Talk:Australian Defence Force Academy

The section "criticisms of ADFA" is largely un-encyclopedic. For example it says that ADFA is not mentioned among the country's top universities, that is because ADFA is a part of the University of New South Wales (UNSW), which is one of the very best tertiary institutions in Australia. ADFA is not seen, academically at least, as an independent university, it is all handled through UNSW. That section should be removed. - - :That is because ADFA does not operate at the standard of other UNSW campuses. It has significantly lower academic entrance requirements and limited degree structures. It is unusual for a university sub-branch to be so significantly poorer than its counterparts and that is why ADFA is considered to be essentially independent from UNSW in all but name. To view it otherwise would be to lower the academic standard of UNSW as a whole. The disparity in entrance requirement, degree structures and academic performance can all be verified through UAC and other sources. - - The previous post, though poorly written and extremely bias demonstrates fact. The Age "Good University Guide" treats ADFA as a seperate entity to the UNSW, therefore I feel it befitting that Wikipedia do the same. Thank you for thy concern, thou stinking barrel of cheap chip oil. Do you know which "philosopher" wrote that? Nick Hornbuckle. And some people say he's just a shaved head...61.68.131.92 10:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) - - :Revamp of ADFA article? - Just some things I think should be included: - -ADFA is a substandard institution both militarily and academically. - -its trainees lack any real appreciation of Officer-like qualities. - -the remainder of the lower-middle class (i.e. those not offered scholarships, admission or residence at any reputable academic institution) dominate the leadership of the ADF, despite their quite apparent inability to lead. - -there is a well-entrenched drinking and anti-academic/intellectual culture. - -cadets are trained by mindless NCO's whose "youse is never gonna become officers" rants become self fulfilling prophecies. - -personnel of the ADF continually engage in the self-congratulation of claiming that "the Army is an organisation that has been crushing individuals since the day dot" and "we is the best army since those Itiys invaded Germany". - -"Shooters"...and who'd have thought homosexuality had become the dominant culutre in the ADF. "Never have I seen so many young men eager to take off their clothes and embrace in manly love"-Plato - Any thoughts team??? - - :: Lets not start this again (capt. is it?). For one reason or another you hate ADFA, we get it. But this is not the place to discuss it. Despite your mindless rants ADFA will contnue and the ADF will have quality officers to lead it into the future. - - I actually doubt that ADFA will continue, for I have heard many Officers and senior Warrant Officers recently discussing an imminent closure of The Academy. These senior leaders of the ADF, as well as many other people in the ADFA, especially the Army, feel that the recently introduced OTRS scheme is an excellent replacement of ADFA. -Regards --- Regards. - - Fingers crossed. - The General Public - - : "Fingers crossed. - The General Public" Fingers crossed for what? its closing? ADFA is a very valuable institution, and well worth the price (which is small compared to other government initiatives, and offers so much more for Aus than any other uni). long live ADFA - The Sane and even minded - - What exactly does ADFA do does RMC, OTS and RANC don't?--The confused and sexually virile. - - :Perhaps we should have a section on the differences between ADFA and the Signle service colleges. ADFA provides tertiary education and military to future officers, hence it is an Academy. RANC and RMC only give diplomas in management and basic military institution, hence they are colleges. RMC, RANC and RAAF OTS provide instruction to officers of all entries, ADFA, undergraduate, graduate, DEO's and reservist. Perhaps if we make this very findamental difference clear it will avoid confusion. Of course the article could also go into more depth. What do you say? - the guy not wanting to start another non-article related debate

Please be advised that Wikipedia is not a web forum. Discussion pages should be used to discuss the article. Moreover, be sure to follow talk page ettiquette by signing your postings with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, --cj | talk 10:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)  Please be advised that Wikipedia is not a web forum. Discussion pages should be used to discuss the article. Moreover, be sure to follow talk page ettiquette by signing your postings with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, --cj | talk 10:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 

- - The drinking section should not be deleted: although it portrays the Academy in a less-that-perfect light, it is mostly true. Rocket Surgeon 04:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC) - - :It's also true that there is a toilet on the second floor of the military building, but that's not in the encyclopedia entry - 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)tgnwtsan-ard - - ::Agreed. The drinking section has no place in this article anymore. - - :::Im pretty sure that toilet has not yet been the subject of any disciplinary action though.(But it does like the piss every now and again). Further, im pretty sure the ADF has no intention of commissioning said toilet, but feel free to correct me if i am wrong (who knows these days). You cant be selective in the information you convey (ie, NPOV). Sure the Holocaust paints the Nazis in a negative light, but we still mention it dont we? Hmmm this smells of a military coverup... [[[Julian Knight]]] - - I'm inclined to agree with former Staff Cadet at RMC and convicted multiple murderer, Julian, on this one. Its fairly obvious the sychophantic tripe found within the ADFA entry is the result of one of the (authorised?) cadets at the 'academy'. The considerable flaws within the institution are either omitted or almost totally overlooked (ref: drinking culture, sub-standard academic performance and admission requirements, excessive promiscuity in and outside the rank structure, NCO insubordinance, bastardisation, etc etc etc) and positive points are highlighted and/or exaggerated. Perhaps, if the author is so keen to quote Firth, he/she might like to include his other points on the academy? Disappointing, but typical. (OCDT Brad Richardson 'The Bald One') - - Yes military coverups are the latest fad in the ADF. For instance, we could mention McCauseland, or Richo. What ever happened to SGT Milne, I heard he was killed when a door he was manning was heard to remark "Allah akbar" and promptly dislodged the good sergeant's spine, though I am quoting Firth there. I am watching blue heelers at the moment, the Boss is pissed at Jonesy because he rodgered one of the sheila coppers. Wait, I might just turn this into a blog. Anyway, as I am in Iraq, I better go. My mate soldier 19, is calling me, I think he might have my service pistol. Anyway, till next time. Pte. Kovco. - - Oi, Kovco, do you know how long the Hour of Power lasts at the Moose? I need to pour it onto me head. Do you guys want any pizza? I'm going into civic to pick up a copy of an essay my dad wrote for me. Credit. OCDT John Wing, 15 Div, Echo Section, (02) 6268 6155 - - Oi gouys just writing in to let you all know the new bargains at Sgt. Cole's express poicha parade deluxes credits. Them is cheap, and them is good? I'm off team, me lecturer wants an essay. Oi Wingo what's ya dad's number mate. Im not your fucken mate. Peace out. OCDT Brad Richardson, Cahill's room, ADFA duty deskeded!Flanges and what not. Biscuit?! ARHHHGGGGGGG. Jewesses and what not. Aight! Kimbo...

footnote format

the section on history has alphabetic footnotes not it wiki format. they should be converted, but they raise a suspicion that the text was lifted from some (copyright) source. can someone pls investigate and rectify? ta Coughinink 01:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary deletion

I recently temporarily deleted the article to remove certain revisions containing certain inappropriate content (OTRS people see this ticket for more information). Admins, please be careful not to restore these revisions. --bainer (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

October 11th Incident

I suggest whoever continues to remove the verifiable and encyclopaedic cease doing so. I believe an incident of such a serious nature is most appropriate for a Wikipedia entry on the Academy. I have included a link to the ABC article referenced in the entry. I would be happy to post further information on the matter, but I'm sure the sycophants deleting the entry wouldn't like to see the name of said Captain enter the public arena.

Whilst I think the incident is notable in itself, I don't think it is worthy of being in an encyclopaedia. It was a one-off incident that can, and does happen in various organisations not because of the organisation, its structure, policies or anything else, but because of human factors. It is not representative of the Academy in any way and I do not think it has any real educational value (which is the basic purpose of an encyclopaedia, as opposed to making some sort of commentary). I'm going to remove it again for the moment because that is what is clearly the general consensus amongst wiki users and admins, but I'm happy to hear you state an argument for it and I'll reconsider. Opiniastrous 11:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't think this qualifies? Cadets being banned from going to a gay night club does, yet an officer taking a loaded weapon and threatening cadets and staff doesn't? Many elements of the article relate to 'one-off' incidents, that doesn't change their importance. How many times does an instructor need to pull out a steyr and take hostages for it to qualify? Not educational? I'm sure parents thinking of encouraging their children to attend the academy might like to know about hostage situations carried out by the very people responsible for them? Not to mention the general public. And to suggest that this incident does not reflect SERIOUS problems within the ADF, you can't possibly be serious? That is like trying to suggest the Kovco debacle was a result of 'human factors' alone. The fact is, and I'm sure you know this, the aforementioned officer displayed unstable attributes for a long time. MANY complaints were made by cadets regarding said officer's stability (the details of which are almost as frightening as the incident itself). Further, there are cadets currently going through ADFA who have displayed equally disturbing instability, complaints have been made about their mental health, indeed some cadets have felt that their lives were under threat, and predictably have been duly ignored. When one officer finally snaps, with all the warning signs there, how can that not be at least partially the responsibility of the organisation responsible not only for his or her health (mental and otherwise) but also directly responsible for ARMING them? This is not the first time you have tried to brush over any information that paints ADFA in a negative light, but surely you can see that this incident must qualify for a mention. Now I am aware the ADF is copping a beating in the media at the moment (albeit with good reason) but perhaps trying to conceal incidents such as these isn't the best way forward. The only argument I can see with any validity AGAINST putting this up is that there is no complete reference containing the details of the event outside the nondescript ABC article (more of an indictment of the ADF than of the accuracy of the description, the truth of which you have not questioned because you are at ADFA and know it happened). It would be a shame to have to quote from ACA or the like, but I fear that that is the only viable alternative. Perhaps when this incident gets into the public arena you will see how worthy of mention this incident is.

Ah yeah, I understand your point about there being another one-off incident in this article, and to be honest, I wouldn't really put it in either, but I kind of let that one slide because it did fit within the 'criticisms of ADFA' section in that it related to a complaint that had been made to the media, which in turn, made a slight criticism in its publication of the information. I still don't think the publication of this incident is educational though, and whilst I can understand why some OSB potentials might benefit from the information (though I doubt it would impact their decisions) I don't think the general public would really benefit in any way other than the incident providing them with news fodder for a little while. Hell, even that doesn't really apply because clearly the media wasn't interested enough to chase it up (there were more articles than the ABC Online and ACA ones BTW). Whilst I don't agree with you in your belief that this is more than just a singular incident, I can see why that belief would make you concerned. In any case, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for it. In fact, if anything, I think Wikipedia may only hamper your efforts to do something about it by creating the illusion of progress. If I was you, I would push my concerns upwards (but a tip would be to makesure you frame it in a rational and constructive argument, because complaining usually gets nowhere...) Opiniastrous 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)