Talk:Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps

message: 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)
thread_title: Updates

message: Would it be ok if I put information about my unit(Army JROTC) here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.148.3 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: My unit?

message: 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)
thread_title:  patches 

message: 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)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Directors of JROTC 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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" , 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."  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Role and Purpose

message: 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 — Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 19 January 2007
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  pov 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: 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 — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 23 January 2007
:I don't see much reason to make more out of it than we already do.Terjen 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ROTC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: JROTC category

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, dandy. I switched the links out, I'm pretty sure that's your job...I Like Drill 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, we're all in this together. Terjen 05:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: 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 — Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 9 March 2007
: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. . The Army handles the programs practically almost as they are the same, see e.g. AR 145-2 Section 1-2. There has been substantial rivalry between the programs through the times. 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. However, currently (as of November 2006) there are only a handful of NDCC units left.. 
:I also propose creating a separate entry on the Middle School Cadet Corps. We should document how it is overseen by the JROTC program and other apects of the relationship.
:-- Terjen 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cadet Corps 

message: The following tables are compiled from the Department of Defense Budget Fiscal Year 2007.
Military Personnel (M-1):
OTHER MILITARYPERSONNEL COSTSFY2006FY2007
AJROTC page 228,24128,925
NJORTC page 613,09413,492
MJORTC page 95,2495,392
AFJROTC page 1218,37920,095
Total (page 16)64,96367,904
Operation and Maintenance (O-1):
RECRUITING AND OTHERTRAINING AND EDUCATIONFY2005FY2006FY2007
AJROTC page 22135,039138,544148,215
NJORTC page 2443,77242,32046,649
MJORTC page 2615,00816,70217,257
AFJROTC page 2950,03755,84660,380
Total243,856253,412272,501
</p>
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)
replies: text: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.223.78 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DoD Budget FY2007 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to improve the Instruction and activities section with more information on these topics! Terjen 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More everyday life

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: :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)
replies: text: Rationale added Sf46 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cguardjrotc.JPG

message: Here is the Army JROTC "Cadet Core Text" from 2003:
* Syllabus
* Cadet Reference
* Unit 1+2: Introduction to JROTC, & Leadership Theory and Application
* Unit 3 + 4: Foundations for Success & Wellness, Fitness, and First Aid
* Unit 5: Geography and Earth Science
* Unit 6: Citizenship and American History
* Unit 7: Air Rifle Safety and Marksmanship
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) 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curriculum 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Military recruitment data 

message: 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 received 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That sounds good. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NJROTC, AJROTC, AFJROTC, CGJROTC, and MJROTC 

message: 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 receive. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thank you Objectors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The article says (with a reference or link): 'The military has stated that JROTC will inform young Americans about the opportunities available in the military and "may help motivate young Americans toward military service."' Yet two organizations don't like this. It seems to me that this is akin to criticizing a Christian Church for "encouraging a belief in God!" I mean: "Huh?" Okay, they do, and it's here. Not really sure why, though. The criticism seems lame somehow. Documenting a group for doing its job doesn't seem like valid criticism somehow. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrimination

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Kitty Hawk Air Society]] 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act 2009 by Congressman Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), would "mandate the Secretary of Defense to increase JROTC units. Additionally, it enhances JROTC curriculum through the inclusion of contributions of and historiography of women and ethnic minorities and expands the pool of eligible JROTC instructors and administrators by including retirees who are Wounded Warriors. The legislation will also expand the JROTC program and instructs the Secretary of Defense to meet the long-term goal of maintaining 4,000 JROTC units by no later than 2020."
Terjen (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

message: Someone has added that Omaha Central had the earliest predecessor program. There is an on-line history purporting to support this claim which appears "good faith" at least.
The date 1892 precedes the popular Spanish American War, which it suspicious. The country had a relatively clear memory of the Civil War which left many adults unenthusiastic about fighting for a generation.
The program supposedly comes at a time when high schools were not playgrounds for adolescents so much as preparing a small number of very smart young adults for college. Period. The schools typically taught students familiarity with Greek and Latin, rhetoric, and the classics. The word "extra-curricula" hadn't yet been invented. Often the schools were not free. An entrance exam would most likely be required. Feeder schools were grades 1-6 grammar schools and plenty of tutoring on the side.
So it all seems questionable to me. What would be the point of a military science program in that kind of environment? How would that help a student get ahead? Having said that, the school might have evolved into a military-like "academy" for awhile "for the discipline." But that would be different from a one-class a day JROTC type program of later years. 
Also, BTW, the school's own Wikipedia site doesn't show this. Student7 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Omaha predecessor?

message: NOWHERE in the NJROTC website are the students referred to as midshipmen.  They are "cadets" in all programs. (See: https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/index.asp) Where does IP user get the info?--S. Rich 04:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadets v Midshipmen 

message: All of the photos are of NJROTC cadets, and the uniforms shown are not current. They no longer wear the black and white uniforms - they wear the black and tan, or the khakis, and are supposed to start wearing the gray digital camos soon. There should be something about what uniforms are currently authorized for JROTC in each service, and a photo example of each service group. This could help separate four sections for the four services represented by the JROTC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.23.26 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos and uniforms 

message: I belive that we should split AJROTC, USMCJROTC(?), AFJROTC and NJROTC. This article seems to lean toward AFJROTC and NJROTC (all the pictures of cadets are NJROTC). The JROTC article talks mostly about upper government descisions and JROTC general guidelines, not what individual units do. This article has a lot of infromation: we should make a JROTC portal, or create seperate pages. If anyone will help me, I will write all the NJROTC sections/pages (becuase im an NJROTC cadet)Trinjac (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to dismantling this article in favor of articles that haven't yet been written.  Write the new articles or at least draft something before again proposing a reasonably acceptable article be dramatically altered so we can make an informed decision.  Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with ElKevbo. We first need subsections in the articles explaining major differences in the programs. Each is obviously identified with their particular service, but they may not be run much differently as units. They can't be articles without having some content here first IMO. If they all duplicate one another, the first thing editors will urge is a "merge" of the articles. We are already there. Merged. Student7 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of JROTC Programs 

message: I would like to point out that Delaware Military Academy is by no means the "first" JROTC high school.  For starters, this school didn't even come into existence until 2003.  The very first high school to offer JROTC would be St. John's College in Washington D.C. since 1915, and I suggest the article be edited to reflect this correction.  Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.24.181.241 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delaware Military Academy 

message: Hi. I just added the AFJROTC officer rank badges. I will make graphics for all the other ranks (and other branches) and expand that section into a table of sorts. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not given up on this project. In looking at the time stamp at the above comment, I made that post about a hour before receiving news that my father had passed-away. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Gallery 

message: Why is this article: Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps ranks not part of this article? Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is article not part of this article? 

message: I would assume that most military prep schools are JROTC. Do we really want them all listed here? Someone has started...Student7 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, getting a complete list of all JROTC programs would probably be easy enough under a Freedom of Information Act request to the government... BUT... First of all, it would be a longer list than you might think. Secondly, the list would be constantly changing due to programs being shut down and new ones starting. All I will say is if there is a list, it shoudl be complete, but I am not interested in policing it. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding JROTC schools

message: Thank you for your contributions!  As a former JROTC cadet myself, I understand how your experience affects your desire and qualifications to edit this article.  That said, please keep the following in mind: 1) Your unit is not necessarily typical.  There may be traditions, activities, training, awards, problems, or other practices that were unique to the JROTC program at your school, or in your region, but that are duplicated nowhere else.  2) Please remember that Wikipedia requires that we keep a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.  This means that the article should be about the JROTC, without weighing in on any controversies.  3) As is always the case for Wikipedia, please cite your sources and sign your talk posts! Etamni (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to cadets (past and present and future) who wish to edit the article... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070629002624/https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/appcertproc.cfm to https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/appcertproc.cfm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riverheadnjrotc.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/cfm2010.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riverheadnjrotc.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/cfm2010.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070119124151/http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/militarism-in-schools/JROTC-review.htm to http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/militarism-in-schools/JROTC-review.htm#3
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080624213159/http://www.rotc.monroe.army.mil/jrotc/documents/Publications/CadetCoreTextbook4.pdf to http://www.rotc.monroe.army.mil/jrotc/documents/Publications/CadetCoreTextbook4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070119124151/http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/militarism-in-schools/JROTC-review.htm to http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/militarism-in-schools/JROTC-review.htm#3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208100945/https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotc/dt/2_History/history.html to https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotc/dt/2_History/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629002717/https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/basicfacts.cfm to https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/basicfacts.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607023745/http://hs.houstonisd.org/Furrhs/AJROTC/Chain_of_Command.html to http://hs.houstonisd.org/Furrhs/AJROTC/Chain_of_Command.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228180616/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_21_39/ai_99849547 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_21_39/ai_99849547
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617004410/http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r601_210.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R601_210.PDF
*Added  tag to http://southtampa2.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/09/st-memorial-display-to-honor-war-hero/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040626222502/http://webarchive.afsc.org/youthmil/jrotc/jrotcost.htm to http://webarchive.afsc.org/youthmil/jrotc/jrotcost.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610201912/http://www.militaryfreeschools.org/whoweare.htm to http://www.militaryfreeschools.org/whoweare.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419203444/http://www.militaryfreeschools.org/news.html to http://www.militaryfreeschools.org/news.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510173455/https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/hiringguid.cfm to https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/hiringguid.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The ROTC article title has Reserve Officer's Training Corps (note the location of the apostrophe), while this article has Junior Reserve OfHoficers' Training Corps. Could an English major please set this straight? Ramhorbronc (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: As a cadet in NJROTC, I noticed some inaccuracies in the list of NJROTC ribbons that I wish to address. For one, the image of the Color Guard Ribbon is inverted, and by regulation the blue stripe must be on the left. Secondly, two new ribbons have been added to regulation - The STEM Ribbon, which is between Color Guard and Marksmanship Team, and the C.E.R.T. (Community Emergency Response Team) Ribbon, which is after the Sea Cruise Ribbon. Visual resources for these two ribbons may be limited due to their youth, but I hope this information finds itself useful in the immediate future. Thank you.
2603:7080:613A:70C7:DA2:5874:582B:9E1A (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NJROTC Ribbon Inaccuracies