Wikipedia

Talk:MRAP

Latest comment: 4 months ago by Whyme943 in topic Split the article?
Learn more about this page

Dubious Statistic

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"72 percent of the world's bridges cannot hold the MRAP." This statement in the first section is extremely vague even if sourced. What does the source use as the definition of a bridge (i.e. train bridge, foot bridge, ice bridge, culvert, etc.)? I agree MRAPs are pretty darn heavy but the reference should be more specific or removed. Even most third-world countries build bridges to hold the weight of supply trucks which weigh as much or more than MRAPs. Bristus (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

One of the problems with MRAPs weight on these bridges etc is the relatively short length of the vehicle for its weight in comparison to a similar civilian supply truck (& the number of wheels used to spread the weight sideways as many civilan equivalent trucks often have dual wheels - can be important on wooden bridges). This concentrates more of the weight to a smaller section of the bridge. Also supply trucks can adapt their loads to suit the bridges & roads they know they will use. Remember the military can put more traffic across a bridge or road in a week than the builders intended in a year.101.173.42.142 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

M-ATV missing?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the Oshkosh M-ATV missing in the Listing of MRAP types in the "Categories" section? Tullius2 (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

US Department of Homeland Security

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone else want to research this and add it to the article? The Department of Homeland Security has acquired over 2,700 military-style, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles for use inside the U.S. http://www.businessinsider.com/homeland-security-serving-warrants-mrap-2013-3 B4Ctom1 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article has been corrected, it's 16 vehicles, not 2700, and they've had them since 2008. They look like Alphas to me which makes sense because I think that 16 were delivered but never fielded. This explains where they went. We'd need more accurate and reliable source information to make any mention in the article though.Dino246 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I found a DoD Contract announcement awarding Navistar an $880 million contract for the procurement of "2,717 rolling chasis...for MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles." This may be where that 2,700 number came from. The issue is that The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity, not DHS. Here is the link http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4701. I think this maybe the source info needed to state that DHS did not order these vehicles. Thoughts anyone? (Pollocksa (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC))Reply

The amount needs to be checked, as more and more rural law enforcement departments are receiving newer generation MRAPs as gifts from the government - way more than the mere 16 that are claimed by Dino. 75.106.123.39 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureheavyweights-take-on-ballistics-explosives-ieds/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

dead links, poor sourcing habits

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I worked on the sources today. this article looks oversourced, but a third of links are dead. i dont understand why people put in bare links without publication dates, which are crucial info for context.

please watch for anyone doing this and feedback. i understand that archiving is an extra step (but should be done), but putting in a mere publication date ?

As of today there are 31 dead links.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

US law enforcement usage

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

"MRAPs, painted in law enforcement black, were used by riot police in the August 2014 Ferguson unrest. Police were equipped with military infantry gear such as body armor, gas masks, M4 carbines, and camouflage fatigues, heightening the issue of police militarization in the public eye.[115] In response, President Obama called for a review of the programs which supply military gear, including the MRAP, to local police.[116]"

Source 115: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/18/6003377/ferguson-military-gear

Neither of the vehicles displayed in the image at the source are MRAPs, both are clearly Lenco BearCats which fall into a completely different category of vehicle (as the BearCat is not mine resistant but designed to withstand small arms fire). Unless someone can show factual evidence that a MRAP was used by the police in response to the Ferguson Riots then it should not be posted that they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KalusAleksandr (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The sources state MRAPs were used. There's no requirement for the source to have pictures of one as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The source shows 8 images of Lenco BearCats and 1 image of a Lenco Bear and directly refers to the pictures as "MRAPs". This source clearly doesn't know the difference and is just using the buzzword that is going around the media, other sources including St. Louis County state they do not have MRAPs but rather two Lenco BearCats and one Lenco Bear.

"Despite reports that military “Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected” vehicles, or MRAPs, were used on Ferguson streets, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Public Safety said none has been supplied to agencies in St. Louis or St. Louis County. Some other Missouri communities have received them, including St. Charles County." [1]

"The source said that what media reports have identified as a military-issued Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle in Ferguson is actually a much smaller privately sold vehicle called a BearCat. The vehicle cannot be obtained through the Pentagon's program and instead needs to be purchased by the department, he said. That assertion was backed up by Mike O'Connell, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Public Safety, who said he did not have any records of St. Louis County police receiving any armored vehicles through the Pentagon's program." [2]

--KalusAleksandr (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Patrick, Robert; Currier, Joel. "Ferguson highlights police use of military gear and tactics". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 3 September 2014.
  2. ^ Rosenfeld, Everett. "Where Ferguson's 'military' police get their gear". CNBC. CNBC. Retrieved 3 September 2014.
OK, that's fine. You have provided enough sources to disprove the vox.com article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you,KalusAleksandr ! appreciate it.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I rephrased Layson's edit better and reincorporated the President's quote. It's unreasonable to omit the president's words but include the quote from Sgt Rube of Backwater PD; I wouldn't oppose removing the quote but the section presently reads as attempting to discredit the issue of militarization.Lustatti (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

link to 1033 program as main page for section US law enforcement use

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Fnlayson, thanks for your subsequent edit, summarizing and continued trimming.

As far as reverting my insertion of {main|1033 program}: You are absolutely right that the 1033 page is not specific to MRAPs. BUT it covers them and if you looked carefully , most of whats in the section MRAP#US law enforcement use is already in the 1033 program article. I am very familiar with it, because of writing most of it. look again. i think it helps the reader.ping me if you reply, my watchlist takes eons to load. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

1033 has already been linked in the text here. So the link is not missing or omitted. The Main link template is meant for split off articles as shown at WP:Summary style, not just related articles. Template:See also is the proper template for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see you dont like pings. thanks for educating me.
I know the WPlink is there. How about "see also" then ? Many articles do it that way.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on MRAP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on MRAP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on MRAP. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"MRAP" applies only to American vehicles

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"MRAP is a United States military term for vehicles that are designed specifically to withstand improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and ambushes." This does not withstand even momentary scrutiny. MRAP is a US military program; a class of vehicles built to related specifications for a related purpose. It refers only to vehicles of that program, and is not a class of vehicles. Just because Americans are unfamiliar with similar vehicles does not make the term all encompassing.

A BTR-80 and a Volvo V60 - both are vehicles, with wheels, that have high mobility, which can be applied to many purposes. they are high mobility, multipurpose, wheeled vehicles. I don't think anyone thinks a Volvo station wagon is a Humvee. Due to a tendency in the American military to give equipment descriptions instead of names, there are many such examples. SCUBA. HEMTT. LSVR. LAV. ATV.

On the page for the GAZ 2975 Tigr, likening it to the "Russian Humvee" was called dubious, even though they're nearly identical vehicles - the Tigr looks similar, has a similar design, and fulfills the same role, but Tigr and Humvee are still completely different vehicles.

Please try and wrap your heads around the idea MRAP is not a class of vehicle, like tank or APC, only the program. Please do not stop disseminating the idea MRAP applies to non-American vehicles, like the British Ocelot (vehicle), or the Russian Typhoon (AFV family).

The term you can use is Infantry Mobility Vehicle. IMV was originally used to describe an Aussie truck, but the company name changed the name to Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle after IMV got applied to other vehicles. Agerward (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

MRAP is an adjective, not a noun.

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MRAP. "Mine resistant ambush protected." An MRAP. Many MRAPs. A mine resistant ambush protected. Many mine resistant ambush protecteds. MRAP as a noun is a factually inaccurate colloquialism and should be avoided. Agerward (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on MRAP. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MRAP. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MRAP. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

'Ambush Protected'

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The term "Ambush Protected" is used 12 times on this page. "Mine resistant" is fairly self-evident but it would be nice if there were some explanation of what "ambush protected" means. Walkersam (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

"US Military"

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article assumes that MRAPs are purely an American thing. That was my impression too, but now the Russians have them. (They were in the news because of some war somewhere.) Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Split the article?

edit
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think it might be a good idea to split this into at least two articles: one for MRAP (Program), covering the mid-2000’s military contracts, and one for MRAP (vehicle type), covering the general concept of a mine-resistant wheeled armored personnel carrier.

It seems like doing this would ease some confusion- examples like the Oshkosh M-ATV and JLTV were not part of the original program, but might be what people are looking for when they search “MRAP”. The same is true for vehicles from other countries with a similar purpose. Whyme943 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What about merging with Infantry mobility vehicles? There is overlap Vaultsuit (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's still worthwhile having a page for the MRAP program (as in the DoD contracts), to go over the history of the program, which vehicles were procured, etc. Whyme943 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Replacing Army Recognition, GlobalSecurity.org, and other unreliable/deprecated sources

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As recorded in site-wide requests for comment on source reliability, armyrecognition.com and globalsecurity.org are regarded by Wikipedia consensus as unreliable sources:

  • Army Recognition: "The website reproducing [sic] press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing "online marketing and advertising solutions" for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content."
  • GlobalSecurity.org: "globalsecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 deprecation RFC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia."

I intend to replace citations of these sources, as well as any other sources regarded as unreliable by WP:RSP. Huntthetroll (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:MRAP&oldid=1257773983"