Talk:Ranger Regiment (United Kingdom)

FOI(A)

Just thought I would put this here, I've put two FOI(A) requests through regarding the Rangers here:

#1 regarding formation and everything about it.

#2 Smaller details and future/TRF.

I'm expecting an answer soon, and will update page what that information becomes available. J-Man11 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Ranger Regiment (United Kingdom) → The Rangers (2021) – This regiment has the same name as a previous one, so this page, and the page for the old regiment should be named to follow the pattern already adopted by the Royal Irish Regiment Hammersfan (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: all sources suggest that this regiment is called the 'Ranger Regiment', not 'The Rangers'. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

OPPOSE: as stated by fellow editors, I 100% oppose the move. I understand the confusion, but the "Rangers" was a Territorial regiment, while the new "Ranger Regiment" is a regular REGIMENT, not a Territorial BATTALION. Therefore, the name should change. However, I will add a "disambiguation" perhaps, and even a "don't confuse with" part. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Oppose: Official Army statements refer to it as the "Ranger Regiment",rather than "The Rangers" Eyudet (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose. Will undoubtedly be known as the Rangers, but its formal name is certainly the Ranger Regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed Verification of claim

In the Cap Badge Controversy section the Selous Scout logo is described as being "commonly used by modern Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups". However, the NYT Magazine article cited makes zero mention of use of the Osprey logo that the Ranger logo has been accused of similarity to. The failed verification cleanup tag has been removed twice, without explanation. Eyudet (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article is there to tell readers how the Selous Scouts logo is most commonly used in the 21st century. I removed the verification failed cleanup tag after I changed the text to make it clear that the NYT article is not making a direct reference to the ranger regiment, but instead directly commenting on the modern cultural significance of selous scouts imagry. BulgeUwU (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Although the edited text better reflects NPOV, I believe the article still fails verification as the osprey logo is not actually mentioned in the NYT Magazine article. It makes mention of the Selous Scouts and other Rhodesian insignia, but the text as it currently appears in the Ranger Regiment page, stating that the osprey logo is commonly used by neo-nazis, appears to be WP:SYNTH. Eyudet (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• British Army Rangers Insignia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Cap Badge

In Army site picture the badge looks slightly different --88.69.145.44 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comparison to US Army Special Forces

There needs to be be clarification that while the Ranger Regiment (UK) intends to undertake many of the same focuses that the US Army Special Forces do, they do not share the same capabilities and training.

They lack insertion specialization and language training, and lack a selection program. Their training pipeline is also 10 weeks, compared to 55-95 weeks for Green Berets depending on the MOS. PalmettoFox (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PalmettoFox, thanks for your thoughts.

There needs to be be clarification that while the Ranger Regiment (UK) intends to undertake many of the same focuses that the US Army Special Forces do, they do not share the same capabilities and training.

This is pretty much what the article says. It says the Rangers have a similar mission set and are modelled on USASF and that their functions will be similar. It doesn't say (or imply) that the capabilities or training of the two units are similar at present. If you want to compare them, you can read what is known about training and selection within the Ranger Regiment article, and do the same on the article for the USASF.

They lack insertion specialization and language training, and lack a selection program. Their training pipeline is also 10 weeks, compared to 55-95 weeks for Green Berets depending on the MOS.

Again, as far as I can see, there isn't any claim of parity in the selection, training, or specific capabilities of the two units in this article. Regarding selection for the Ranger regiment, see Ranger_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)#Ranger_assessment_cadre_(RAC). Furthermore, if we were to include a statement that the two units are not currently equals in training or capabilities, we would need to WP:VERIFY it from a reliable source and not WP:SYNTH it ourselves. 13tez (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)