Talk:Civil Air Patrol Ranger

U.S. Army Rangers

The edit made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_Air_Patrol_Ranger&diff=280710867&oldid=280659236 the user User:Fightin' Phillie noted, "CAP Rangers have a direct lineage to both of these organizations." How does the Civil Air Patrol Rangers have any lineage linked directly to the United States Army Rangers? Or for that matter, the U.S. Air Force Pararescuemen? Other than the fact that both organizations share the name Ranger, otherwise, I do not see the link between a U.S. Army seek and destroy organization has any lineage or history to do with a civilian auxiliary life saving organization. -Signaleer (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see any lineage, let alone a direct one, myself. Please don't get me wrong in these discussion. I'm not trying to take anything away from the CAP or their suborinate activites. They do great work. I'm just of the opinion that we are attempting to make them into something that they aren't. They accomplish plenty notable things on their own. There is no need to stretch connections to prop them up. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Finding sources (especially third party ones) is difficult because of the lack of, well, sources. Most of the information comes directly from CAP Ranger manuals. However, CAP Rangers were originally trained by PJs at Westover AFB. Additionally, several CAP Rangers later went on to serve in the the US Army, and after retiring came back and created an Airborne insertion team. It is my understanding that these members went through Ranger School, and were influential in expanding the program. I'll probably be helping at Hawk Mountain Ranger School this summer, and will look for references then. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First about references. I'm perfectly content with using CAP documents as sources. They'd meet the requirements as a reliable source. The only way they would be questioned is if they offered a biased opinion, like calling themselves "the most intelligent people on the planet". I have no doubt that some members were formerly Army Rangers, but there is a huge difference between influence and "lineage". Lineage is parentage or a descendant. Simply because there were former Rangers involved in the CAP Rangers at one point is not a lineage. If 20 members went the same high school at some point, would you call it direct lineage to Lincoln HS? The Seals initially came from the ranks of UDT. That is a direct lineage. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see some POV in my comments; but I'm not sure where what you're getting at. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is having some former Army Rangers being "influential" in expanding the program is not a "direct lineage". If my boss graduates from the FBI national academy and some of what he learns there is later adopted by the agency (influential), I wouldn't say the agency has a "direct lineage" to the FBI. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So how can we improve the article? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lineage and Honors is a quick snapshot of the official history of a military organization. For example, the 75th Ranger Regiment's lineage and honors. http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0075ra.htm -Signaleer (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I fail to see what you're getting at. You want me to revert my edit summary? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you cannot link a direct lineage to the Rangers, I don't feel there should be a "See also" section for it. -Signaleer (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I support these links being there is that: CAP Rangers CAN draw a direct lineage to USAF Pararescuemen (PJs trained the first CAP Rangers, and continue to support CAP today through programs like PJOC). Most CAP Ranger programs today draw on the traditions of the US Army Rangers, who were also the organization after which Rangers were named. Also, for non-US citizens, a link between CAP Rangers and US Army Rangers helps demonstrate that CAP Rangers are a civilian para-military organization. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I sort of understand the link to the PJs, got it. But I'm still lost as to a "link" between the CAP Rangers and the Army Rangers, how does the Army Rangers demonstrate that CAP Rangers are a para-military organization? Having traditions or even uniform related items (i.e., CAP Ranger Tab) does not make this organization, CAP Rangers, anything remotely related to the Army Rangers. -Signaleer (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- The CAP Rangers were named after the US Army Rangers in the early 50s, approximately the same time as the current incarnation of the Army Rangers were created. The later are light-infantry, capable of conducting scouting missions behind enemy lines in a mostly self-sufficient state at a moments notice (18 hours). Similarly, CAP Rangers are trained to conduct sustained S&R operations in a field environment or moderate-term Disaster Relief at a moments notice (typically within 2 hours; but not anywhere around the world). The motto of the US Army Rangers is "Rangers lead the way!" The mantra of CAP Ranger Staff is "We Lead!" CAP Rangers are also the longest standing, most qualified ground Search and Rescue units in Civil Air Patrol, much like how the Rangers are elite light infantry forces in the Army's Special Operations Command. While it's possible to be a Ranger in the 75th without having gone to Ranger School, both organizations require completion of Ranger School for advancement into leadership positions. US Army Ranger's have a creed, as do CAP Rangers, both of which compel the Ranger to encompass more than is expected of them. Both have Ranger Competitions, make extensive use of obstacle courses and Leadership Reaction Courses, and have a history of being raised as needed, and disbanded afterwards. A link may not be readily apparent; but the CAP Rangers have created their program by entwining the history and traditions of both the PJs of the Air Force and the US Army Rangers. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel you are really stretching. Both have a creed? You find that to be a "link"? The Navy has a creed too. Does that make the CAP Rangers part of naval history too? The Methodist church also has a creed. Should we try to link them? We've already talked about former Rangers being involved with the CAP Rangers. But just because they decided to take the easy way out and use a similar motto instead of thinking up something more original doesn't make it a part of a "direct lineage". Obstacle courses as a link? Come on! So does American Gladiators and the old Battle of the Network Stars. Dude, you are taking items that may have INFLUENCED how the CAP Rangers emerged and calling them a "direct lineage". The CAP Rangers have things of their own to be proud of. Why do you feel this overwhelming urge to try to prop them up by linking them to other organizations? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason you feel inclined to tear them down? Seriously, it's a link to an organization with the same name, in the same country, where one was named after the other. Is it really worth bickering for over 10 KB over a See also link? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• First, this discussion is an extention of the one from the article on the Army Rangers. Second, I'm not tearing them down at all. I've said a number of times that they are a fine organization that does fine work and has plenty of their own to be proud of. How on Earth do you consider that "tearing them down".? USC has won national championships and Heisman trophies. If I were writing about USC, I'd concentrate more on that rather than trying to make an issue about a Super Bowl that a USC player played in. Understand? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Overly grumpy the past few days, I'm going to breaking from this discussion. I emplore you, if you do remove the link, at least add something else to the article. Pennsylvania Wing Civil Air Patrol, Hawk Mountain Ranger School, and CAP Rangers are the first set of articles that I created, without much of a template to guide from. Constructive criticism always appreciated, even if it doesn't seem that way ;^) Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#See_also_sections "Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject." -Signaleer (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO states (Links) may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). WP:MOS suggests listing terms which can be confused with title, as well as different forms of title. Ultimately, WP:IAR. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another Wikipedia Policy for the removal of the links. -Signaleer (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the "see also" is fine. It aids in navigation through Wikipedia, and is informative for someone who is not familiar with either CAP Rangers or Army Rangers. Additionally, the training that CAP Rangers undergo borrows quite extensively from the search and rescuse and SERE training that Army Rangers train on. So, what is the harm? Now, unless we can find stronger RS on the "lineage" link between the two, it's best to leave that text out for now, but a "see also" is harmless. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? First, there is a big difference between a "see also" link and claiming a "direct lineage". Second, the Army Rangers don't train extensively in Search and Rescue. SAR isn't their job. They search and destroy. Third, if you look at Army SERE training, little of it has any applicability for CAP. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

References

OK, where to begin....I have been asking around. Nobody in CAP NY Wing has ever heard of this group. I see NO mention of it anywhere on the NHQ Website. The only references I find to the CAP Ranger program is on the Pennsylvania Wing website. I'd say that is a pretty good indicator that this is NOT a program affiliated with National Headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol, and that is something we need to note 74.74.86.127 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)