more clear about what I'm trying to say.
  • There are sources that state "Army Rangers" are the 75th Ranger Regiment. Past and present.
  • There are sources that state a Ranger School graduate becomes an "Army Ranger"
  • There is no source (in the article) that states that a Ranger School graudate becomes part of the "Army Rangers"
  • This article's title is defined as "an elite American Special Operations Force capable of conducting direct action operations". There is no source in the article that states a Ranger School graduate becomes part of that force.
Just because I say that Ranger School graduates are part of a collective group called "Army Rangers" (plural) doesn't make it so. MY opinion is irrelevant here on Wikipedia. A reliable source has to say it.
This has already been a source of contention. I don't agree with EvilCouch in the threads above, but there is a problem in that there is no source linking a Ranger School graduate with a collective group of "Rangers". This becomes a problem when we try to put (for example) Colin Powell in the list of "Notable Members of the 75th Ranger Regiment or linage units" and someone comes along and argues that he was a "Ranger" but not in the "Rangers". Again, I'm not trying to exclude Ranger School graduates. I'm trying to determine how information on them can be expanded within Wikipedia's policies. I see three possibilities:
  • The name of this article is changed (as per the RFC) to "United States Army Ranger". This allows both the term "Ranger" and "Rangers" to be included within the article.
  • This article can remain and the article "United States Army Ranger" can be created. (It's a redirect to here now.)
  • A source can be included here that states that "a Ranger School graduate becomes part of the Army Rangers". Plural. In this case, the first sentence in the lede is changed to something along the lines of "A United States Army Ranger is an elite member of the United States Armed forces." Another paragraph in the lede talks about the 75th, another talks about historical Rangers, another talks about Ranger School graduates (now sourced).
I'm fine with any of these options, although in option two, this article ends up being a duplicate of the 75th Ranger Regiment article for the most part. I thought the name change to the singular was the easiest since "United States Army Ranger" is a general term that should probably be the main article on this topic. There seems to be some agreement, which is good since without a source as described above, this article will continue to remain a target for those who try to "pull that bit" with you again. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, WP:SINGULAR is a policy, not a guideline. I've invoked WP:IGNOREALLRULES before, but this doesn't seem like a good case to make that strenuous an argument. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A person who graduates is a Ranger. They collectively are Rangers. There is no need to source common sense. The history of the 75th is inseperable from an article about Rangers. It can be scaled back, no objection, but not removed. At the same time, the articles can't be combined because the 75th has a history seperate from Rangers, which predate the formation of the 75th. Part of the problem here is that you've tried to make so many changes at the same time, it becomes difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do and things get mixed. One step at a time is better than 5 at a time. My basic problem with the title change is that you're demanding sources for what is common grammatical rules. Ranger=singular, Rangers=Plural. The article isn't about a singlular person, it's about Rangers as a whole (not just the 75th). The line you object to in the lead can easily be rewritten. So if I can find you a source where Rangers, not in the context of the 75th, are called Rangers, you will be satisfied? Am I understanding you correctly? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
1. Contentious material needs to be sourced. This is contentious material given the threads above on the talk page.
2. That aside, yes. If you can find a source where those that graduate Ranger School are part of a group called "Rangers" (plural), I will be completely satisfied. In fact, that would be the ideal course of action. I was not able to find a source myself—but perhaps someone else can. Unfortunately, the "citation needed" stamps have been on this article for a while. Something needs to give eventually, thus the RFC. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Fine, I'll look for a source. I just wanted to know specifically what you are so bent on proving. BTW, I'm not new, so please, enough with the linking of things like reliable source, which you've done more than once. I know what RS is. If you like links, try this one: WP:OVERLINK. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it took about 30 seconds to find the first one. When I went here: [6] and clicked on the tab that said "About Rangers" we find: "To maintain readiness, Rangers train constantly". "Throughout training, Rangers are taught to expect the unexpected." The same page talks about units other than the 75th that have been designated as Rangers. The closing paragraph says: "Continually Distinguished in Action the World Over, U.S. Army Rangers have served with distinction the world over.". Then I went to the US Army Ranger Association page. [7]. On the home page: "Rangers are capable of conducting squad...", "...to promote and preserve the heritage, spirit, image and service of U.S. Army Rangers." Since their membership requirement is either a Ranger tab or service in a listed unit, most of which pre-date the 75th Ranger Regiment, we can reasonably show that being a member of the 75th is not how they define being a Ranger. At this link [8], you'll find a copy of a USASOC News Service release that includes: "will live on in the hundreds of Rangers he trained.”. From the page about the Best Ranger Competition (which has been won by Rangers who were not in the 75th)[9] "It will feature the best athletes in the world; the United States Army RANGERS!" On the same page, in talking about the 2010 winners, neither of whom are with the 75th, “They just love their jobs and they’re so proud to be Americans and Rangers.” The same article points out that to win they had to beat "some of the military’s toughest, most physically fit Rangers." Do I need to continue? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
All right. Thanks for doing the research. A few comments.
  • Please assume good faith. All of the issues I have raised here are to make this and other articles better, not to try to tear anything down. Most of this article (except for sourced material on the 75th) violated WP:No original research whether it was true or not. Truth doesn't matter here on Wikipedia, only verifiability, as you undoubtedly know. The article needed, and still needs, a lot of work. The fundamental issues have to be addressed first though, thus this RFC.
  • Forgive my Wikilinking. If we were having this discussion on your or my talk page, it wouldn't be needed. Since other editors may happen along and may not be aware of the policies we are talking about, it can still be useful.
  • For your "sources," I'd give a tentative "yes" that that might be sufficient. Some of them seemed shaky to me, but I especially like the one on the Best Ranger Competition. I wouldn't call these "multiple" sources though. According to WP:N, "Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". However, even though an article typically needs more than one source to be notable, there's not a notability issue for the entire article—only for the issue of "graduates" being part of a group of "Rangers". I think it's OK in that light.
  • Another issue is that this/these are webpages. They could change or be removed later. However, since notability is not temporary that may not be an issue either. Key would be including the accessed date in the source.
  • Finally, I note these possible issues not because I disagree with your source. I personally find it sufficient. But neither you nor I own this article. If the consensus here is that this is sufficient to allow the inclusion of Ranger School graduates into the article as the title stands now, that is the real test. Although consensus can change, a consensus will be something to point to when people come here and pull the "bit" you mentioned earlier. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • To address your points in order:
  • I have assumed good faith, but I have also expressed my opinion that you have tried to make too many major changes at the same time. I don't believe that is the most productive way to do it.
  • WP:OVERLINK says once in a section is enough. Once is sufficient.
  • Is there no pleasing you? I provided 2 totally separate reliable sources, posted multiple quotes and links to it all in 30 mins. after reading your statement that you couldn't find any examples. Imagine what can be done in more time?
  • The access date would of course be included when the source template is used. ANY source on the internet can change at any time, whether it's the NY Times or the Army website. That is a specious argument. Those links pass RS and V, therefore could be used today. Speculating on what may or may not happen 6 weeks or 6 years down the road has little place in the discussion.
  • I've never made any claim to owning the article. All I've done is express the opinion that you were making major changes in multiple articles about this topic without any discussion at all, then responded with my opinions in the discussions. I don't recall even reverting an edit you've made (I might have, but nothing sticks out in my mind). So even mentioning me in the same sentence as ownership seems out of place. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't access the first link you provided. No matter.
I was just thinking "out loud" on some of these issues to address any possible objections that others may have. As I stated, I'm fine with the Best Ranger Competition source since it meets the requirements as a verifiable and reliable source here, and it fit the bill nicely in that it wasn't simply the plural of the word "Ranger".
Sometimes it takes someone coming in to an article and shaking things up to get things done. Again, I did this to improve this article—and Wikipedia—not to take away or damage. I'll feel better about taking care of some of these "citation needed" tags now that the most serious issue (in my mind) is resolved. There are a few books I know of that will help greatly.
And thanks for your efforts. They are helping make Wikipedia better. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
All this over the letter "S"? Seriously? I will abstain. :) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Given the sources provided by Niteshift and Ranger Jim below, the article can be comprehensively developed as "Ranger" or "Rangers". Wikipedia prefers the singular, but there is a precedent with the Navy Seals article. The name change can be carried out, but it may be irrelevant at this point. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Rollup
Martin Hogbin: Change to singular or delete.
Balloonman: Support the change.
Airborne84: Comment. May be irrelevant now.

Objections to change of definition for the article?[edit]

Given the source [10] provided by Niteshift above (others may find his other noted sources relevant also), I believe that provides a sufficient source to include Ranger School graduates in this article as titled: "United States Army Rangers". If there is a consensus to support that, I believe that the RFC for name change should be dropped and the source added so that the article can continue to be improved. The first sentence in the article's lede would need to be changed to something akin to "United States Army Rangers are elite members of the United States armed forces" (although there may be a better way to phrase it). Further paragraphs in the lede would expand on different types of "United States Army Rangers" to include the "75th Ranger Regiment" (past and present), early Army Rangers, and Ranger School graduates. The rest of the lede wouldn't be too far a stretch from what it is now—the major change would be in the first sentence, how the article is defined.
Normally, I would just be bold and make the change, but imput from multiple editors may be useful in this case. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the lede should be rewritten and that the article should concentrate less on a rehash of 75th Regimental history and more on the history of the Ranger concept and the training involved. I would stress that some history of significant Ranger activity, such as some 7th History, Rogers Rangers, Knowlton etc do belong in the article, just to the level to give the reader an idea of the involvement, then a link to the appropriate article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Let's see if anyone else has any input. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Airborne84. And my source is [11]. Now, I must admit that I am somewhat biased in that I graduated from Ranger School in 1967 (Class #9/67) and had left Vietnam (and the Infantry) for EOD School before the 75th came into being, but if the US Army Ranger Association is willing to have me as a voting member, then I would personally doubt any claims made by someone who doesn't sign his/her name. But I do welcome dissent (with unbiased sources) from those same nameless ones.

However, while I do agree that there should be two articles - one on the history and traditions of the US Army Rangers, per se, and another one on the 75th Ranger Regiment - what about the current day LRSDs (and other such units which operate outside of the scope of the 75th)? I have a young neighbor in my apartment complex who proudly wears an LRSD Scroll from either Europe or elsewhere. Is he for real? IMO, he is. Is he a Ranger School grad? No (although he did graduate from a similar school at Benning). So where does he and his comrades stand in the Tab versus Scroll discussion? Arguably, he and his mates are the direct descendants of the Vietnam LRRP/LRPs. More so, in truth, than the 75th Rangers. -- Ranger Jim (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

LRRPs[edit]

(Copied from above thread) [W]hat about the current day LRSDs (and other such units which operate outside of the scope of the 75th)? I have a young neighbor in my apartment complex who proudly wears an LRSD Scroll from either Europe or elsewhere. Is he for real? IMO, he is. Is he a Ranger School grad? No (although he did graduate from a similar school at Benning). So where does he and his comrades stand in the Tab versus Scroll discussion? Arguably, he and his mates are the direct descendants of the Vietnam LRRP/LRPs. More so, in truth, than the 75th Rangers. -- Ranger Jim (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question on LRRPs. I will note that I added some material on this in the first paragraph of the Vietnam War section of this article, and I think that's appropriate. After a bit of thought, I decided that this might not be that difficult. Since Wikipedia is a collection of sources, it should be no problem including material from WP:RS's that discuss the Vietnam War Era (IRT this article). They will link the LRRP units appropriately. If there are reliable sources that link modern Rangers and LRSD units, they could be included as well—with appropriate weight. We can debate the emphasis that this article should give on such material, but certainly it should be part—and the material I contributed has not been controversial to date.
Thanks for chiming in. Since the RfC above is about to expire, some changes are in order. The article needs a lot of help and you're certainly welcome to contribute! --Airborne84 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, mate! And as a matter of fact, I recently participated in an interesting discussion on a Yahoo "Special Operations" list to which I belong about the difficulties in telling the difference between a real Ranger and a poser. An old friend (from A/75) responded and told me about a couple of Long Range Patrol units in Germany in the '60s which were run out of either Army or Corp level. He promised to send me what info he had (and you can bet your arse that I'm going to try to recruit him as an editor!).

And here is where the wicket becomes rather sticky... Back when I was in college, it was quite acceptable to cite oneself in a research paper. Later on, I came to know this as "recursive references". And since I'm young to editing, I'd like some guidance.

I have saved the thread of the aforementioned online conversation, but since I started that particular discussion, how can I refer to it? And is "interviewing" someone and then quoting them (and citing them) "original research"?

To get specific, if I chat up my young LSRD neighbor and ask him about his duties as an LSRD Team Leader, and then come back and add his contribution to the discussion about just who may be called a "Ranger" (per se), is this "original research" and therefore nekultry and forbidden?

Bright Blessings, Jim


Walk in beauty and honor -- Strive for Balance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger Jim (talkcontribs) 09:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately (IRT the e-mail or conversations), the short answer is "yes, that's original research and not allowed on Wikipedia." According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, they have to be both reliable and published. Citing yourself is allowed on Wikipedia, but only under certain circumstances. See WP:OR and WP:RS for more details on citing yourself. I hope you can find a way to contribute and make the article better though! If you have more questions about how to use sources here or what might be possible, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oath[edit]

The first words of each paragraph adds together is RANGER.

Recognizing that i volunteered as a ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, i will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my ranger regiment.
Acknowledging the fact that a ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, i accept the fact that as a ranger my country expects me to move farther, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.
Never shall i fail my comrades. i will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and i will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some.
Gallantly will i show the world that i am a specially selected and well-trained soldier. my courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.
Energetically will i meet the enemies of my country. i shall defeat them on the field of battle for i am better trained and will fight with all my might. surrender is not a ranger word. i will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will i ever embarrass my country.
Readily will i display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the ranger objective and complete the mission though i be the lone survivor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.126.195.254 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Think this is what you meant. If you have input on the "Request for Comment" (RfC) a few threads above, please feel free to comment. Think the 30 days expires today or tomorrow. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Honors Section[edit]

I initially thought that the "Honors" section should just be deleted since it just replicates material from the 75th Ranger Regiment article. However, it should probably remain and just be expanded to fit the general scope of the article. The Ranger Association lists the following units, and I suggest that editors here list the honors and decorations for these units. It will certainly need to be split into its own article as soon as much material is gathered.

  • Any of the World War II Ranger Battalions,
  • The 5307th Composite, “Merrill’s Marauders” during WWII,
  • The Alamo Scouts during WWII,
  • The 29th Ranger Battalion during WWII,
  • Any of the Ranger Infantry Companies (Airborne) during the Korean War,
  • The Eighth Army’s “8000 Series” units during the Korea War,
  • Any of the lettered Ranger companies of the 75th Infantry, or their immediate LRRP predecessor units, during the *Vietnam War,
  • Any officially designated U. S. Army Ranger unit, to include E/65th Inf (PRNG), D/151st INF (IN NG), A/75th and B/75th Ranger (V and VII Corps LRP), or their immediate LRP predecessor units.
  • The 1st or 2nd Ranger Battalion, during the period 1974 to 1984, the 75th Ranger Regiment, since 1984.

Thoughts? --Airborne84 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this article to the Ranger objective[edit]

I've put some serious effort into a few niche articles here at Wikipedia, but this is an important topic that gets 1500+ hits daily. Its a shame that this article is represented so poorly and is viewed by so many. I'd be happy to collaborate on this if any other editors are interested in getting this article to Good Article status. I have access to a large research library, but don't have the time to be the lone Ranger on this one. I can do my fair share...and then some though.

Anyone interested? --Airborne84 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQ section added at top of talk page[edit]

I added an FAQ section. On Wikipedia, these are generally used to record consensuses. I noted the discussions about the definition of the article. Hopefully, that will reduce the number of changes to the first sentence in the article—at least without further discussion anyway. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Toning down the language[edit]

Might I humbly suggest that editors tone down the language in the article to avoid bias? Here are a couple of examples that made me laugh:

"Their courage is evident from the observation that "of 500 volunteers who first formed the Rangers at Carrickfergus, only 87 were alive by the end of the war." >> The number of casualties is not necessarily indicative of their "courage". Did 60,000 men die at the Battle of the Somme because they were forced to, or because they were courageous? Maybe a bit of both, but you get my point.

"Rangers were a part of the earliest stages in colonizing America so it seemed to be an exceptional choice." >> Exceptional is a strong word in this context. Who says it's exceptional? Won't "good" suffice"?

Just a couple of examples I pulled out. The idea is not for you to pick them apart, but to realize that they are part of a larger problem with the article. Just please try to watch what you write, and not let you pride or patriotism get the better of you. 64.26.155.230 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Ranger Creed[edit]

Proposed to merge Ranger Creed into United States Army Rangers. Kilmer-san (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be much more appropriate. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede change[edit]

I removed the first sentence of the article: "The United States Army Rangers is an elite infantry unit of the United States Army". It too narrowly and incorrectly defines the article. This is not about the modern Rangers; there is already a separate article about that. This is about Rangers and Ranger units through history. Airborne84 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

For the editor who is re-attempting to re-insert a POV position into the article, you'll need to achieve a new consensus before that. I recommend reading through past discussions above first, reviewing Wikipedia's policy on Point of View, and then working to achieve a new consensus IAW WP:BRD to support your particular position on what a Ranger is. Airborne84 (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Both of you quit undoing edits that have nothing to do with the material you're fighting about. You keep undoing edits in the notable ranger section and there is no reason for it. And no, I don't care which editor is/was/will be/could be/wants to be a Ranger. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Apologies NiteShift. I don't have issue with your edit. I'm getting an admin to look at the violation of WP:BRD and we can ensure your edit remains after adjudication. I'm more concerned about keeping the version of the article that has consensus. Airborne84 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── News.era.guy, you were blocked for edit warring. You are rehashing arguments which have been made here before. There is a current consensus on the subject matter of the article. If you'd like to change the consensus, you'll need to familiarize yourself with the past discussions above on the talk page about duplicate article, name change, etc., as well as the consensus that came from them. Please also see the FAQ section which is at the bottom of the header located at the top of the talk page.

You should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies as your position has to be argued within them, not claims of personal expertise. The first two I recommend to review would be WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:NPOV. I can also recommend WP:BRD (which will help you get better results here), and WP:RS and WP:EDITWARRING. WP:Consensus will also help you understand what you will need to do to change the existing consensus. If you need help with the policies, you can ask an admin or ask here. Airborne84 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of term Rangers: OR/improper TITLE?[edit]

I recently tagged the article OR. Here are some of my concerns:

  1. If this article is about individuals who are Ranger qualified or who serve in Ranger units, how can we include garrison HQs or engagements? The units have HQs & the units have engagements. (The lede sentence pertains to individuals, and individuals do not have HQs or engagements.)
  2. If this article is about United States Army Ranger units, then how can we have an "active" 1622 which pre-dates the establishment of the Army?
  3. I see the sentence "There have been... companies officially called Rangers...." Which companies? Were such designations simply "Rangers" as in 1st Rangers. Or isn't the term Ranger used as an adjective, like with the 75th Ranger Regiment?
  4. We have Knowlton's Rangers listed. But that article is unreferenced (dead link). Were they not an espionage organization, or actually a deep recon/intel outfit?
  5. Roger's Rangers started as a provisional company of light infantry. They expanded to 9 companies (according to the article). Were they the "1st Rogers' Rangers", "2d Rogers' Rangers", etc. Or didn't they have un-Ranger designations

So, perhaps, this is a WP:TITLE problem. The article starts off on one topic – who is a Ranger – but goes on off into a history of Ranger units. More WP:PRECISION is needed to stay on-WP:TOPIC. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that I follow you on 1, but I agree on 2 and was pondering that the other day and I think you're on the right track with it. Now calling this OR is a different story. I don't see an OR issue. Organization or focus maybe. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, once we decide the article is about the United States Army Rangers, the article can get back on track. But starting off by talking about individuals who graduate from Ranger School (and who do not necessary serve in Ranger units) gets us off-track. (The OR tag can be changed. But something is needed to prompt discussion.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
We have discussed the title a number of times. I personally think that the singular is better as removing discussion about individuals tends to push this into a duplicate article with 75th Ranger Regiment (United States). Of course, it could be defined in a way as to be inclusive of historical ranger units as well, while simply making a note about individuals. However, the term "Ranger", in a US Army sense, is notable by itself—see section on "The Term Ranger" in this article. I'm not sure it merits splitting this article into one on individuals and a separate one on units that is inclusive of historical Rangers so as to be sufficiently different from the 75th Ranger Regiment (United States). Perhaps.
Personally, I favor defining as is, while identifying that rangers make up ranger units, which allows discussion on historical ranger units. You can't have the units without the individuals. Airborne84 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Notable achievement"[edit]

I doubt that the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch could be called a "notable achievement" in Iraq. An attack on a hospital is not a major military operation against significant odds. The Lynch debacle was a PR failure for the Pentagon, and they have been downplaying the magnitude of the events ever since.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)