Talk:Army Ranger Wing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size[edit]

Anyone know the rough size (manpower) of this force? Rlquall 14:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Classified.

The government does not discuss that.

Understood. But lots of things that are classified that are still discussed. The U.S. Government never discusses the size of the "black" budget of the CIA, but there are informed speculations about it, and manpower should be more easily accounted for, to a point, than dollars. I wasn't expecting offical government figures, just a rough idea. As small as the Irish military budget is, I can't believe that this group is more than a few hundred, tops, but would like to hear from someone more knowledgable than myself, which is one of the points of the whole Wikipedia project.

Rlquall 01:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what i recall it's about 100+ members not many but then again this is Ireland after all, given our history of underspending on defense forces and all it's no wonder. -Paul

Okay, but it is classified, and as such even discussion of it should not be on such an open forum. I would even argue for a severe edit of this article as the less said, the better.

Wikipedia is not censored SaintDaveUK (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Irish Defence Force's website "Information on the numerical strength of the unit [ARW] and the identity of its personnel is restricted". As far as I know the unit as 100+ members, but an army friend of mines says it could be many times that number. The total force of th army is 8500. Afn

The total force is 8500, and the Fianoglach is an elite force. Not many people are able to complete the course. I've heard one in twenty army personnel who apply manage to complete it. If we take an optimistic estimate of half of the army applying then that leaves us with about 200 members. I would very much doubt that the figure is even as high as that. Diom1982 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Between 150 and 200 full-time active members according to recent 2014 estimates by reliable published news outlets, newspapers and authors. IrishSpook (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Female Irish Army Rangers?[edit]

I heard the Irish Army Rangers recruits women as operators? Can anyone clarify this information? Eikichi 00 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes they do, but so far no women has made it through selection, although some have tried, it's not made any easier for women, and since the failure rate for males is in the 75-95% range, you can see the problems a women would have. mough

Resolved
Still no female ARW operatives, although they are recruited on a specific support basis (ie. intelligence gathering/espionage, close protection) where women are required. Woman do work in far larger numbers for the G2 Directorate. IrishSpook (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Training with the SSG[edit]

I'd like to see the source of that claim. 194.23.201.97 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
[1] was the reference, SSG is now the Särskilda operationsgruppen or "Special Operations Task Group"/"SOG" following a merger.

Copyright Violation?[edit]

Is the content on the main page pretty much a copy of the content on the Defence Forces website? (which content is copyright) It looks terribly like it. Hughsheehy 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were both largely written by the same person. So, any overlap may be a bit "chicken and egg". Guliolopez 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about my 2 edit's, but I know who made the changes that I edited out, it's guy who goes by a few names on forums who seems to have made it a life goal to show the ARW is not anway similar, and is infact completly inferior to his beloved SAS....he is both factually and generally wrong . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mough1 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
We've moved past the official Defence Force website in terms of content from other sources at this stage... IrishSpook (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irish is wrong[edit]

Your Irish is wrong. It is grammatically deeply incorrect. The official version is Sciathán Fiannóglaigh an Airm. "Na hAirm" could never be right, except as a plural form: "the armies" or "the weapons". See here: http://focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=ranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.66.100 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
See below for Irish spelling, straight from the Defence Forces website as Gaeilge. IrishSpook (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rangers role in modern Ireland[edit]

I have amended the section that states the ARW are Irelands primary hostage rescue team. There may have been a time when they handled hostage scenarios but since the creation of the ERU this is not the case. Im not getting into a "who is better" debate but the simple reality is the Army cannot operate solo nor can they lead any operation within the state concerning criminal activity. The ERU have handled all the hostage / barricade situations over the past 20 years and recently hosted an eu wide conference on the issue.

A small issue but Im tired of reading this incorrect statement on various websites who then quote Wiki as the source. (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.211.92 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cant say I agree with this change, you seem to jumping over the word 'major'. A major incident would be terrorists seizing control of a plane, bus, offshore platform etc here the ARW would be the men for the job, in the case of post office robbery or someone holed up in their house with hostages the ERU would be used. This is not a Gardai-Defence Forces thing, the same is true in most countries, It's all degrees of severity and in a MAJOR incident the ARW would most certainly be used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.62.131 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
This summation has been removed from the lead paragraphs, as it is contentious and not 100% true. The Irish ARW (military special forces) are Ireland's highest tier hostage rescue team, but not their primary. Primary meaning first, the Garda Emergency Response Unit (ERU) - a civilian police SWAT team - would almost always be the first to respond to hostage takings, be it criminal or terrorist. The Irish ARW could then be called out if it was deemed necessary and fitted the ATCP agreements. IrishSpook (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

Some of the info in the article has no references and seem unreliable. Should they be removed?MFIreland (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
There are now more than 50 references. Those added further to the previous existing references are from reliable sources. IrishSpook (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.P[edit]

In the artical it says the Rangers protect VIPs. What VIPs do they protect i know the SAS protect Government minister . is this the same in Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.232.155 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
The Irish ARW do not regularly protect Government ministers (and neither do the SAS as you've claimed, at least not regularly, it's a job for the London Metropolitan Police Service's Protection Command, incl. the Specialist Protection branch (SO1) and Diplomatic Protection Group (SO6)). They do, however, provide certain V.I.P. close security for certain international visitors, such as heads of state, etc. alongside the Garda Special Detective Unit (SDU) and Emergency Response Unit (ERU). The Irish ARW's other V.I.P. security role revolves around protecting the highest senior ranking military leaders in the Irish Defence Forces (Army, Naval Service and Air Corps) in Ireland, and more importantly abroad. They also serve under the EU, UN and NATO PfP on protection missions abroad, and may - at times of unrest, civil war, high terrorism threats - protect Irish embassies and diplomatic property overseas, incl. ambassadors and/or high-raking Irish diplomatic staff (although, unlike the US and UK, Ireland generally evacuates its diplomatic staff rather than protects them). The ARW may accompany the President of Ireland and Taoiseach in hostile environments abroad. IrishSpook (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

Source/citation five is broken( 5.^ a b c d "Irish Paratroopers". http://members.tripod.com/~audgen/irishpara/irishwing.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-13.) Is there a copy or has the site moved? --Yerkschmerk (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have linked to an archived mirror/copy of that page instead. This is only a temporary measure however, as - preferably - we shouldn't have a cite referring to some random Tripod page. It's not up to scratch in reliable source terms. Guliolopez (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Irish Army Rangers → Army Ranger Wing — Its the offical name MFIreland • Talk 15:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaving out the word "Irish" may be the rule in Ireland, but elswehere people would want to know which nation's army they are in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could also move to "Irish Army Ranger Wing" or "Army Ranger Wing (Ireland)". There is no other military unit with the same name and the opening line in the article says its a unit of the Irish Defence Force. I dont think "Irish" or "Ireland" is needed in the name of this article.--MFIreland • Talk 23:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army rangers makes it sound like the article is about "rangers" as in persons rather than a unit. I prefer the offical name Army Ranger Wing.--MFIreland • Talk 16:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the name used by the Irish Army. Few military units include their nation's name in their title; we handle clashes with parenthetical disambiguation, but it's not needed here. Kanguole 12:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kanguole, the nation's name in their title is not needed and we should use the offical name Army Ranger Wing.--MFIreland • Talk 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Footnotes on Talk page[edit]

I noticed below , the footnotes link to British Military TALK pages , could someone remove them as this is an Irish article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.125.63 (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YesY Done Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.125.63 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another title suggestion[edit]

We could call the article "Sciathán Fiannóglach an Airm", because that's what they call themselves? DS (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think that's a great idea. The WP:NAMINGCRITERIA convention expects that we use the most common English language name for a subject. The "Army Ranger Wing" is the most common (and official) name of the unit in English. (In Irish it may be something else, but this isn't the Irish Wikipedia project - it's the English one). Note that, even if the guidelines didn't already point to the English language name as the preferred one, I still wouldn't recommend the Irish one. Because there's apparent confusion about the correct spelling in Irish. (Some sources spell Fiannóglach with two "n"s. Others - including on unit shoulder flashes and DOD website - use one "n"). Guliolopez (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish spelling (Ns)[edit]

Just picking up on this again (and given this edit). While some sources (the unit website and shoulder flash included) spell the unit's Irish name with one "N", the original derivation (as in Fiann, Fianna, Amhrán na bhFiann) would suggest that this isn't strictly correct. Even the official Irish version of the Defence Forces website uses two "N"s. Perhaps the article should acknowledge this? And assert the (possible) alternate spellings? Guliolopez (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went to a Gaelscoil, and I think I know what's going on here; "Sciathán Fianóglach an Airm" (http://www.military.ie/army/organisation/arw/) is singular (Fian and Óglach), while "Sciathán Fiannóglaigh an Airm" (http://www.military.ie/ie/an-tarm/eagruchan/sciathan-fiannoglaigh-an-airm/) is plural (Fiann rather than Fian and Óglaigh rather than Óglach). So Sciathán Fianóglach an Airm (one "N" with Óglach) is actually correct, and "Sciathán Fiannóglach an Airm" (two "N"s with Óglach) would in fact be incorrect, unless used with Óglaigh: "Sciathán Fiannóglaigh an Airm". Since the unit includes more than one person, surely the plural name (and official Irish name according to Defence Forces as Gaeilge) would be better suited. I will change it to "Sciathán Fiannóglaigh an Airm" for now... I'd imagine whoever wrote the Gaeilge version of the ARW page has a better handle on Irish than whoever wrote the English version. IrishSpook (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right there. As you note, I'd be inclined to trust the writer/translator of the GA version of the official page, and (in this article) where referring to the plural (and unit name) use "Sciathán Fiannóglaigh an Airm". But, where referring to the singular (individual rangers - and the shoulder flash of individual rangers), use "Fianóglach". That might address the apparent issue/conflict. In relation to the (unrelated) comment about tone, I'd suggest maybe having a look at the WP:TONE guideline. As it happens, while articles don't have to be read like their written "by robots", the guideline expects that they are businesslike in tone. So, editorial flourishes should actually really be avoided. (Especially ones that would possibly need to be backed-up or supplemented to explain whose POV is being expressed. As per the WP:POV guidelines, if you say something is "coveted", strictly speaking you need to explain who is doing the coveting...) Guliolopez (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I explained the difference between "Fiannóglaigh" and "Fianóglach" on the Name/Motto section. As per the "coveted" thing, if it does defy Wikipedia policy/guidelines, you can remove it again and I'll leave it at that. I will look for a reference to back the fact up, but I don't know if I will find one verbatim. It is very coveted by those who join the ARW 4-week selection course, only 15% of them actually achieve the "Fianóglach" shoulder flash, and many of those then cannot even wear it if they fail to complete successfully the 24 week basic "Ranger training" course. Anyway, thanks for your contributions. IrishSpook (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Sources[edit]

In the introduction of the article, several units are listed which are claimed to train with and operate alongside the IRW regularly, however, the sources are either dead links or opinion pieces that are not backed up by significant evidence. Suggest removing them or finding reliable sources. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
There are now more than 50 references, and most of all of the international units have been checked against reliable sources, some removed and some more added. IrishSpook (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis in article[edit]

Taking one reference that states "Information on the numerical strength of the Army Ranger Wing and the identity of its personnel is restricted but it's known the unit has a fluctuating strength of about 150.", and another source that says "the Army Ranger Wing, has increased in strength by almost one-third ... The 30pc increase in numbers pushes the overall strength of the Wing to well over a hundred" and putting the two together to arrive at a figure of 200 is classic wp:synthesis. It's made even more dubious buy the fact that the source on the 30% increase would say that it brings unit strength to "well over 100" rather than "close to 200" if the information they were working with was the same as that the other source was working with. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of the unit is classified (clearly referenced, and something you took issue with earlier). The strength of the unit is estimated/believed/understood/reported to be between 150 and 200 fulltime operational members, and possibly now more than 200 members. It's strength is not 100 or 150, this is a referenced fact and something I know personally. The strength of the unit in 2013 was over 150 members, in January 2014 the manpower of the Army Ranger Wing saw an increase of one-third (1/3) or 33.3%. This gives the unit a strength of up to 200 personnel. This is referenced, and as such reads "between 150 and 200" as refs. state both. If you want to argue synthesis, whatever. You can either have three references which come to this fact, or have none at all. The fact is that the manpower of the ARW as of early 2015 is beyond 200. You've ignored warnings, blanked warnings on your talkpage, engaged in personal attacks, overstepped the 3 revert rule and removed content and references that were clearly sourced. IrishSpook (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is WP:Original research. "something I know personally" is also original research. "You can either have three references which come to this fact, or have none at all": There are not three references that give a unit strength of 200. There are zero references that give a unit strength of 200. "You've ignored warnings": Your spurious warnings. "blanked warnings on your talkpage": Your spurious warnings, which I'm entirely entitled to remove from my page. "engaged in personal attacks": No, I have not. "overstepped the 3 revert rule": As have you. "removed content and references that were clearly sourced.": No, I have not. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
150 + 33.3% = 199.95. Do the math. Either leave the references which come to this fact, or if your not happy with them go find your own instead of removing sourced content. IrishSpook (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take two minutes to read wp:synthesis. Taking information from multiple sources and mashing it together to arrive at a conclusion independently is called synthesis. Synthesis is a form of WP:Original research. Original research is not allowed. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, if all the references are removed it's no longer synthesis then is it. The fact is the unit's strength is between 150 and 200, and that's the end of it. You're not changing the article to reflect inaccuracies, and you're making this up as you go along. IrishSpook (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to remove references for the sake of spite, I'm not going to try to engage with you any more. Please let me know if you change your mind. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not every single sentence on Wikipedia articles are all referenced, and yet they are not removed. You are removing a fact which has 3 references to back it up. Either accept it as it is, removed the references and then it's no longer synthesis or go find your own references which state up to 200 members if you are so concerned. IrishSpook (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well have either of you two heard of the 3RR? Both of you are well beyond it. Murry1975 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the article include synthesis?[edit]

No. (Administrative closure of an RfC that does not meet the basic requirements. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the article include synthesis? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unit size RFC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I dont see consensus on wording or number ranges. But it appears that 150 is a common number used in most replies. AlbinoFerret 19:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the unit size be listed as "Classified estimates vary: ~ 150 operators[2] "well over a hundred"[3]" or "Classified[2][3] (estimated ~ 150–200 operators)"? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classified (estimated ~150) [2][3]. Clearly 150 * 1.3 (an increase of 30%) is approximately 200, yet the third source did not say 'almost 200'. It used the much less impressive figure of 'over a hundred'. We can therefore be quite confident that 200 is not an accurate number. Besides, source #3 did not refer to source #2, and applying a 30% increase (from source #3) on source #2's value is not warranted.

On another note, why is it 'operators' instead of 'men'? I've certainly heard of expressions such a 'an army of 5000 men', but not 'an army of 5000 operators'. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that "operators" is used as a branch-neutral term in place of soldier/ sailor/ airman, as the ARW draws from the Army, Navy, and Air Corps. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Classified (estimated ~ 150–200 operators)" or "Classified (estimated ~ 100–200 operators)" - I'd just pick the widest range on which the gross majority of sources agree and use that. NickCT (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is known to be the case by editors that the strength of this unit is currently 200 or above, and this can be supported by a reference which considered 'synthesis' (which cannot be included), would it not be better to omit the references and simply state the real value of the unit's strength and allow editors who have a problem with this to refer to the talk page to back this up (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/frontline-forces-elite-ranger-wing-grows-in-size-by-onethird-29881983.html), this avoids both synthesis and 'original research'? We want the article to reflect what is actually the case, known to be the case, and cited to be the case (although strenuously), rather than outdated references to journalists' estimations? 213.233.132.128 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re "If it is known to be the case by editors" - This comment suggests you might not be familiar with some policies on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what you know to be true. All that matters is what's verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You may want to create an account. We can see your IP address. ;-) NickCT (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have only two sources, one says ~150, the other says "well over a hundred," none mentions a figure of 200. 100-200 feels like a bit of a stretch to me, as I presume that the source would have said something along the lines of "almost 200", if the figure was approaching that. "Well over a hundred" suggests (to me) a figure in the 120-150 range (I'm not saying that the unit strength is 120, just that the phrasing used suggests something south of 150; anything north of 150 and I would expect "over 150" or "almost 200.") 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ever consider just saying Classified (approximately 150). That seems like it would be in-line with both your sources. NickCT (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It read at one stage Classified (Though estimated to be over 100 operatorsy). Murry1975 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess "over 2 operators" would technically be right, but I think "approximately 150" is more in-line with the sources. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there's no way of accessing an official source for the unit size, I think that simply quoting from both references is best for the moment. If we had say three or four references all saying ~150 I'd feel differently, but as we have only two references, one saying ~150 and one saying "well over a hundred," listing both seems most appropriate as things stand. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army Ranger Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removals[edit]

An IP editor has twice now removed a substantial amount of content, with edit summaries that indicate they have done this 'for protection and information security' reasons. I don't understand what those reasons might be, but the content appears to be appropriately sourced and so I and Dodger67 have reinstated it. I invite the IP editor to explain their reasoning, including declaring any connection to the subject of the article as required by WP:PAID and WP:COI, rather than furthering an edit war. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 12:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user might also want to read WP:REDACTION. In particular the bit down the end. In short, just because an organisation (or someone purporting to represent an organisation) considers that information on the number of operators (or names of deceased operators) should be "protected", that doesn't mean that information can be redacted/censored from Wikipedia. The same information is available in the public domain. Including in multiple public news sources. The same sources used as references here. Which, I note, includes the Defence Forces own published/public magazine. The suggestion that the Defence Forces magazine (or The Irish Independent or Defence Forces public website or O'Brien's book or whatever) has somehow exposed sensitive or secret information is silly. And then some. And, even if those public sources did include such information, redacting that information from Wikipedia would not address the core issue. And, even if it did, wouldn't fall within project guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army_Ranger_Wing&oldid=1199008184"