Talk:United States Air Force Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Air Force Academy article.
Article policies
Good article United States Air Force Academy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Old comments

...192.17 deleted some text from the page - wonder why; should it perhaps be reverted? Krupo 04:14, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Someone has removed the text again, calling it an "irrelevant rant." I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Embarassing to the academy? Most likely, but not a reason to just wipe out an entire section on a notable, if sad, part of the academy's history. Krupo 20:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Links to NYT's articles

The links to New York Times articles go to the article after you register for a free subscription. Another alternative is to comment the references out or put them in a references section, but they should not be removed. Fred Bauder 01:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is embarrassing to the academy, its reference should be smaller, or it should be its own article. The depth of the article in other areas are not proportionate to the reference to the rapes at the academy. Futuremore, the article could touch on some of the recent female academy graduates that are rhodes scholars. Instead, of just the rapes. What is this -- some sort of

Im sure you meant well, but I think this reference links are against Wiki policy since they link to an external site asking one to sign up for a service or product. Here is what I got when I hit the link on the references:
Welcome to The New York Times on the Web!
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
As a member, you'll enjoy:
• In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
• Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
• Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE
Please enter your Member ID:
Please enter your password:
Remember my Member ID and password on this computer.
Forgot your password?
It then followed with over a page of information about how to sign up for the New York Times. this is not good as a reference link. The material from the references needs to be either cited directly in the article or another link provided which takes one straight to the information mentioned in the article and not to the New York Times Sign-up Page. -Husnock 17Jan2005

I am not aware of any such policy; while I am very much aware of our difficulties with citing sources for our information. Yes, that is what you get if you have no account, but for those who do it simply leads to the article. I will comment out the references for a while while you try to back up your claim there is a policy which forbids references to New York Times articles. At the end of a week I will put them back in if you can't back up your claim. Fred Bauder 12:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't do exactly what I said I would do. And what I did is not necessarily in line with Wikipedia policy which is in the process of development at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and codified (to the extent it is) at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Fred Bauder 14:31, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked some administrators to give a clear definition, but I think the geenral rule is that one cannot put a link in a Wiki article that links to an external site asking one to sign up for a service or product. While I have not seen that in cold black and white, I have seen a lot of people make big deals over product links in other articles. What you did with the footnotes looks really good, though. Thanks. -Husnock

As you can imagine, I read the Times and often use material in their articles in articles. They do charge for the full text of older articles, but the Times is one of the more valuable resources. It is different from a link to a site that sells cars or cheese. Fred Bauder 12:32, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Women at the Academy 47% of the Body of this Article describes rapes at the Academy

This Article is way too disproportionate and consequently not neutral. The Article is supposed to describe the Academy however it centers on Women at the Academy, and more specifically the recent rapes that have occurred that the academy. While I believe it is pertinent for this encyclopedia to touch this topic, I believe that this reference should be its own article, or it should be a smaller more proportionate reference The United States Air Force Academy has been an institution for half a century and has produced world class officers. This article should either go more into the academy in general. Or the Women at the Academy Should be a separate article. I’m going to make changes. Hope you agree. Scott

For most the rape situation is probably more important than academics or football, but feel free to expand the information included in the article, add some pictures, lists of graduates, etc. That will reduce the percentage of the article devoted to rape. Fred Bauder 18:43, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rape may be more important if this was a news article, but it's supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia article, people often forget that. Scott

I agree the section on women at the academy can be improved. Perhaps some dates regarding when the events occured, more detail about measures the Air Force (and the military, in general) have taken, and some information about the current situation. Fred Bauder 00:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper -- facts about the academy should be prevalent This article is anti-USAFA for the rapes that have occured there -- Neutrality

[edit] Someone needs to rewrite

Not being a graduate of the AFA, I take an unbiased interest in the issues outstanding herein, but I think that this particular article is not as well-written or informative as the articles on the USNA and USMA. I think those of you who are AFA grads or have a similar level interest ought to rewrite the whole article to make it much more informative. Yes, the rape scandal at the AFA needs mentioning, but from my POV it appears that an inordinate portion of the article is devoted to the "scandal." I would probably point out that ANY university or college in the US has a similar or greater level of rapes. However, as a former Naval officer, I would have to say that there should be a greater standard to which the AFA should be held, and that's why the article should take some level of mention within the article.

Again, I think this particular article is well below the standard I've seen written with regards to other military articles within Wikipedia. I would suggest someone who can write a detailed history, culture, and organization of the USAFA would be infinitely more interesting. I don't think a "vendetta" against the USAFA, in which I feel the author of the rape article is engaging, is very productive. Again, there should be a mention, but it's a part of the history.

And if the author insists on writing it, maybe he or she should take the time to write a section about sexual crimes within each listing of every University and College.

And for those of you who are excessively defensive about these occurrences, you need to realize it is a part of the recent history of the AFA. However, the article is so poorly written, lacking in so much detail, that the story takes on prominence because it's such a big percentage of the words written.

I think there is probably just a lack of interest by Air Force Academy graduates in writing on Wikipedia. This article should clear up when a few come here and edit this article. I have no idea how rapes at the Air Force Academy compare with say, Columbia, but whatever happens at Columbia does not seem to make it into the papers. A new dispensation has been promulated recently for the entire military with respect to this matter which seems to take reports of rape more seriously; certainly that could be included.Fred Bauder 23:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

It turns out that Columbia University provides a sharp contrast, and definitely DOES make it into the papers, see [1], [2] and [3] Fred Bauder 13:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if a USAFA graduate is not willing to re-write this article, then why are they complaining? The USNA article is particularly informative, but then again most of us Navy guys haven't been in the thin air so much to negatively effect brain function.

The problem seems to be military wide see recent 60 minutes segment. Fred Bauder 00:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

A recent law incorporated in NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 addresses this matter, see ACTIONS TO ADDRESS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE AT THE SERVICE ACADEMIES Fred Bauder 00:43, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I reorganized this a bit to make the blurb read a bit less like a promptional pamphlet. Please revert if you hate it - 129.94.6.30

I tried to make the contextula statement about other institutions less clumsy - as it was I read it as "USAFA cadets commit lots of rape, but that's ok becuase everyone else does too". It's importnat to be clear that "that's ok" is rejected. 203.206.250.91 01:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This whole section needed help, so I took a stab at reorganization and expansion. I am a grad, but from a while ago, so some more recent folks need to step up and fill in the gaps to reflect current happenings. --Tarfu92 19:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a HUGE thing, but the section on how Cadet Squadrons are organized is a bit hard to read. Anyone?

[edit] Factual Accuracy?

Is the factual accuracy still disputed? If no-one complains I'll remove the notice. 203.173.50.199 14:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now deleted 203.206.246.236 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal

I am going to add additional material regarding this topic to the article based on the article at http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3652603,00.html and create a new article Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal. This will permit some summarizing of the material in this article and more detail in the new article. I am sorry that this subject has taken such a prominant role in the article. It was simply in all of the local Colorado papers and the New York Times and I wrote about what I was aware of. Other than this my only contact with the Air Force Academy was to attend the Special Olympics there with my brother which was a pleasant experience characterized by friendly interactions with cadets. Fred Bauder 15:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

there is no need to have this detail in the main article and in the Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal. It is clearly linked at the beginning of this section, so it is not a cover-up.
Yet somehow it keeps being covered up Fred Bauder 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Graduates

The notable grads and non-grads need to stay as part of this article. The reason being that the separate articles do not meet the criteria for being articles, as they are nothing more than lists. Please merge them back in. 204.113.19.8 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no major issue with the list being in one place or the other, however, lists are included among the articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)). (Although to be fair, the separate list of USAFA grads does not currently start with "List of..." as recommended in the list article). However, nearly every major university has a separate list of alumni (sometimes combined with faculty lists), presumably becuase as the list gets longer, the original article becomes terribly unwieldy. See, e.g., List of Harvard University people; List of Columbia University people; List of Stanford University people; List of famous United States Naval Academy alumni. Think of what it would look like if Notable graduates of West Point had to be jammed into the main West Point article. Tarfu92 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there have been no other comments on this issue (and no rebuttal to my comments), I am removing the merge tags from this and the Notable graduates of the United States Air Force Academy article. Tarfu92 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CU Boulder rivalry

did AF used to play CU Boulder at athletic events in the 60s?

-Does now. The AFA v CU football game is usually toward the end of each season and is a pretty wild game, due to the rivalry. I don't know when they started playing, though, but it's been more than a couple decades I imagine.
CU and AFA football teams haven't played in quite awhile. Basketball teams may play each other, I don't know. --MECU≈talk 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
First played in 1958, W 20-14 at CU, (College Football Data Warehouse) and every year through 74 except for 69. Don't think they've played each other in football since 74. brucemcdon 18:59, 1 February 2008

[edit] "Colorado Springs"

I'm starting a section on this, since we've gone back and forth now a few times on the issue of how frequently USAFA is referred to as "Colorado Springs". I agree that it is very infrequently, but I have heard it referred to as such--usually by people listing the three academies as "West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs." So in my estimation "never" is a less apt modifier than "rarely". Thoughts? Tarfu92 13:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. "Never" is usually too strong a word in encyclopedia articles anyway. =) Powers 15:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has ever referred to the Academy as Colorado Springs they were mistaken. The Academy isn't EVEN in Colorado Springs. Never is exactly what is needed. I realize that "rarely" is more friendly and such. But the truth is, the Academy is never ever correctly referred to as Colorado Springs. You may say, "well, it may not be officially referred to as colorado springs but certainly, if some people say it is colorado springs than we MUST use rarely" To that I say that some people say that the Academy's mascot is the thunderbird... but they are wrong... so it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise, referring to the Academy as Colorado Springs is WRONG... therefore never is CORRECT. If you feel as though there MUST be something about the Colorado Springs referral of the Academy say, "Referring to the Academy as Colorado Springs is incorrect"
That's as maybe, but if ANYONE refers to it as Colorado Springs, then it's not never, is it? HawkerTyphoon 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hawker, I believe I anticipated your argument and refuted it in my above statement. You will realize that just because some does something incorrectly does not make it an exception to the rule. SOME PEOPLE get the year of independence mixed up. That doesn't mean that in that article the date should be, most often 1776 but some people say it was 1778, Because those people are wrong. When people are referring to the Academy as Colorado Springs they are doing it as an error and in ignorance of their mistake.
There's a pretty significant difference between a mistake of fact, like your 1776/78 example, and something that is mere custom, like not calling USAFA "Colorado Springs". That said, all it takes one quick Google search to find 131 hits for "West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs". Granted, some of those hits reference the text "the Academies at West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs", but there are some that use "Colorado Springs" as the name of the Academy. A few examples:
  • Here's one reference by a UCSB professor: "If the Michigan policies are outlawed, it is highly probable that the aggressive affirmative action programs in place at West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs would also be prohibited."
  • ...but if that's too liberal for you, here's one in an American Spectator Article: "Look, you poor slobs with commissions coming out of West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs, you desperately need the guidance of Yale's Band of Brothers"
  • Or try the "Book description" at this Amazon.com entry: "...young men and women who are training for both the sports field and the battlefield while studying at America’s three famed military academies – West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs."
Granted, no self-respecting cadet or grad would refer to the place as "Colorado Springs" (and, to the anonymous poster below who would require attendance at USAFA as a prerequisite for editing this article, I will add that I know of what I speak), but that doesn't make it "wrong" for everyone, as evidenced above. In my opinion, using "never" is incorrect. Tarfu92 15:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research. =) Powers 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hawker or whatever your name is...even though I don't even know why I am really that concerned about this website and this article in particular, I felt compelled to edit this talk to inform you that you are wrong. Perhaps if you actually attended the Air Force Academy (note how I did not refer to it as Colorado Springs because I am a well-informed citizen), you might have a clue as to what you are indeed talking about. I think the previous editor would be in agreement with me if I was to point out that the word "never" in fact provides FAR more information than the agreeably wishy-washy terms "usually" and "rarely", the latter to which you seem to be sentimentally attached. Just because a person refers to something in error, it does not justify making that error an exception to any rule. I think you'd agree that if that was the case, then it would be difficult to arrive at ANY definition on this whole website, no? If you disagree, you are wrong. So how about you leave the editing of the Colorado Springs-I mean the Air Force Academy-page to those who attend it, or at least to those who actually know a thing or two about it? Go get some sleep, honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.139.168 (talk • contribs)

All right, here's the upshot. In order for the article to say that the Air Force Academy is "never" referred to as just "Colorado Springs" (as in "He graduated at the top of his class at Colorado Springs") we absolutely need a secondary source that reports that fact. Otherwise, we have to say "rarely" because it's reasonable to assume it's been done (by analogy with West Point and Annapolis). That those who do so are "wrong" (although I don't see how it's any more wrong than West Point and Annapolis) is irrelevant. Powers 12:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "almost never" would be more acceptable? Powers 12:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Heinlein called it Colorado Springs in Starship Troopers, as I recall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heinous (talk • contribs) .
I agree that it is never correctly referred to as Colorado Springs. If you were to just refer to it as Colorado Springs all by itself no one would know what you are talking about, unlike West Point or Annapolis. Besides, in the 4 years I was there I never heard anybody refer to it that way. 2006 Graduate USAFA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.251.91.152 (talk • contribs) .
Again, whether it is correct or not is irrelevant. Unless you have a source that indicates it is literally "never" done, we have to say "rarely" or "almost never". Powers 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
After the most recent attempt to change it to "never" I changed it to "not normally". I think this adequately acknowledges that the standard practice is not to call it "Colorado Springs", but recognizes that some folks occasionally do. - Tarfu92 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may throw my two cents in on the discussion, it is common in slang terminology to refer to nearby cities when refering to specific institutions (such as military installations and schools). "They are producing some pretty good football players in College Station" might refer to the high school in the city or Texas A&M University (Hey, if I have to use an example, might as well use one that promotes MY school :-) ). Heck it might even be a city program designed to produce players, I don't know, It's slang, nothing more. No one is refering to the Air Force Academy directly, but refering to the region, albeit a small one. While the slang is technically inappropriate for all three service academies (all of these institutions have their own separate zip code(s) from the surrounding areas. No matter how inappropriate, it is simply slang, and IMHO, should be included as a footnote.BQZip01 09:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
OK...after reworking the lede to make it more of an overview of the article, I dropped "not normally referred to as Colorado Springs" to a footnote. Hopefully no one has too much heartburn with that. - Tarfu92 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent move of "Controversy" section

I'm a little torn on the recent move of "Controversies" to its own section. How much "controversy" to include--and how disproportionate it becomes in relation to the full article--has been an issue here for some time. Part of the problem is that, for a while, every little item of information on the sexual assault scandal was added to this article, and it quickly became massively disproportionate to the full article. That was eventually pared down to about a paragraph (over at least some protest that it was all being "covered up"), but left in as a relevant point of USAFA history. The various additions and inclusion of other scandals appear to have started the section toward disproportionate again, given the fact that it is now nearly as long as the rest of the history section.

My concern is this: I see where moving it down may put it into a different perspective, but as a top-level section, it's also arguable that its importance has been raised (now on par with academics, admissions, the Honor Code, etc. My first reaction, is to try again to streamline the controversy section and work it back into the history section, but I'm open to other ideas. I certainly don't have the perfect answer, but I thought I'd throw it out for discussion. - Tarfu92 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the controversy section as a "top-level", since it could not possibly be an article without this, and putting it under "history" isn't appropriate. I also don't think it's overtly long. I think it highlights the important controversies (the religious one being the weakest), and it's nowhere near as long as the entire history section which has 3 sub-sections. I guess I don't really see a problem here, other than the links needing to be turned into refs. --MECU≈talk 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah--I could really go either way. The honor and sexual assault issues definitely need to be kept, given their importance and notability. I think the religious one should probably stay because it's relatively recent, notable, and we don't know how it will all play out. A couple years from now it can probably be put into better perspective. With regard to the length, I don't think it's overly long either, but I would say it's comparable to the history section, since most of those sub-sections (other than the "women" section) are two short paragraphs. - Tarfu92 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and for sincere wrestling with the issue. It's important that we never sweep it under the proverbial rug. But it's also important that it not become a negative hallmark of a place most of us think is pretty great, despite imperfections. I'm thinking of how the Denver Post seems to look under rocks with microscopes to try to find "bad stuff" they can report about AFA. And once they find something, whether it's the acorn that hit Chicken Little or a meteor strike in the center of the Terrazo, it's made into BIG news--deservedly or not. I don't know how AFA got on their bad side to begin with, but it seems to me they've made a career of being our alter ego determined to have regular exposés of something.
This Wiki article is very upbeat and positive, except for the scandals. It doesn't beat the drum, but it is a really nice synthesis of impressions, memories, and history that we can pass on to kids and parents thinking about trying to come here, to our own kids and grandkids, to legislators to whom the Academy has always, since Day 1, had to make a career of justifying our continued existence, and even to present cadets.
So somewhere between the sweep-under-the-rug and make-it-headlines approaches hopefully lies a reasonable--even if it can't be a "happy"--medium. As we now have it, we tell the Academy story, describe its natural beauty, its societies, academic, athletics, military training, etc., and then we tell very honestly it's not a perfect place. Like the other academies, we, too, have had our moments of disgrace and shame, but we always do our corporate best to "fix" our problems by bettering the system, even though there are never any guarantees. USNA and USMA have had major movies made out of some of their "stuff." So far, that hasn't happened to USAFA. I pray it won't.
'Keep those cards and letters coming'...your feedback is most valuable! 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)User:Afaprof01
Hi again. I'm not sure what your rant about your feeling how how the Denver Post covers the AFA is relevant to this article or how we cover it. I'm gonna take a guess and say you're new to Wikipedia. First, you should create an account (but it's not required) and second, you shouldn't list yourself as User:AFAProf01 when that account doesn't exist. Also, using "AFAProf" and editing the USAFA article leads me to believe that you're in a conflict of interest with this article. You shouldn't generally edit articles which you are tied to in some manner, as it is hard for you to keep a neutral point of view (see your comments about the DP for starters). Lastly, you should look at the featured articles guidelines, which all articles aspire to be one day. Specifically, negative info about the article's subject should be covered for completeness. Sure, as an AFAProf you want to ignore such negative things as it's not nice to see your school get "bas press," but it's true, factual and can be verified, so failure to include this information wouldn't tell someone the full picture of the USAFA, would it? So please, you are welcome here, and your knowledge of the AFA/military can be put to good use on other articles for which you are knowledgeable about. Of course you're welcome to edit any article other than military/USAF articles too. If you do plan to stick around, I strongly recommend signing up for an account. --MECU≈talk 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
One quick comment--I disagree with your point about not editing articles to which an editor has a tie to. Often, people with ties to the article have the best access to knowledge about the topic and the motivation to compile information about a topic that they care about. I've put together a fairly large portion of this article, and I also have a fairly significant connection to the Academy. Before I did a major overhaul, most of the article was a conglomeration of the sexual assault issue, all of it edited by "disinterested" people. There was nothing in the article about the history, academics, or anything else relevant to life, education or culture at the academy other than reported sexual assaults. Since then, a few other "interested" editors I know about have also contributed to a fairly comprehensive and mostly NPOV article. Granted, anyone with a close connection to the topic needs to be prepared to be called out if they stray too far from objectivity/NPOV, but they still can make extremely valuable contributions that may not be available from disinterested parties. Just my 2¢. - Tarfu92 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. It's not that one shouldn't edit articles they are related to in some way, it's they you should be aware of how your involvement affects your writing and perspective, and that it may not meet the NPOV policy. I think I was a little strong in my statements above. But certainly, editing an article you are involved in can lead you to make subtle, even subconscious changes or wordings that others would interpret as biased. --MECU≈talk 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah hah! You are User:Afaprof01. But the rest of my comments still apply. --MECU≈talk 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Honor Code

Will whoever made the change to the Honor Code section cite a reference? I've never heard that the Honor Code had changed. That's not to say it's not correct--I'm just curious. Thanks. - Tarfu92 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question. According to [[4]], "Air Force Cadet Wing Honor Code Reference Handbook," August 2003, p. 9, the sequence was:
  • Original, 1956: "WE WILL NOT LIE, CHEAT, OR STEAL, OR TOLERATE AMONG US THOSE WHO DO."
  • c. 1960-61: "WE WILL NOT LIE, STEAL, OR CHEAT, NOR TOLERATE AMONG US ANYONE WHO DOES."
  • December 1984: The Cadet Wing voted to add the following statement to the Code, "FURTHERMORE, I RESOLVE TO DO MY DUTY AND TO LIVE HONORABLY, SO HELP ME GOD." The Code, with this additional language added, is the Honor Oath.
I'll add that reference to the article. In 87-92, was it called Oath or Code? And when it was quoted, generally would the "Furthermore" clause be included? (I left in 85.) Afaprof01 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I must not have read my Honor Code Handbook closely enough. As I knew them, the Oath and Code were two separate things. The Honor Oath (The Code + "Furthermore...") was taken by all 4ºs at Acceptance, at the point where they were bound by the Code, and that's pretty much the last anyone dealt with that during their cadet career. The Code was the Code. - Tarfu92 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For some time now I have been meaning to look for my 1967 copy of the Cadet Honor Code Handbook. I did the artwork on the cover and I'm still proud of that. (Oh, the topic, sorry...) I wanted to confirm my recollection that what we learned was "We will not lie, cheat... do" rather than "... lie, steal... does." I have also heard some of my classmates grumbling at reunions about the change in wording when they saw the later form in big aluminum letters overlooking the terrazzo. Well, I found the book. I was astonished to see that the newer wording was used by our class of 67 (written in 66) to teach the 70's. I still had the feeling, though, that the earlier wording was in use when we started in 1963, since it is so definitely ingrained in my mind in that form. I found my 1963-64 Contrails, and there it was: "We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us those who do." An intermediate form, but closer to the original. Or at least imprecise editing by somebody back then before copy & paste was what it is now. The 2003 handbook referenced above and in the article says the change was made "Around the 1960-61 timeframe," which is a little vague and written 40+ years later. A definite reference would be to see something from those years (60 to sometime before 67) where the change was documented or at least can be shown to be different from one year to the next. Maybe someone can provide that. brucemcdon 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there are at least a couple more versions floating around. This admissions pamphlet from circa 1963 cites the Honor Code as "We will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate among us one who does." and a grad from one of the early classes has said that the Code appeared in his Contrails as "We will not lie, steal, or cheat; nor will we allow among us those who do." Now, these differences are certainly minor, and I know at least a couple of older grads who, when shown these differences, have commented that the intent is clear enough that one needn't be hyper-technical about it. Still, it seems to me that the Code is such a cornerstone to the Academy experience that there should be some history or documentation behind the changes, even if minor. - Tarfu92 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good input! That's four documented variations prior to the current one. There is also the or/nor before the word tolerate, (I think we said nor). I agree the intent is the same in all of them, and any differences in meaning are so slight as to approach imaginary. Bringing it up at all is an exercise in precision for its own sake. The one quoted by the older grad you mentioned would appear to be transitional, before the 1966 version which is the same as today. If it was later, then that would go toward showing a pattern of imprecise editing and proofing, or at least a lot more leeway on picky details than is typical of modern computerized bureaucracies. brucemcdon 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First women cadets

Quote from the article:

"Since there were no female upper class cadets, the Air Training Officer model was revived, and fifteen young female officers were brought in to help with the integration process."

If these were the first female cadets, where did the female officers come from? I surmise the Army or Navy? jnestorius(talk) 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There were female officers in the Air Force (as well as the other services) for many, many years before there were women at the Academy. ROTC and Air Force Officer Training School were open to women for many years. OTS had 11 women in its first (1959) class and AFROTC had women as early as 1956. And West Point and Annapolis also didn't open to women until about the same time as the AFA. But those services had women officers before WWII. --rogerd 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I assumed all cadets started at Westpoint/Annapolis/ColSprings. I've just found the link to United States Service academies in the infobox; that was somewhat enlightening, but not very. Perhaps Category:Military education and training in the United States needs an overview article for ignoramuses like me. jnestorius(talk) 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is some info about how one becomes an officer in the US armed forces in Officer (armed forces), but I don't think it is very good. I will put it on my to-do list to expand it. --rogerd 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I'm going to pass this as a GA... but it needs a lot of work before moving to A or FA. Namely the list of locations is too long and turns the article a little dry. And I'd move it to the end of the article... eliminate the list of majors!!! but other than that its clearly a GA.

[edit] Cadet Survival Training

I've heard rumors that CST is coming back at the Academy. As soon as this is verified/reported somewhere it needs to be added!


CST is returing for the Class of 2011. Verified by Cadets.

[edit] GA comment

For the article to maintain its GA status, the copyrighted images need detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than possibly the Falcon logo, what else is copyrighted? It looks like the rest of the images were taken off of the USAFA website (as products of the U.S. government), are military insignia (like the USAFA crest) or were taken directly by individuals, who allowed them to be posted on Wikipedia. Granted, some of the ones from usafa.af.mil need more specific web links, but I'm not sure that anything but the Falcon logo is copyrighted. Am I missing something? - Tarfu92 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I must have misread one of them, so the only image that needs to have a FUR is Image:Air Force Falcons.gif. As long as a FUR is added for it, the article should be fine. --Nehrams2020 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. I reduced the size as well. MECU≈talk 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honor scandals

Anonymous editor several times has put "**This information is not correct" or words to that effect at the beginning of the section. If anonymous editor wishes to provide more accurate information, together with credible citations, that editor should do so. The "not correct" message does not meet any Wiki standard, and will continue to be removed. Afaprof01 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third class cadets

This is an extremely minor point of discussion, but I'm curious about Afaprof01's change of the third class cadet description to that of "more entry-level enlisted grades". My sense was always that third classmen were acting as junior NCO-equivalents. Basic cadets were the Airman Basic-equivalents, with fourth class cadets as your one- and two-stripe (i.e. entry level enlisted) equivalents. For a while the ranked third class cadets (ground-clouds-chevron) were actually "Cadet/Staff Sergeants" and served as "clerks" to the second-class cadet NCOs (they were later changed to "Cadet/Senior Airman" for a while, presumably to align with SrA's taking on more NCO-like roles in the regular AF), but I don't know what the status is now. Anyway, I'm not disputing the change--just curious to know more. - Tarfu92 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarfu92, for bringing this up. I'd appreciate it if you would please make the necessary changes according to your recollection, which on reflection I now believe is still the way things are....Afaprof01 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Alliance - LGBT Alumni of the US Air Force Academy (external link)

PLEASE stop forcing this issue in this article with the external link (which currently is a dead link). Advertising LGBT alumni group is offensive to most who support USAFA, and even protect us from losses of certain funding and privileged. There are, and always have been, people in powerful places who would like to see the Academy sink without a trace for not very good reasons. Raising this "flag" invites criticism, rejection, and hurts AFA's reputation. Surely lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals who are USAFA alumni have better ways to promote their agenda than to tarnish this article. The general public is well aware of the military's policy concerning gays in the military. So long as that's the official policy, it does USAFA no good to advertise in this article that alumni have LGBT among their number. THANK YOU! Afaprof01 18:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

GLBT individuals have and continue to serve their country with honor in all branches of the US military. Hiding behind a hateful, demeaning policy does not wipe away this truth. GLBT individuals are in important part of the history and existence of the US Air Force and the US Air Force Academy. It is demeaning to the Academy and to truth itself to suggest otherwise. Truth is what Wikipedia is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.81.201 (talk • contribs)
My two cents--I don't think the issue with the link is either "truth" or "tarnishing the Academy". The truth is, of course, that there were and still are gay and lesbian cadets and grads, regardless of DADT. Heck, one of the more well-known USAFA grads (in popular culture, anyway) is Reichen Lehmkuhl, who is quite openly gay. My opinion, however, is that the link should not be included for a different reason. Put simply, it is not appropriate to include a link to every website that has anything to do with USAFA. If I remember correctly, a few months ago, the list got fairly large, and we pared the list down to the five or six main USAFA links that are on there now--the point being to keep the links focused on the main points of the article. If we added the Blue Alliance link, why not link to every class website, and every USAFA club website, and every AOG chapter? Because it would just get to be too much. - Tarfu92 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If there has been significant coverage of this group then there should be an article about it and some sort of link from this article to it. But to use this article as a soapbox for or against this group, homosexuality, DODT, or anything else is inappropriate. It's not that we don't think the issue is important - this is simply not the appropriate place for it. --ElKevbo 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Concur with ElKevbo, but a non-existent website certainly shouldn't be listed as a reference or a "see other", regardless of offensiveness or agreeability. Given that this club exists only in a virtual location and has no verifiable membership associated with the Academy, it kinda makes it hard to include this site to ANY article. — BQZip01 — talk 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the objective evals, Tarfu92, ElKevbo, and BQZip01. You each have brought up excellent points far more objective than mine. We also have grads that have gone to prison, been court-martialed, and received other notarieties. All of us know that AFA is in no way a perfect place, and none of us who has been there are perfect people. Normally we don't expect to have our name in lights unless we have distinguished ourselves in some highly honorable way – in the tradition of the service academies – that sets apart from the crowd. I hope for the future of this article that "distinguished" will have that kind of meaning with respect to grads. (Guess I'm more old-fashioned, conservative, and have greater respect for the place than I thought. But then my peer group was '59.) My sincere thanks to each of you again! Afaprof01 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarfu92 has made the most balanced of the arguments here and successfully diffusesd some of the personal attacks offered by afaprof01: "raising this...hurts USAFA's reputation", "LGBT group is offensive..", "it does USAFA no good.....that alumni have LGBT among their number". For now, I will demur on the link. But as I consider the development of USAFA, I find that coping with diversity continues to be a substantial and recurring issue for the institution, worthy of significant exploration in an article such as this. In that light wouldn't it be appropriate for a section of alumni diversity links: AcademyWomen www.academywomen.org, Way of Life http://www.usafablackgrads.com/, Blue Alliance (Admittedly with a more robust citation).... etc.

I concur that the exploration of diversity might make for an interesting article, but probably only in summary in this article and the expansion into a separate article. My major problem is that the website contains nothing whatsoever, only a "this site is under construction" notice. In Wikipedia, a link like this is useless. I'm not saying it won't have its place some day, but as it is, a link to it is worthless. — BQZip01 — talk 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AFA Alumni

Does anyone know if the President of the AFA Alumni Association has inputed any information in this article? - Falcofire (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't be sure, I would guess not. There are, however, a number of us Zoomies who regularly contribute to this and related articles. Why do you ask? - Tarfu92 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LCWB

To whomever posted the "LCWB" info: Do you have a cite for the concept that the command structure didn't learn about the acronym until after graduation? I'm skeptical of its accuracy in that (1) the idea that no one in the administration would catch on for four years is a little far-fetched; (2) it is fairly well known (unless I'm massively misinformed) that '79 tried to put "LCWB" on their crest and rings, but the PTB caught on to it and nixed the plan, which would have happened late 3º or 2º year; and (3) same for the class print, which would have been firstie year. Don't get me wrong; I don't think it's inappropriate to discuss resistance from the last few all-male classes as relevant to the transition to a co-educational institution, but I do want to be accurate. - Tarfu92 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I streamlined the LCWB reference a little bit, and kept the references, but took out the parts that don't jibe with what I understand to be what happened and that weren't refrenced in the citations (e.g., true meaning of LCWB not discovered until after graduation). - Tarfu92 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the cover motto: Loyalty, etc.? The link I used originally has been taken down. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet - I was just a little wary about getting into too much detail about what's more a bit of Academy lore--leaving the focus instead on the concept of the resentment of some of the last all-male classes. Also, to Rockout9, who just added the last change about rings - where is LCWB engraved here? My understanding of the story is that it was originally on the big, blank chevron on the bottom, with the "Loyalty, Courage, Wisdom, Bravery" cover story--until the higher-ups found out the real meaning and made them remove it. I also understand that '79 was prohibited from getting "LCWB" engraved on the inside of their rings, although many apparently did so anyway, outside of the official ring ordering process, or after graduation. - Tarfu92 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Hockey

I reverted mention of the 2008 Hockey making it to the NCAA tournament. I feel that the first year is more notable. If this isn't the consensus, bring back the 2008 mention, but include a news reference. And use some kind of spell check... ;^) Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended split for "Athletics" section

I partially agree with the split. Moving the intercollegiate programs to Air Force Falcons would bring it into line with the other college athletic programs. My main concern is that the discussion of the athletic "pillar" of the Academy program needs to stay in this article, especially with regard to the non-intercollegiate athletic requirements for all cadets (physical fitness test, PE program, intramurals, etc.). - Tarfu92 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I started a stub at Air Force Falcons. Anyone who wants to add, go to it. - Tarfu92 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)