Talk:Army Ranger Wing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: Y Done Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes on Talk page 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another title suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Irish spelling (Ns) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Synthesis in article 

message: Should the article include synthesis? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should the article include synthesis?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: P.S. You may want to create an account. We can see your IP address. ;-) NickCT (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It read at one stage Classified (Though estimated to be over 100 operatorsy). Murry1975 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unit size RFC 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806084447/http://ricardo.com/Documents/Downloads/pdf/Defence_brochure_LR.pdf to https://www.ricardo.com/Documents/Downloads/pdf/Defence_brochure_LR.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

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

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent removals