Talk:United States Army Rangers

"Rangers" in name only

The "American Civil War" section lists various Confederates that led units named "Rangers", including Mosby's Rangers, the Mountain Rangers, Terry's Texas Rangers and so on. For obvious reasons none of those were United States Army Rangers, and claims that the US Army recognized them as part of its history by incorporating Confederate symbology is unreferenced. Mosby is mentioned in the Ranger Handbook (and what it says about him was copy-pasted into our article), but obviously not as a United States Army Ranger, and with no indication that he had a significant influence on the United States Army Rangers. This page shouldn't be an indiscriminate collection of all Americans who might have been called "Ranger" at some point. I'll remove the entire Civil War section; if there are reliable sources that explain how the experience of the Civil War shaped tactics that were adopted by the United States Army Rangers or the like, we could summarize those aspects; otherwise the section is off-topic and/or unreferenced. Huon (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment on lack of memorial to 5th battalion

President Reagan dedicated a memorial plaque to the 5th (along with another to the 2nd) after his speech on site in 1984. 173.90.65.191 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

“Active” date in info box

I get that there were fighters who were called “rangers” dating back to colonial times, saying that the current US Army Rangers have been active since the 17th Century, a hundred years before there was a US army or even a United States is ridiculous on its face. The current army rangers with are the subject of this article were suggested as a unit similar to the British commandos, their “activity” as a unit with a cohesive operational history goes back to 1942. The coverage of link to a heritage going back through history is fine in the history section, but claiming the US Army Rangers as having been active since the 17th Century is factually wrong and misleading. 2600:1700:D6E0:65E0:D83B:2746:73EC:4EC2 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Rereading the lede, I see that a wider scope was cast, but still, the title of the article is United States Army Rangers, you cannot have United States Army Rangers until you have a United States Army, and you cannot have a United States Army until you have a United States. Even during the Revolution, there was not a United States Army, there was a Continental Army. 74.213.48.38 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It is possible, as something that has its name changed doesn't discard its identify. But whatever date we use should be based on sources, not various editors' reasons and opinions. If the current US Army Rangers claims 1942 as its official origin, we should go with that as properly sourced. If they claim an earlier date, however, we should probably use that date. If various sources give conflicting dates, we might have to give more than one date, with one "official" and another "earliest origin" or some such.

If we can't find some quick and easy date with clear consensus, it's probably best to leave this out of the infobox, as these are only for simple, non-nuanced bits of information. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The US Army does not provide a definition of who are US Army Rangers

"United States Army Rangers, according to the US Army's definition, are personnel, past or present, in any unit that has the official designation of "Ranger"." This is not a true statement and should be updated.

The reference provided https://www.army.mil/ranger/index.html provides description to the current Ranger School and the current Ranger Unit 75th Ranger Regiment.

This first paragraph should be updated to align with the only definition of who is a US Army Ranger - https://ranger.org/Who-Is-A-Ranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameseisenhauer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jameseisenhauer (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024 that may be of interest to editors of this page. Schierbecker (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing membership criteria for USARA?

Should we just remove the paragraph entirely that discusses membership criteria for the USARA? This article is about the U.S. Army Rangers, not about the USARA, not about the LRSA, not about any other external membership association. Having a paragraph that gets into a heated discussion about why USARA accepts some lineage and not others, is not directly relevant to anything related to the Rangers themselves -- it's relevant to membership criteria in USARA, which is not the subject of this article. It seems that having a massive paragraph on this, when the NG component Ranger companies constitute a very small part of the overall ranger history, is undue weight. Additionally, while the paragraph is extensively cited, it's largely synthesis as the central claim that it's trying to make is that USARA uses the "wrong criteria" -- sources are provided for *which* criteria that USARA uses, but none directly state *why* they use it, or discuss the differences between the two methods, nor which one is "correct", or anything else beyond the fact that USARA uses method A, and method B also exists. The effect is that the entire paragraph, while sourced, is a giant coatrack to rest synthesis on. IMO it should just be nuked entirely. Seeking additional consensus here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)