Hawk Mountain Wikipedia Article Issue

[Paul_AK]

So I was perusing CAP related Wiki articles when I came across an odd line in the Hawk Mountain.



"Tests [edit]

49+ push-ups, 6+ chin-ups, 59+ sit-ups, 60+ squats and a 5 mile run in less than 40 minutes will be required to pass the tests. For combat training, first-aid, airborne, air assault, sapper, pathfinder, martial arts and gun training will be required for military tests."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk_Mountain_Ranger_School

First, disregarding the rather poor formatting as this is contained in the Distance Learning sub-section, is the author claiming these topics are covered there? Or was it an attempt to highlight the differences between a CAP "Ranger" and an Army Ranger that was just poorly worded? Or am I just reading way too far into this?

[sarmed1]

It is Wikipedia...not like it is a real, verified, quatable source of information (you can go in and add in anything you like)

The information has been corrected.  The information in there was in no way correct.

Tests
Physical Fitness testing is based on the Ranger Grade the student is testing for. Ranger 3rd: 1 pull-up, 5 push-ups, 10 squat thrust in 1 minute, 1/2 mile run in 6 minutes. Ranger 2nd: 2 pull-ups, 10 push-ups, 15 squat thrust in 1 minute, 1/2 mile run in 5 minutes. Ranger 1st: 3 pull-ups, 15 push-ups, 20 squat thrusts in 1 minute, 1/2 mile in 4 minutes. Ranger Advanced: 4 pull-ups, 20 push-ups, 20 squat thrusts in 1 minute, 1 mile run in 8 minutes. The Physical fitness tests for expert rangers are only divulged to expert ranger candidates, but generally encompass a series of endurance and stregth related tests as above as well as some alternate event options.

MK

[Luis R. Ramos]

. . . stregth related . . .

Apparently the article needs more corrections . . .

[kwe1009]

Remember that anyone, even you, can edit a Wikipedia page.  That is why the information is not reliable for any topic. 

[sarmed1]

I would say that whoel section is set up incorrectly: it looks like it is part of the distance learning section,  it should be under its own heading of Physical Fitness.  But that is beyond my formating ability....

PS: I added the missing "n".....

MK

[RRLE]

Remember that anyone, even you, can edit a Wikipedia page.  That is why the information is not reliable for any topic.

Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, How Accurate Is Wikipedia?

or google wikipedia reliability and validity

[LSThiker]

Remember that anyone, even you, can edit a Wikipedia page.  That is why the information is not reliable for any topic.

Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, How Accurate Is Wikipedia?

or google wikipedia reliability and validity

Encyclopedia Britannica is also not a reliable for any topic

They are both good places to get general information for further research.

[Mitchell 1969]

Just curious - what possible rationale is there for not divulging test expectations in advance of the expert exam?

[Al Sayre]

They could tell you, but then they'd have to kill you...

[sarmed1]

Just curious - what possible rationale is there for not divulging test expectations in advance of the expert exam?

I couldn't say for sure; but in speculation, I equate it to any other end of course of exam.  Does the teacher give you the questions to the final exam when you start the class?  You may know what the subject material is, but the specifics are up to you to be confident you have a mastery of all of the subject material before sitting for the test.

MK

[Luis R. Ramos]

SAR,

I think I understand what the question is.

Provide the lesson objectives, not the questions of the final exam.

As an educator, you cannot hide the lesson objectives and expect the learner to master the lesson exam.

[Paul_AK]

It is Wikipedia...not like it is a real, verified, quatable source of information (you can go in and add in anything you like)


MK

I realize that much, at least. I am well familiar with the horrific lack of scholarship and poor research in many articles.

[Luis R. Ramos]

That is why library teachers differentiate between general encyclopedias and subject encyclopedias.

[sarmed1]

SAR,

I think I understand what the question is.

Provide the lesson objectives, not the questions of the final exam.

As an educator, you cannot hide the lesson objectives and expect the learner to master the lesson exam.

Its not as bad as it sounded either.  Once and R/Adv decide to pursue testing for an R/Exp, they submit an interest to test, and are provided with an exam booklet that provides the subject matter and general test information and administrative requirements.  They have two years from the date of issue to complete the exam process.  This allows them time to study (including tutoring from SME's) and otherwise prepare for the individual examinations; but unlike the GTM task book it dosnt spell out the exact steps of the test, the expectation is still mastery of the subject material vs just memorizing the "test". 

In general most of the subject areas arent "new" information, but more of a building block concept on the material introduced and then built on buy each of the Ranger Grades.  ie in HMRS specific training , rope skills are built on starting with basic knots at the R3 level, then basic rigging knots and rappel skills in the R/1 level, ability to operate as a rescuer in the R/adv level, ending with the ability to rig and manage all of the rope/high angle operations at the R/Exp level.

MK

[lordmonar]

But for a PT test?   makes no sense. 

[Nuke52]

But for a PT test?   makes no sense.

Paraphrasing a (thankfully) former Speaker of the House:  You have to pass the PT test to find out what's in it!   

[Brad]

As someone who's taken up regular Wikipedia editing as a hobby, I can honestly say I've learned a lot in terms of the reliability of Wikipedia as a clearinghouse of information resources. Heck, that's what got me through college! I'd look up the Wikipedia article then use that as a link to get me to the actual sources. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROVEIT for more information.

What it comes down to is that anyone can edit it, yes, but if you make a statement such as "Hawk Mountain's PT test consists of X, Y and Z," then you must be able to show where you found that information in a verifiable and reliable source, preferably with the inclusion of an in-line citation footnote that links your statements to your sources, otherwise the edits will likely be undone for not having said support. Same as research papers except there's no original research or synthesis like in the traditional research paper, Wikipedia articles are simply collections of existing information.

[Luis R. Ramos]

And again, that is what I teach for the general subject encyclopedias in print format.

[Brad]

And again, that is what I teach for the general subject encyclopedias in print format.

FYI you can order Wikipedia articles as printed books, either pre-made collections or make your own on a particular subject or a mere random smattering of articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Books/Printed_books

[Paul_AK]

And again, that is what I teach for the general subject encyclopedias in print format.

FYI you can order Wikipedia articles as printed books, either pre-made collections or make your own on a particular subject or a mere random smattering of articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Books/Printed_books

That is pretty nifty. It would certainly cut down on clicking that addictive random article link.