Template talk:United States Army Rangers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template 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.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Rogers Rangers, et al[edit]

Rogers Rangers and other British units prior to the founding (even naming) of the United States really can't go here unless in some highly qualified and accurate fashion, like "units that are not really US but were part of history" or somesuch. Calling them "United States" is untrue. These guys would cheerfully don a redcoat with ease. In fact, Rogers himself was a Tory. Student7 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC) As stated above, Rogers Rangers was a British unit, run by a Tory. There is little historical connection between the Rangers and the United States, which followed it by about 40 years. Note that the unit is also (correctly) referenced (and claimed by) the King's Royal Rifle Corps. The The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (RCAC) claims to be a direct descendant of Rogers Rangers, not incorrectly either!

Note that this is listed correctly as being in the United Kingdom and not in the United States in the dab page Ranger, monitoried by many people.Student7 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that Rogers' Rangers and Church's Rangers were British units. That they were American Rangers is equally factual (American-based, obviously not in allegiance). Being a former Ranger and being quite interested in Ranger history, I can assure you that there are very few, if any, sources that do not claim that the modern 75th Ranger Regiment is descended from Rogers' Rangers. According to official Ranger history, Robert Rogers was the first Colonel of the Ranger Regiment. This is, of course, impossible, as the 75th Regiment did not exist at the time. Also, most other historians properly recognize Benjamin Church as being the forefather of the Ranger unit in America, making it impossible for Rogers to be the first Colonel. Nevertheless, direct lineage is claimed, both by Regiment and all Ranger historians that I've read. Thus, their inclusion within any template or page for US Rangers is required for completeness.
A selection of sources claiming the lineage:
I would be perfectly willing to concede that the category and template should be entitled "American Army Rangers", to prevent the misnomer. The problem is that virtually no one refers to any of the Ranger units as "American Army Rangers". The problem here is that there's a misnomer either way. Either we incorrectly refer to British-American units as United States, or to United States units as American.
In order to prevent confusion, I'm going to create a new category for American Rangers, and place it within the US Rangers category. That way, the miscategorization is prevented, but the material can still be easily found. I'll re-word the template to make it more clear that pre-US units are, in fact, not US units. It can and certainly should remain under the UK section of the dab page. Is this an acceptable solution for you? EvilCouch (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably not.
First, let me say that several Revolutionary units did have veterans (I think Moses Hazen might have been one. If not, there were probably others) of Rogers Rangers. So the training wasn't totally lost. Still, that happens on both sides. Probably French WWI veterans that were members of the German army in WWII, so that in itself would not mean continuity as we generally perceive it.
"American" was not in general use then. "Americus" was a Spanish name, for starters. As has been previously mentioned, colonists would have blanched at any other title than British, despite the fact that the British regulars looked down on them (which was often fair since the colonials were often militia or irregulars).
idea off the top of my head: why not qualify it in detail on the right under the same title as you have now. On the right instead of Did you change the column label? Looks good! (Well, that was quick!  :)
I'll have to think about the categorization a bit. Granted that with two other countries claiming them, why shouldn't the US? Let me see....Student7 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)