Talk:Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Comments

There is a slant towards the AFJROTC program here.

From what I've read on all the sites, AFJROTCs are the most numerous and from national champs mostly Air Force schools do well except for Flour Buff which is Navy.

-Should the information about specific units be removed?--Mtnerd 02:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went through NJROTC years ago; I've been adding some info for Navy JROTC (and other services generally) to try to balance the article some. It looks like the original was probably written by an enthusiastic AFJROTC cadet. JohnRonaldJohnRonaldJohnRonald

I wrote the original article, and was in AFJROTC at the time. Would it be appropriate to mention controversy regarding JROTC on this page? The program is not always fully accepted by communities, and there are plenty of sources out there that make a claim against the program. This might be noteworthy to point out. - Gregory Brown

I am of the opinion that any controversies surrounding the program are few and far between. In fact, the only website that I have come across to date that is anti-JROTC states outright lies about the program. If someone wants to write a short paragraph about there being anti-JROTC groups, and then provide an external link to any relevant websites, go for it. -- Maverick 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (also an AFJROTC alumni--AZ-791)

I've rewritten a good portion of the page to make it more "service-neutral" and grammatically correct. If you don't like them... change it back. MIDN Shelton 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Each program is directed by a Senior Army Instructor (Officer) and a Army Instructor (NCO or Warrant Officer) This is true, but only in Army JROTC. Perhaps it can be rewritten to be branch neutral? --70.234.105.214 05:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a great page, with lots of good information about the JROTC program. I added a few words and links about military schools. I changed the picture to a more dramatic and better one (IMHO). Cacetudo 17:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the page. I'm an AJROTC cadet and I think it's pretty informative. I do agree though that the whole article seems slanted towards talking about the JROTC controversy. I think it needs to discuss a little more...everyday life of a JROTC cadet you know? Tell people about what we learn in class, link to color guard and drill teams and such. You know? This article should tell people what we do in JROTC i think, and maybe not so much just history and politics. Thoughts? thekingbeav 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the Instruction and activities section with more information on these topics! Terjen 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directors

Depending on the unit you are talking about the people who direct it and the things that are done are different. for Instance, AFJROTC are directed by people know as SASI(Senior Aerospace Instructor) and a ASI (Aerospace Instructor). There is one thing that all have in common and that is that those who direct the branch tend to be retired Colonels and another lesser rank.--Pfc Ender 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (and I don't remember why I learned this...), NJROTC instructors were required to be retired O-4s or above to qualify as Naval Science Instructors (NSIs) or E-6s or above to qualify as Assistant (?) Naval Science Instructors (ANSIs). Since these are military operations one could find the answers in the appropriate regulations if one were properly motivated to do so. --ElKevbo 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I found the correct, current information:
"The [Senior Naval Science Instructor (SNSI)] position is an officer position and must be filled by an officer: Chief Warrant Officer (CWO), Lieutenant (LT), Lieutenant Commander (LCDR), Commander (CDR), or Captain (CAPT). There are no waivers to this requirement. Officers may be Navy, Marine Corps or Coast Guard....[The Naval Science Instructor (NSI)] is an enlisted position and must be filled by enlisted personnel; Petty Officer 1st Class (E6), Chief (E7), Senior Chief (E8), and Master Chief (E9)." The page goes on to state that the Navy may waive the requirement that the NSI position be filled by a retired enlisted person in cases where there are no enlisted applicants. The page also states that Marine Corps or Coast Guard persons may be hired to fill one of these positions with the possibility of multiple hires with the appropriate waiver. --ElKevbo 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I put information about my unit(Army JROTC) here?

If you want to ask a question, we need to know who we are addressing. At this point, it's not prudent to add information of your unit to this page, but you are welcome to create an article (if there isn't one already) about your unit. Feel free to place it in the same categories as JROTC. We are all sure that you unit deserves attention, but the relevancy of a unit subsection is currently under dispute, and you might sway attention in a negative way. D. Farr 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] patches

ive added patches for navy and marine corps. if ive put it in a bad spot or something, please let me know -Lordraydens 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also section

Yeah, I'm an enthusiastic CAP cadet....

Added links to the United States Civil Air Patrol, as it offers services not unlike AFJROTC, and the two actually compliment each other....more than one year AFJROTC in good stead allows for faster promotion within the CAP.

Also added links to the Royal Canadian Army, Air and Sea cadets, mostly for comparison and to help out any Canucks reading the page. Resisted the urge to place a link to the Boy Scouts of America. Bizznot 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directors of JROTC

Should we put the Directors of Each Jrotc in the article? Or instead, the head JROTC guy w/ each branch under him? And also, theres a chain of command list in the AFJROTC link (i didnt check the other branches), should that be in the article too? Xlegiofalco 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By directors, i mean the Head Director of each branch of JROTC, such as Col. Norm Balchunas of the USAF. Theyre all under the Officer Training Academy Commander.Xlegiofalco 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the pursuance of proper relevancy of this article, let's abstain from great attention to the leaders. I don't think that they are really so relevant beyond a paragraph. Photos are a waste of time, as well.D. Farr 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

We've been rather busy editing this article today! Unfortunately, I spent quite a while making my edits (mostly to clean up the references but also some general copy editing) and I happened to do so in the middle of a bunch of other edits. I've compared my version to the version that preceded it and I think I'm happy with the current version. I did not include all of the edits that were made in the intervening time but I think I can offer very good reasons why (i.e. I would have objected to and possibly reverted those edits anyway).

If I've missed anything or if you feel that an edit that I accidentally or intentionally reverted should be replaced, please do so! There are obviously some things some of us would like to discuss about this article and I'd hate for that to be squelched because of my poor timing or a failure to notice a change that should have been made or left in the article!

My primary concern at this point is that there are still several claims and assertions in the article that lack sources. A couple of those claims can probably be referenced against already-referenced sources. Some of those claims will be a bit more difficult to properly source and should probably be removed after a period of time if they remain unsourced.

Otherwise I am very pleased with how this article is taking shape. It still needs some work but it's really moving along and I commend all of the editors who have contributed! --ElKevbo 21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks for all your good work. Terjen 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up after me. --ElKevbo 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to reverting my removal of the Boston Globe op-ed[1], which I don't think substantiates the claim that "Other news media have criticized the San Francisco school board", note that the piece is NOT an editorial, and thus does not represent the Boston Globe. Jeff Jacoby is a columnist writing in the editorial/opinion section of the paper. In their profiles of columnists, the Boston Globe describes him as "a conservative voice to balance its famously liberal roster of commentators"[2]. Terjen 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Come again? An article written for the "Editorial/opinion section" is not an editorial? And that this article was published is not evidence that, well, other media published articles critical of the school board's decision? I'll grant that it's only one article and the statement implies that there are/were multiple such articles but I don't quite understand the objection to this article. --ElKevbo 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is an op-ed, one man's opinion (if that), not an editorial, nor carrying the weight of being the offical view of the paper.[3] According to the Boston Globe, "Editorials represent the official view of the Boston Globe as a community institution, which is why they aren't signed by individual writers" [4], while "Op-Eds (literally, opposite the editorial page) represent the views of individual columnists or writers. Unlike the editorial page, this page is designed to present a broad array of views from Globe staff columnists and members of Greater Boston. The Globe's three columnists are not members of the editorial board and function independently." [5] The Boston Globe pays Jeff Jacoby to write opinion columns from a specific perspective, with no requirement that these matches the official views of the paper. The op-ed is thus not evidence that "Other news media have criticized the San Francisco school board", nor is it particularly interesting that a single columnist takes this position.Terjen 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't completely agree with you but I do believe the preponderance of evidence is on your side. In general, I prefer to completely remove assertions that are unsupported by evidence but I defer to you if you want to let the statement remain unsubstantiated for some time in the article. --ElKevbo 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I favor leaving the assertion for some time with the note that a citation is needed, to give other editors the chance to substantiate it. Maybe a week or two at most.Terjen 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My main point in citing the Boston Globe article was not to substantiate content but to illustrate with an example how the San Francisco controversy has received national attention. I may have worded that point badly; so for now I deleted the assertion until I can rewrite it in a clearer way. Steve2345 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role and Purpose

One area that the article needs re-working is the discussion of the role of JROTC in military recruiting. I beleive the statement by former Sec. of Defense William Cohen on ROTC as a recruiting tool as well as any followup material on this topic should be placed in the controversy section. My personal belief is that the primary purpose is character/leadership/teamwork; however, I admit that informing of military careers is an acceptable by-product; they also learn about non-military careers and scholarships as will in their module on career education. They are given the opportunities and taught to make choices based on thier interests and abilities. From my obervations in San Francisco, some believe that recruiters put pressure on JROTC students. First of all, in my perception/opinion most recruiters do not pressure students. They just present opportunities. Students have to be informed. Second of all they spend much time with non-ROTC students as well. Students that do not want recruiter contact (whether or not they are in JROTC) can fill out the form as provided by NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND to prohibit contact. Also in San Francisco, there is very little difference in the % of JROTC student who join vs. % of non-JROTC students who join. However, I will leave the assertion about % who enlist out of the article until I can research the specifics. From my personal obeservations as well as interviewing intructors, I believe it to be true. Steve2345 10:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the statement by former Sec. of Defense William Cohen on JROTC as a recruiting tool should be moved to the Controversy section, as it contributes to determine the facts. The Controversy section is better left for opinions about the value of JROTC. The entry should prominently present different perspectives on the role and purpose of JROTC, not only the official, sanitized, politically correct version. I favor presenting the role and purpose of JROTC early in the entry, however, I am open for placing it in a new section rather than keep it in the introduction. I'll make that change for now so we can see how we like like it.Terjen 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I believe that little of what is in the Role and Purpose section is relevant to the topic. Sure, it is necessary to provide a reader with a blurb on the purpose not being recruitment, but that entire controversy should not make up the entire section - whoever wrote this had to have had another topic on his mind when he wrote the section. I'd like to see the more experienced editors correct the outlook and relevancy of the section, before I go in as a newcomer and turn an editor over in his grave for correction.D. Farr 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it absurd that you would believe little of the content of the Role and Purpose section is having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue [6]. The section is about the purpose and role of JROTC in society, and specifically its benefits for the Armed Forces. There is still room for expanding it though. Terjen 08:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Regarding the tagging of the Role and purpose to dispute its neutrality, it's ironic that you favor scrapping most of the section, given that the stated criteria for a neutral point of view is that the content is representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. If you find that the section misses any significant views, by all means, feel free to work those in. Meanwhile, perhaps you could remove the tag. Terjen 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are still discussing the neutrality, then the tag must remain. I re-read the section from your point of view. If I just *decided* to edit the section, then a sentence might be missing, which rehashes the recruitment part after the 'passion of the paragraph'. It's not a concluding sentence either. A few words could be exchanged for more structured, informative words (not the quotes, of course). I'll wait for your response before I do anything. I know that you have obviously been with this article for quite some time, whereas I have only been nitpicking at it for a few weeks now. D. Farr 08:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear on what changes you are proposing. So far the section has provided clues as to the purpose of JROTC from the perspective of the armed forces, as well as it's stated mission. As previously mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, the Colin Powell quote in the last paragraph is meant to provide a hook for substantiating other benefits to society beyond the armed forces. Feel free to substantiate those benefits so the section provides a better understanding why some schools and communities welcome JROTC. The benefits to the kids can be covered elsewhere like in the Activities section.Terjen 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll show you. I'm going to edit the section, and if you don't like it, then use the copy of it below to restore it. Make sure you say what you dislike about the changes. D. Farr 05:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I commented out the copied original content from this page, as it is available in the history. Here are some of the concerns I have about your changes:
  • "The United States Military has declared time and time again that they are not recruiting JROTC members now, or ever." This claim is not supported by the cited source, which only is a single example of the Army stating that JROTC is not a recruiting program. I think the claim is valid though, but it need to be properly substantiated. It could also benefit from removal of the superfluous expressions "time and time again" and " or ever", e.g. "The US military asserts that they are not actively recruiting JROTC students."
  • "But the military has stated that there are opprotunities available in the military". This is a misrepresentation of the cited document, which states that that "The expansion of JROTC will inform more young Americans about the opportunities available in the military". I favor keeping the quote from the original.
  • The quote from Cohen that JROTC is "one of the best recruitment programs we could have" does not belong in the Opposition to JROTC section, but is better left in the Role and Purpose section. His statement is not made in opposition to JROTC, but as part of an argument in favor of expanding it, and highly relevant coming from then head of the United States Department of Defense.
  • "Part of the reason why public schools are quick in accepting JROTC programs is that the programs teach and re-enforce values which could otherwise be lost." I would like to see an exploration of why some public schools accept JROTC, but it needs to be substantiated.
  • "JROTC students learn respect and dignity, which in this current age are issues among JROTC-age students." This need to be substantiated. It should rather be in the section about instruction/activities.
  • "As a result, some people are less inclined to join the JROTC because the classes tend to be filled with the more rowdy pupils. They are justified in feeling so as for all of the good intentions meant by the Military, a few students will always end up being subject to hazing and threats, which nulls the want to report misbehavior." Highly POV and irrelevant, should be deleted.
  • "However, current training for instructors has been more and more focused on respect over the years." Need to be substantiated. irrelevant for the purpose and role of JROTC.

Terjen 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said and well done, Terjen. Some of the material you changed or removed appears to be original research as it is unsubstantiated and likely unsubstantiatable. --ElKevbo 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of that was orgininal reasearch, but I mined that out of my father, who is a retired drill sergeant. Really, these are things which are true, but I couldn't possibly cite it as there's nothing to cite. If that's the way you feel, this is the last time that I view this article.D. Farr 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:V and WP:OR, the relevant policies in this instance. In brief, assertions made in Wikipedia articles must be supported by verifiable references. In addition, original research is not permitted. Those are very important policies for any encyclopedia and we must adhere to them. --ElKevbo 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't take it personal. Your contribution is appreciated. Let's do our best to make this entry into a featured article! Terjen 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As the way the article stands right now (16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)), consider moving all of the text with no changes in the opposition section to right between the last CFR citation in role and purpose and the paragraph leading with "The US Military frequently asserts... ." Editorially, this change would have a good flow; right now, the transition to the military assertion paragraph shifts the section from focusing on the program to focusing on the military apparently defending the program. The move smooths that transition. The combination of the opposition section followed by the military assertion and testimony quotes could be seen as a fairly well-balanced section on "program controversy"; I am neutral on that section's positioning within the article, but I don't see a problem with keeping it high up close to the top of the article, as the controvery is topical, and it may motivate visitors to read on into the article. Hotfeba

I don't favor integrating the Opposition section into the Role and Purpose section, as they are two clearly different topics. It would also be misleading to create the impression that the quotes in the Role and Purpose represent the military defending the program from the claims by the organizations opposing JROTC. Rather, the quotes represent military policy on the implemetation and promotion of JROTC. Terjen 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting Overview Section

I suggest splitting the Overview section into one section that deal with the structural, administrative, organizational issues (a perspective from the top) and another section that focus on the experience from a student/instructors perspective. This can be achieved by splitting the section above the paragraph about the curriculum, with minor refactorization. Terjen 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding William Cohen's statement, I was upset not about the text itself but the reference link from a very anti-military site, whcih painted more of a negative picture of the recruiting issue. Any "unofficial" references showing strong opinions (pro or con) should go to the controversy section or maybe the second section outlined above. My main concern, is that balance is maintained thougout the article. Wherever we show any statement or reference stating opinion, both sides should be presented. Steve2345

How about

1.The overview as described above 2. The Expriences from students and intructors (as described above) 3. Controversy (pro and con) Steve2345

I split the Overview section into Organization and Activities sections.Terjen 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added quotes from Colin Powell that bridges from JROTC being useful for recrutiment to the issue of JROTC being beneficial for students and society. More content is needed that documents these benefits.Terjen 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There may be comments in the congressional testimony from around 1964. I need to make a trip to the law library to find it, as I am pretty sure the publisher charges for that Congressional Record kind of stuff across the Internet, especially from that long ago. Other than that, I don't know of any other reliable sources for anything quantifiable; army regs and DA pamphlets will just say things about intent and purpose without citing program results, and apparently no group has done a national study with an objective sampling method free of subjective anecdotal evidence. Time to go on recon. Hotfeba 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pov

This article could use some re-writing to improve NPOV. All of the sections except for the last one seem to be a brochure trying to get students to sign up. This is not the objectivity that wikipedia requires of it's articles. Any help you all can give would be great. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

You have a point: a lot of the article is geared towards the recruitment controversy, whether it be to debunk or prove the inevitably irrelevant subject. The entire article should really only mention the controversy, as at this point this does diservice to JROTC. They obviously aren't a recruitment tool, and it dosn't take the article to consider that no one walks out with a comission. With that in mind, little information is left to a potential or otherwise reader. We can't wait to long to edit this article, because the article subtly questions the standing of the JROTC. Like I said, only a paragraph in a controversy subsection should bring up the 'recruitment'.D. Farr 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the article isn't to be of service to JROTC nor is it to defend the standing of JROTC. Editors should be agnostic to whether the article does JROTC disservice, by maintaining a neutral point of view. The stated reasons for reducing the mentioning of 'recruitment' seem to have a strong POV bias and should be rejected. Terjen 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, standing is unimportant, and the offense taken by who knows how many people is unimportant. No, really. Regardless of standing, does this recruitment thing belong in the mission statment or the controversy part. Why not a short prelude in the conclusion of the paragraph that leads up to as many paragraphs of controversy as the editors would have it? Then there could be a no holds barred on as much neutrality-resulting content as one would wish. I see my point has begun to dwindle...D. Farr 08:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JROTC being beneficial for recruiting is not an issue that should be relegated to the Opposition section. Those quoted to substantiate this in the Purpose section aren't opponents of JROTC, but strong supporters due to its benefits for recruitment. But perhaps we should document how come a substantial number of people seems to be convinced JROTC has nothing to do with military recrutiment? Terjen 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, but can you put the statistics in with a lingual flair? The way the section used to be worded might contradict your idea. D. Farr 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

There are several sections of this article that either contain original research, or are completely uncited. I have put tags in these sections, but if we could work on citing these sections so I can remove the tags as soon as possible, that would be great. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

I presume you specifically have in mind the Activities section. It could definitely benefit from better sourcing as it now appear as if it was original research. I also think there is room for more substance in this section. Perhaps that's something a few JROTC savvy editors could take a stab at? Terjen 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was talking about the activities section. There are a couple of things in the activities section (like some of the details about the military ball, maybe) that don't seem important to me, and that we might not be able to find sources for. Should we keep the level of detail we have about JROTC activities that aren't central to the program's curriculum? Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
I would like to see more content in the Activities section, particularly details about what cadets are learning and what they do during the year. I favor allowing the section to expand to get the relevant information on the table before trimming it down and being stricter about sources. Terjen 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

Unfortunately, the references provided in the "criticisms" section, don't go anywhere, so there's no way to validate the claims stated here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordJanos (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I presume you are referring to the broken <ref> I just closed. If not, please be more specific and let us know that the problem still exists. --ElKevbo 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ROTC

Would it be worth mentioning the connection to the ROTC, or do you think that the connection is evident in the title? Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

I don't see much reason to make more out of it than we already do.Terjen 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I concurr. But for those who are illiterate and would never think of the connection (reference: meat and tenderloin might not be one and the same), we should possiby add a sentence or two describing the potential officers ladder, i.e. JROTC, basic ROTC, Advanced ROTC, and finally comission as a butterbar. Since the statistic "70% go on to be privates" has been adressed, I think, we might do well to skip the affair since readers might not be interested in the opprotunity for 8 years of officer training (not including officer basic!).D. Farr 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Officers ladder?" "Basic [and] Advanced ROTC?" What are you talking about? Short of sharing a name and some very, very broadly similar goals, JROTC and ROTC are very different programs. One can not compare a commissioning source with a high school program. --ElKevbo 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you may have simply forgotton, never reasearched, or misinterpreted my statement. For the (at least) army, you can do JROTC without comittment to commission, and then go to basic ROTC in colledge, which STILL DOSN'T REQUIRE A COMMISSION COMITTMENT, and then move on to Advanced ROTC which DOES require a commission. It's not neutrality if you'd keep away the latter commision. If you went to JROTC to learn to be a future officer like the program was sort of intended, then eventually you must mention ROTC and commisions. Make any more sense?D. Farr 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point but (a) your terminology is very imprecise (a problem for those who work on encyclopedia articles) and (b) I don't know of any support for your assertion that JROTC was intended as a sort of "future officer program." I understand that it was created as part of the ROTC Vitalization Act but I don't know that was ever intended to be an officer program of any sort. --ElKevbo 12:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you suppose there is no connection to the ROTC when the full title of JROTC is junior reserve officer training course? There is a connection through an expanded view of career path, and I still think that it reserves mentioning.D. Farr 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could document (perhaps in the Controversy section ;-) how JROTC is useful for recruiting youngsters into ROTC? Terjen 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're seeing it from my point of view. You could put five paragraphs in there, and I'd be fine with that. D. Farr 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JROTC category

I think it's time to create a JROTC category and (a) place this and all other JROTC-related articles into the category and (b) remove the ever-growing list of JROTC unit articles in this article. Thoughts? Objections? --ElKevbo 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also favor moving beyond having a directory of JROTC units in this article. I don't know whether the best solution is a JROTC category though.Terjen 22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article would do well without JROTC unit listings. If the article adresses that JROTC can come from many high schools, then units really, truly, become irrelevant. If there are particular units that deserve internet attention, then by all means, eiether create another small subsection that is worth it or another article alltogether.D. Farr 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition

It seems to me that the "opposition" section is too large for this article. A short paragraph would do. As it is it, it reads like an anti-JROTC pamphlet. 64.124.12.253 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Setback64.124.12.253 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree...I removed a sentence of the section that claimed that an ROTC cadet and friend had shot up a Buddhist monastary; the reference was valid enough, but it says nothing about the person being in ROTC at all. I Like Drill 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Arizona Republic (July 16, 1994): TEMPLE KILLER GETS 271 YEARS 'TOO MUCH TO FORGIVE'. "The massacre by Garcia and Doody, classmates and Air Force ROTC students at Agua Fria High School, began as a robbery of Wat Promkunaram, a Buddhist temple near Luke Air Force Base in the west Valley. Dressed in surplus military clothing, Garcia, then 16, and Doody, then 17, ransacked the temple and killed everyone inside." See also Arizona Republic (October 31, 1991): NEW TWISTS IN MASSACRE OF BUDDHISTS. Terjen 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, dandy. I switched the links out, I'm pretty sure that's your job...I Like Drill 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, we're all in this together. Terjen 05:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Objectors.org

JROTC is a very honorable program and these bad things you might here about JROTC don't apply to every JROTC cadet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.39.117 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I'll point out my bias, I am a JROTC cadet. But, I will say that everything I have seen on objectors.org is bunk. While some of you have found the reports they mention on the site, our article cites them, not a news source and with no links to a news source on their webpages, as evidence for this. Also, I have checked over and over the "quotes" from our handbooks on the page. I have yet to find a single direct quote in the AJROTC manuals which they perfectly portray (one adds about a dozen offensive adjectives and takes the statement out of context). On the objectors.org website they claim these quotes were research by a 'Project Janos' which in reality has something to do with network nodes. Also, they really obviously do have an agenda and avoid sources like the plague. They do quote one source, who are Quakers, not any governmental organization or respectable NGO. I would say we remove all random, pervasive criticisms (it does read like an anti-JROTC phamphlet) and wait to add criticisms until we can find an actual, reliable, not massively biased source. TaylorSAllen 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We may not agree with statements from the organizations opposing JROTC, or perhaps even find some not matching what we may think are the facts. However, the Opposition to JROTC section should document the opposition rather than discuss the validity of their claims. I have cleaned up its introduction to make that more apparent. The rest of the article provides plenty of oppportunities to present the facts about JROTC, including information that may contradict the claims by the objectors, but any additions should reference a proper source to avoid original research and personal opinion. Project Yano - Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities - is listed among the organizations opposing JROTC. Terjen 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just finished an informal survey of headlines found through google news on JROTC. In the first 100, headlines run about 20 positive/supportive to 1 negative/opposition. The two worst were a JROTC unit in Denver that may have a hazing problem, and an instructor who was fired for sexual improprieties (headline appearing twice). For NPOV, there is a need to replace the opposition section with a controversy section, or create a controversy article, where non-Wiki article cites in opposition and in support can get Wiki access. If users believe that our Wiki world is slanted or biased, then they won't give us high marks for objectivity or utility. At this time, things in the article are either declarative/descriptive of the program with an objective tone, or non-descriptive/opposition with an accusatory tone. Hotfeba 06:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree if you suggest there is a lack of balance in favor of opposition to JROTC. The article provides plenty of material that presents the government- and military perspective in favor of JROTC, parts even in their own choice of words, with top military officials portraying JROTC as pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. Do you have some examples of the better "non-Wiki article cites in opposition and in support" of JROTC so we can take them into consideration? Terjen 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A viewpoint holding that there are two "sides" regarding JROTC, consisting only of the top military officials and the government versus special interest groups opposed to JROTC, is not necessarily neutral, logical, nor philosophically defensible; however, it is the rubric being used for the supervised editing of this article, which is why I quit adding information to the article months ago. There is a tendency in the Wikipedia to have individuals sit on articles for the purpose of legitimizing viewpoints, and where it is obvious to ordinary reasonable readers, it tends to degrade the public usefulness of articles outside of the private network of those seeking legitimacy (Wikipedia:Using Wikipedia to gain legitimacy). Objectively, this trend can be quantified in terms of this article by the number of non-rubric editors who start to contribute and then simply give up per the article history page, compared to that history relative to patrolling editors. Having yielded to the rubric as not being worth my time to oppose it, this article is "just fine and dandy" to me, a former cadet lieutenant colonel who is now a disabled regular army veteran, as I will never use it for positive reference or citation in any academic assignment, published work or public discussion; there are better primary sources out there beyond this wiki. Hotfeba 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As to your suggestion that editors of this article are attempting to legitimize the viewpoint that the only two perspectives on JROTC is the one of the top military/government and the organizations that oppose JROTC, the article already provides at least a third perspective, namely the experience of the cadets (and to some extent instructors), with explicit encouragement elsewhere on this talk page to add more about the "everyday life of a JROTC cadet" with "details about what cadets are learning". The discussion is also urging editors to provide a "better understanding why some schools and communities welcome JROTC", and "substantiating other benefits to society beyond the armed forces." Back in April, you offered to investigate the latter. We should present fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source adhering to a neutral point of view. Are there any such views that you miss? Terjen 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not logical to claim that current and former cadets who also happen to be Wikipedia editors have the opportunity to contribute here when their experiences as cadets are rarely "published by reliable sources", and non-rubric editors have better things to do than babysit this page, having sufficient discipline not to engage in edit wars over this tertiary source at Wikipedia. I did give the results of my informal survey above -- any objective person who is willing to repeat the experiment is certainly free to do so -- and after more than a month, I see nothing to refute my contention of what anybody can see in the article page edit history, then or now. Strategically, this web page is already recognized as your turf by many of us (on discussion pages that are not found here) because if we actually contribute to the article, anything that does not conform to the rubric is branded as OR/POV for deletion or selectively re-edited to conform (see article page edit history). We have nothing to gain by contributing here because there ARE better online and print sources about the program where we can direct others for research into the program, especially for those of us who have had experience in the program and access to DOD/DOA material as primary sources. We believe that our energies are better spent elsewhere, not here.
In the online flow of information, this article is just a filtering middleman with its own discernable POV about JROTC. There are numerous factual inaccuracies in the article's opposition section from "reliable" secondary sources that could be checked against primary sources, but once again the page edit history provides enough evidence of ambush that most of us just brush those recognized inaccuracies off and continue to march on. Those who do write and get ambushed for doing so generally learn the lesson the first time and march on as well. And so, this article remains just fine and dandy to us as I am sure it will remain throughout your watchful ownership. For those of you who understand prowords: BREAK BREAK BREAK 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) THIS IS HOTFEBA LEAVING THE NET. DO NOT ANSWER - OUT.


Oh, c'mon. I thought the part about the "descrimination" against people who aren't US citizens in good health was a joke. It is a joke, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...

There is no discrimination in JROTC. I am a Cadet, and I haven't encountered any discrimination from anyone in the program. Plus, I still wonder while those people think JROTC is a recruiting program... they tell you not to join the military, and, most kids join JROTC becasue they want to join the military... if anyone has questions, fele free to post on my talk page. Buffalosoldier92 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cadet Corps

I was wondering; should the paragraph on various other Cadet Corps be in this article? I don't really know anything about them. If they were also created under the National Defense Act of 1916, then they should be mentioned, but otherwise, I think that the information about the National Defense Cadet Corps etc. should be moved to a separate article. Maybe a See Also link to that article would be good. What do you all think? Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

I agree on eliminating the paragraph on the various other Cadet Corps, although I think some of their relationships to JROTC should be documented in the article. I support creating a separate article on the National Defense Cadet Corps. It should be mentioned though - NDCC have much in common with JROTC and the two are typically organized together, see e.g. [7][8]. The Army handles the programs practically almost as they are the same, see e.g. AR 145-2 Section 1-2[9]. There has been substantial rivalry between the programs through the times[10]. Back in the 60s then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wanted to convert JROTC units into NDCC units to stop wasting money on a program he critically said made no "direct contribution to military requirements", leading to the ROTC Vitalization Act of 1964 as a counterreaction[11]. However, currently (as of November 2006) there are only a handful of NDCC units left.[12].
I also propose creating a separate entry on the Middle School Cadet Corps. We should document how it is overseen by the JROTC program[13] and other apects of the relationship.
-- Terjen 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have created a new entry on the Middle School Cadet Corps and trimmed down the paragraph in the JROTC article. Terjen 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DoD Budget FY2007

The following tables are compiled from the Department of Defense Budget Fiscal Year 2007.[14]

Military Personnel (M-1):

OTHER MILITARY
PERSONNEL COSTS		 FY2006 FY2007
AJROTC page 2 28,241 28,925
NJORTC page 6 13,094 13,492
MJORTC page 9 5,249 5,392
AFJROTC page 12 18,379 20,095
Total (page 16) 64,963 67,904

Operation and Maintenance (O-1):

RECRUITING AND OTHER
TRAINING AND EDUCATION		 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
AJROTC page 22 135,039 138,544 148,215
NJORTC page 24 43,772 42,320 46,649
MJORTC page 26 15,008 16,702 17,257
AFJROTC page 29 50,037 55,846 60,380
Total 243,856 253,412 272,501

Adding these numbers, grand total DoD budget JROTC allocations are 318,375 for FY2006 and 340,405 for FY2007. All values in $1000.

-- Terjen 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How many JROTC cadets are they? I don't see why there's the budget rundown but no mention of the actual number of JROTC cadets.

[edit] congrats!

I would like to congratulate everyone who works on this article for a job well done! This article is one of the most well-cited articles that people are likely to come across. Even though the article is only a few pages long, we have at least 70 citations and external links. That is something that we can all be proud of.

I also would like to suggest that we put this article up for a Good-article class nomination. I think that given the number of references, the thoroughness with which the subject is approached, and the generally good level of prose, we have a shot at getting GA status. And even if we don't, it will give us some good ideas on what we can do to improve the article. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

However, we may want to remove the section with internal links to individual JROTC units. Almost all of these have no other articles linking to them and they are all up for deletion. It would be embarrassing to have a bunch of red links pop up in the middle of the GA evaluation. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

[edit] Images

I suggest that the captions to images of units in action DO NOT include the names of the cadets in the image. That way we may limit the temptation to add vanity photos to the page.Terjen 14:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't want this article to be a magnet for high schools to post photos of themselves or their friends. --ElKevbo 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cguardjrotc.JPG

Image:Cguardjrotc.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added Sf46 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

As discussed above, this article's "Opposition to JROTC" section is terrible. Terrible is not that there is one or even what it says, but it cites non-reliable sources (I think that Objector.org clearly does not meet "reliable source" by any prenumbra of Wiki guidelines) and is written in a way that seems to state that their statements are fact. Further, it's allegations are backed up on their site of essays, but those are not backed up. Many times there is the claim "in violation of law" and yet the laws being violated are not mentioned. Some of the information is clearly erroneous to anyone with a little knowledge of law as it relates to this subject. While I wouldn't want to delete the entire section, that would be preferable to the way it is now. For the moment, I simply added the POV tag to the article (I contemplated the section only, but other aspects of the article are also POV-ish). This article should have a section that presents legitimate concerns of legitimate organizations backed up with reliable sources and reliable research, but this section as it is written now isn't even close. It is over-sourced (a sign that someone had to hyper-justify writing it) and those sources are laden with "Weasel Words". VigilancePrime (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

-I agree wholeheartedly. Sf46 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the concern that the Opposition section "is written in a way that seems to state that their statements are fact", and also removed unsubstantiated claims regarding JROTC being "in violation of law". I agree that the section should present legitimate concerns of legitimate organizations. I am fine with citing notable opposition like the CCCO for this purpose, and second that we should avoid presenting their positions on JROTC as facts, at least unless we can provide secondary reliable sources or have done so elsewhere in the entry. Terjen (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
An opposition/controversy section is certainly appropriate, however, this one at first glance is very poorly sourced and those cited inaccurate enough to be considered POV pushing.Awotter (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What changes do you suggest to address this issue? Terjen (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this template found on Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup:
 It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation. (Discuss)

As I see is, criticism sections are discouraged by the Wikipedia community. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a criticism section as it quickly end up being a POV magnet. Instead, we attempt to document the opposition to this government program. Terjen (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
After looking closer, it would be very difficult to merge all of that information. The section seems to be fine as is, there's enough positives in this article to provide a fair and balanced point of view. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curriculum

Here is the Army JROTC "Cadet Core Text" from 2003:

All of these have instructor manuals, as far as I have found only available in print, unlike the MCJROTC Instructor Handbook. See also this compilation of 2007-08 JROTC course descriptions and text books from the San Diego Unified School District.

Terjen (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Lutz: New Army JROTC Curriculum - Old Problems.[15] April 2000 update to her previous 1995 report. Terjen (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lock Please!

How much vandalism does this article need to take before it is protected or semi-protected?? Sf46 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military recruitment data

A Jan. 04‚ 2008 investigative article provides recent figures for military recruitment of JROTC graduates, including sources (not links unfortunately). The article may not qualify as a WP:RS though, but perhaps the sources can be investigated. Terjen (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NJROTC, AJROTC, AFJROTC, CGJROTC, and MJROTC

Wouldn't it be great if each individual branch had its own article? There are great differences between them, and I think they are each notable enough to recieved their own articles. To have just one generic JROTC article is like it would be to have just one generic military article or just one generic high school article, there should be articles on all levels, just JROTC and the specific branches. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard enough to find good sources for JROTC itself, so I don't recommend sections for the different branches. Perhaps you can start out by documenting the branches and their differences in this article? Terjen (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want, and if you can find enough sources, and what not; than you should create articles about each JROTC. But there has to be a lot of information, and it can not be a stub, or some one will delete it. (Because most would rather delete then add to it). Perhaps we can work together and create good "encyclopedic" articles Nv-20012 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good too. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try both of these ideas. I'll start by adding another section to this article (does the name "The various branches" sound okay?) then I'll work to create separate articles once I've found enough valuable information. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a cadet myself gives me an advantage as far as writing about Naval JROTC because I have the cadet field manual. But writing about Army, Marines, Coast Guard, and Air Force could prove far more difficult, it would be great if someone from those branches could contribute. I also wonder if those other manuals could be found at the public library. I'm going to use the Expert-subject template. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I might hold off on all of this for now, this article could use expansion in more ways than just this. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Objectors

I must agree with Objectors.org. As a Army JROTC graduate myself i have followed my fellow collegues for the past couple of years. The majority of JROTC graduates hold themselves to higher standards then the general public. We are taught the 7 Army Values and whether a student graduates from the program or not...those Values become instilled within him. Now as for the facts JROTC graduates are not help to the same standard as other incoming first time soldiers. The beginning rank for any boot camp attendee is Pvt E-1. Now JROTC students also start of this way as customary however upon completion of boot camp training JROTC cadets may receive a promotion to the rank of Private First Class(E-3) or even Corporal(E-4) as opposed to the Private (E-2) that regular attendees recieve. The cirruculum taught in JROTC has been updated numerous times with the most recent one happening while i was a Junior in High School. Under no circumstances is there discrimination in this program. JROTC hired instructors are above and beyond the listed standards. My Senior Army Instructor was a highly decorated Colonel who took no nonense from anyway regardless of your race, color, ethnicity, etc. The program is fully 100% run by students, mostly upperclassmen in leadership positions. The instructors provided are for guidance and teaching purposes only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.205.229.15 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No body cares, talk pages are for discussing possible improvments to an article, not general discussion about the topic. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, considering the POV dispute, I there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, but I think it would be much better to keep the POV comments in one section instead of creating many. Also, I think it'd be great to get a straw poll started here. Also, I'd try to base any comments about that matter on Wikipedia AUP, not personal opinion based on personal experience with the subject. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A notable cadets section?

Many articles about schools, colleges, school activities, companies, and military branches have sections for notable alumni, veterans, or employees. Why doesn't this article have such a section? I'm guessing it's because no one has researched this matter. Does anyone have any suggestions on where to find such information, or would anyone like to add such information? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty Hawk Air Society

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Hawk Air Society, the article on the Kitty Hawk Air Society (an honors society of the AFJROTC) was redirected to this parent article. I've merged some of the content from that article into the section on "Instruction and activities." I'm not familiar with this topic but placed this material in the place that seemed most appropriate. I encourage the regular editors of this page to make adjustments to what I have added as they see fit. Presumably there are other honors societies for other branches of the JROTC, and rather than simply discussing the Kitty Hawk Air Society it would probably be better to mention and briefly discuss several honors societies in one paragraph. If you have any questions about any of this, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)