Talk:Tunnel rat

message: "Of Puerto Rican descent'? Is that because Puerto Ricans are skinny little guys? Is this factually accurate? Wetman 05:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening heading

message: Is there an official designation for the "tunnel rats"?  It doesn't sound like a phrase that would be used by the government. Twin Bird 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the book "The Tunnels of Cu Chi" by Tom Mangold and John Penycate they were called 'tunnel soldiers'.  I don't imagine they would have an official desigantion, though the military did try to develop technology for them.  But it always came back to handgun and toarch being the best equipment. GraL (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO 'tunnel rats' was a popular name only (although certainly worthy of an article). The Australian teams were usually military engineers (AKA 'Sappers'), and AFAIK that was their official designation. Anotherclown (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Official designation

message: I've removed the link to the poem because it didn't contain anything of factual significance and the language ('gook' and 'spook') could offend.
no wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.55.14 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: removed poem

message: How is there not a reference to the movie Forest Gump?
There was a scene in which Forest was given gun and a flashlight and crawled into a hole.
Now that I know the context, it is clear that he was playing a tunnel rat. Michael.Urban (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Forest Gump

message: It seems pretty silly to say the tunnel rats were exclusively white and Hispanic when there's a picture of a black on on this very page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.247.88 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: The main character in the book has a spell as a tunnel rat, and the book goes into some detail, for instance regarding the snakes in bamboo tubes, rats, spiders, ants, the u-bends to trap gas and of course the problems encountered with large caliber weapons in such a cramped environment, including the use of grenades and its effect on how much oxygen this leaves you with... Only fiction I know but as always with FF researched pretty well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcissus417 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Avenger(Book by Frederick Forsythe)

message: This article is written exclusively from the point of view of the US army, with no attempt to record the point of view of the vietnamese who built these tunnels:
* why did they choose to dig tunnels?
* what were the tunnels used for?
* Who made these tunnels?
Should we change the article title to Tunnel warfare?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the tunnel rats, not the tunnels so I don't see the POV issue that you raise. Anotherclown (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of view?

message: do not move, since page Talk:Tunnel rat had concensus not to move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tunnel rat (military) → Tunnel rat — A short reason for page name change.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  71.94.249.50  (talk • contribs)  18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I'll be quick, and blunt. You're idiots. I know, I know. That's not very "Wikipedian" of me. But, come on. The "debate" was a three-way vote. You ask large number of people, they'll tell you this name is ambiguous. Come ONNN! Besides, I'm just being bold. Now, if you excuse me, I have some work to finish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.152.104 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. You know what, that was wrong. Not most of it, but the "idiots" thing. That's old Ace. Let me just make my case, with four main points:1. The name is verifibly ambiguous, with at least three popular uses.2."Searches/views" are invalid because, as one of the debators said, people could easily be looking for something else and just happening upon this page.3. One reason I left Wikipedia (mostly) was because of bureaucratic formalities like the electoral debates. Three people showed up! That's grounds for trying again with better advertising, not leaving things as is.4. If I'm wrong,--riight--another debate might bear that out. As people if they think the article should be moved back. I doubt you'd get a consensus. Which, again, is part of the problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.152.104 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving/dab