Talk:United States Army Rangers

Editorial Standards

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)

The Term "Army Ranger"

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

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 (UTC)

There are about 20,500 Rangers total.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.206.99 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2007(PDT) (UTC)

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)

Comments from 2004

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 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 25 January 2006.

vandalism and becoming a ranger

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 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some information for the page

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 December 2005.

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 January 2006.

Tillman

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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....

The operation in Grenada?

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

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 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 October 2005.

Becoming a Ranger

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

"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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 December 2005.

Two possible inconsistencies.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliver11b1p (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 March 2006 (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)

In popular culture

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)

Lineage and honors sections

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?

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...

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

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)