Talk:Australian Navy Cadets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Instructor Ranks

The rank structure of instructors are wrong in this article. They are

Cheif Petty Officer CPO Petty officer PO Unit surport volenteer USV

I am a cadet at the moment so if you would like to email we for conformation email me <e-mail redacted>

Could someone please change this or if you want i can

USV's are not considered as instructors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.164.211 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The ranks are now correct for staff. USVs have been moved to a seperate section called "Volunteers". This is the official rank structure in ABR5128. JakeR03. 17 March 2008.

[edit] Specialisations

If Anyone knows the abreviation for Naval Airman could they please write it in?

cheers, Jez 14 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Activities

Cadets do not take part in fire fighting activities

somebody please change this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.95.123 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

They do as part of their overall training syllabus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.95.180 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ISCA logo.gif

Image:ISCA logo.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

Someone using a username of ANC AsstDirInfoSystems edited this article, with a summary of "Removed criticisms as they are not appropriate for public release." Wikipedia is not censored. I am not saying that the removed material was appropriate, but the username seems to imply rather strongly that the editor in question has a conflict of interest here. The user has been blocked anyway, as the username was in violation of our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments posted in that section were rather unsubstantiated criticism. While the comment that Wikipedia is not censored are valid, I think that the material removed falls outside the scope of valid input as it is subjective criticism form an obvious member themselves and detracted from the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.31.187 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike I completely agree with your view.

The unsigned comment that the criticism "falls outside the scope of valid input as it is subjective criticism form an obvious member themselves and detracted from the article as a whole" is not appropriate. The page needs to have a balanced interpretation of the ANC, and as such a small criticisms section was created. The criticisms stated in that section were entirely appropriate, although they could have been expressed in a slightly more neutral tone. The comment that the criticisms came from a member is obvious and again appropriate to wikipedia, as only members have a suitable level of knowledge on the organisation to comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcj89 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have truncated the criticisms and neutralised them and placed them in the article. I believe that they should be in there, ANC management have no right to remove criticism from the article on them. Wikipedia is not censored.. The public has a right to know whether taxpayers money that is invested in cadets is living up to its expectations. Public-funded organisations need to be accountable, and deleting criticism on the organisation just because it makes it look bad is not being accountable to those that fund it. Furthermore, as for the "subjective criticism" argument, the authors have listed several specific incidences where it has occured. The members concerned have a right to voice specific concerns on the site. If a parent of a potential cadet wanted an independendant voice on the quality of ther cadets, they may look here, for an independent view, which at the moment has been turned into nothing more than a PR Guide. NPOV in the article please. 58.109.6.28 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that the attempt by the ANC to censor any criticism of the organisation has been thwarted. Such comment can only be made by those who have experienced the mismanagement from within, I stand by my earlier comments having been a staff member for ten years. Those ANC members who read my comments will probably be able to identify me because they are views that I have expressed publicly for some years. I am aware that the relevant responsible Rear Admiral within Defence is aware of these adverse comments but seems powerless or unwilling to fix the problems within the ANC.

I Agree with these viewpoints, i myself was a cadet for 6 & 1/2 years, and have moved to another city with a cadet unit. I was volunteering at the local unit, teaching their drum corps and instructing sailing, then ANC HQ introduced the rule that if you're going to help out at a unit, you need to do a psych test and background test, which i was up for. only thing is, the amount of miscommunication and frustration involved. i have to pay for the 6 hour car drive to to the test far away from my home, and pay for accomodation and food. they did offer to pay, but have since changed their mind and have declared that i now need to pay. the point of staff needing to undergo training to supervise water bourne activites is very true aswell, i currently hold Gisbs upto racing skills 1, advanced powerboat handling, safety boat handling and first aid certificate, but apparently that's not quite enough, you NOW need a rescue boat certification, which Yachting Australia itself does not offer. For an organisation that so badly needs volunteers, they are making it exceedingly hard to be one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.164.211 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RAN cadets crest.gif

Image:RAN cadets crest.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the ANC

I've started a History section on the ANC page. I'd like to see some addittional accurate (and referenced) historical information added. Does anybody have useful material they can put forward? Thanks. Jake R (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Due to increasing red tape some cadet units are unable to perform core activities. One such example of this is the regulation that Australian Navy Cadet vessels be towed with an Australian Defence Force vehicle, when being transported. This is affects units in country areas and other regions that experience difficulty obtaining access to a Defence vehicle. Without such a vehicle the cadets cannot perform waterborne activities.[citation needed]

In addition, some[who?] feel that the upper command echelons have lost touch with the primal concepts that draw young people to the cadets. The perceived need to "bubble wrap cadets" has meant a loss of the adventure that set cadets apart from other youth groups such as the scouts.

This may be a factor in the decreasing membership of Australian Navy Cadet Training Ships, with only 2000 cadets across Australia. This compares to an approximate combined total of 20,000 cadets in the other two services.[citation needed]

In NSW units, waterborne activities have been curtailed due to a lack of qualified staff to supervise these activities. Many ANC staff have little or no military experience and are frequently shown up for their lack of ability. This contrasts with the Australian Army Cadets with many of their staff being ex-Army or serving Army Reservists. The ANC in NSW some years ago enjoyed the services of many former RAN or Merchant Navy professional seaman as staff members; however, over time these members have become disaffected with the "professional cadet" element amongst some senior staff that is an emerging factor.[citation needed]

These statements need to be verified.

Unfortunately due to resources and practical limitations we cannot go about creating empirical evidence about these criticisms. However i dare you to ask any serving instructor below the rank of lieutenant to what state the ANC is in and they will return with positive affirmation of the criticisms removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcj89 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)