Talk:Military academy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Staff colleges[edit]

What about higher level institutes such as the Canadian Forces College (http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/home_e.html ) that train staff and senior officers? GreatWhiteNortherner 03:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that those would really count as military academies as they are for training already serving officers. Maybe another page for service schools? Or maybe just list them on the page for the relevent service (Canadian Forces in this case). Cjrother 02:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I started a stub page US military staff colleges.

Schools?[edit]

If my kids keep misbehaving, I will be sending them to military school. Scott Gall 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC) PS: And I don't think they're going to like it.[reply]

"they are more appropriately called service academies, since the term "military" is usually reserved for the army." this is wrong, surely? Red7 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? It's entirely correct. In the UK, "military" is rarely used to refer to any service except the Army. -- Necrothesp 13:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Semms to be rather shallow thinking to equate the term "military" with only the ground pounders of the army. Over yonder 'cross the holler where I'm from the term "military" never meant just the army.If we wanted to reference the army only we said "army." Every single conversation I have had over the decades within the USA never did I even once hear the word "military" used to designate the one branch of the armed forces known as the "Army."68.13.60.210 (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresian Military Academy[edit]

I think the Theresian Military Academy of Austria should be featured in this article as it is, in fact, the world's oldest military academy.

Citadel category[edit]

Citadel folks need to understand that the school is half military and half civilian. They don't fall into the same category as the Academies or VMI, and they need to stop falsely editing these pages to promote the false information. Catch a clue and stop stretching the truth...75.70.247.207 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't edit the truth. The college of Graduate and professional studies has civilians, but the undergraduate program is a military one. I don't see how someone could make that mistake unless they were, say, from a rival school who liked to spread rumors.155.225.107.38 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong answer there sport. There are undergraduates from the citadel who are never cadets. You've got cheezy night programs/day programs and yes, there are enlisted personnel who graduate and are never cadets..I think they get apartments downtown! You guys are a bunch of try-hards! Again, stick to the facts, and remember the truth will set you free...!75.70.247.207 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have undergrads who were never cadets. No night programs or anything like that for undergrads. All of the undergrads have to go to parade have to live in barraks. The only undergrads who do not do the military system are in the actual military. I know you are just trying to make up for your half a fourthclass system. So you feel the need to pick on a school with a much better and year long system.

Hey, I'm VMI and I edited in your favor citadel --Estrill5766 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where there is some confusion, per the Citadel website:
" All students at The Citadel are cadets in the  South Carolina Corps of Cadets"

and then on the same page 

" The Citadel’s evening college serves the Lowcountry by offering nationally accredited bachelors,
masters and specialist degrees scheduled around the student’s profession, family and lifestyle. "
However to list the Citadel with VT and Texas A&M is ridiculous! No one going to night class at the Citadel would say they went to school at the Citadel without making it very clear that they where talking about the night program. It is "The Military College of South Carolina", if they offer night classes as a service to the community, all the better. The school shouldn't be derided and be accused of being less "military" because of it.

Lets also remember to remain civil and talk pages are easier to read if we sign our posts. -Jirt 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jirt, you are mistaken in this case. I've met people from the citadel who wear rings, etc. and were never cadets, and they don't make it clear, just like the cadet corps graduates do not like to admit that their school has a civilian program. You can't do both and not admit to it. To be sure, comparing the citadel to A&M and VT is NOT ridiculous because they are similar with the civilian programs. One big difference...A&M and VT have actually graduated Rhodes Scholars and Congressional Medal of Honor recipients (the citadel has ZERO). When you have civilians graduating from your school with either undergrad or grad degrees you cannot say the school is all-military. To do so would be lying... which is exactly the case here.Koonoonga 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medals of Honor and Rhodes Scholars have nothing to with the topic other than reveal your bias and attempts to deride the Citadel. Whatever your situation is it must bring you in contact with ALOT of citadel grads, because I can say I've met dozens and have never come across the situation you mention. Taken with the tone of your response it sounds pretty dubious just to say "I've met people from the citadel who wear rings, etc. and were never cadets" Who are these people you've met, what is "etc."? And how is a night student who trys to pass themselves off as a cadet anything like a Cadet who may be hesitant to talk about his school offering separate night classes for civilians? Regardless, having a special category for VMI is silly and adds nothing to the article. It's a vanity edit.
Texas A&M and VT are not so similar to the Citadel as to be listed together in this article. Based on the schools websites and there coverage in popular media it is pretty obvious the cultures at the schools are totally different. It is not taking anything away from the cadet programs at Texas A&M or VT by observing that these colleges do not have the same military culture that the Citadel has. The Citadel's civilian student program is supplemental to the Corps of Cadets. It seems to be the opposite at both A&M and VT. Therefore to list all of them together is dishonest, and listing VMI by itself doesn't do anything for the article except maybe stroke the ego of an insecure VMI cadet, alumni, or booster. I think if we were to look at the Citadel and VMI in the proper perspective, we would see two state funded military colleges, that for the sake of clarity and honesty, should be listed together as such.
You didn't make yourself real clear when you accused other editors of being dishonest but, after reviewing the edit history, I'm sure no one was purposefully being dishonest when they described the Citadel as being all military. This was almost certainly not meant to fool anyone, but an honest mistake, as a quick search of the internet will bring up information on the Citadels night programs. Any Citadel cadet should be proud his college is offering an important service to the community, not ashamed because civilians use the school's classrooms at night. Please remember wp:agf when you think other editors are being dishonest.
Anyway wikipedia isn't the place to play cheerleader. So lets make sure our comments and edits are constructive and help establish some kind of consensus on the article. Thanks and happy editing! Jirt 08:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jirt, your response is about as clear as mud, not to mention just a little long winded! Simple fact, there are OVER A THOUSAND non-cadet students at the citadel each year. That is not a small number, and that is about the number of the entire Cadet Corps at VMI. In addition to these citadel non-cadets at night there are also Navy and Marine enlisted members who get rings and never live in your barracks or wear cadet uniforms, they live in apartments downtown. You might be interested to know that the Navy and Marines approached VMI years ago to set up the same plan and VMI said NO WAY. By the way, these non-cadets can play on any of the school's athletic teams every year. It is very clear that there are more similarities between citadel, A&M, and VT than you or other citadel supporters would like to admit. However, those are the facts. If your school or its grads don't like it, then they should make a change. Until then, saying otherwise is less than honest.Koonoonga 16:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gods, heaven forbid potential officers might have to mix with enlisted filth ;)
tbh looking at this from the outside it does strike me that the posturing is pretty peurile, the purpose of this article is to articulate the facts about what military or service academies are, and frankly the list of academies and schools is of secondary value. ALR 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. My last edit was an attempt at a setting the record straight to please all parties involved. Instead of discussion of the edit we get more babbling on why VMI is so much better than the Citadel, and more vanity edits. I don't care if VMI is better, as I AM NOT a Citadel supporter. I dont care what the Marines and Navy approached VMI about, or what there response is. Or how awesome and badass VMI is and how its WAY tougher than the citadel. I don't care. My only interest is an honest article that presents the information in an honest unbiased fashion. Like I said before, this cheerleading doesn't help make a better article.
"Virtually all" is not a "catchy phrase" (whatever the hell that means) it was an HONEST attempt to present the information in such a way as to be npov. Please don't question the validity of my edits when you appear to make no attempt to have a neutral point of view. Also there was never a mention about the number of student attending the Citadels night program and I'm not certain how thats relevant. It is without a doubt that the night program is supplementary at the Citadel to the corps of cadets. I'm reverting your undiscussed reverts of my edit. I invite you to discuss my edits in a constrictive manner and try to come to some sort of consensus. Jirt 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jirt, the academies and VMI only enroll cadets at the schools...PERIOD. There are no "virtually all cadets" or anything else at the US Service Academies and at VMI. I'll say it one more time to be perfectly clear...The academies and VMI only enroll cadets. If you wonder how night or civilian programs would go over at the academies or VMI, just ask alumni from those schools. Also, I don't remember saying VMI was "bad-ass" or anything like that, but thankyou for your astute observations. You seem to be very emotional (irrationally so) when discussing this matter, so I'll say this one more time...when nearly half of a school is enrolled in civilian day or night programs, then the school can no longer be classified in the same category as VMI or the Service Academies. And for heaven's sake, what do citadel folks have against Norwich, A&M, or VT? They all have far more in common with each other. Good luck Jirt and please try to be civil.Koonoonga 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jirt, good luck. K and other editors who claim to be VMI alums have been involved in a number of revert wars regarding many of the US military related schools which offer bachelor's degrees. Anytime their unsupported claims are questioned, they complain that those questioning the claims are trying to water down th impression given of VMI ... but they still cannot come up with reliable sources for their claims. They then object to properly cited information added to the other military school articles. Assuming good faith is hard to do with many of these people who claim to be VMI alums, given their disruptive edit histories.--Vidkun 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit like a character attack by Vidkun (who appears to be a Norwich grad trolling the military pages). Suggest you examine all the legitimate references provided in the VMI pages. I can't find anything with "unsupported claims." I do however find many well documented differences between VMI and all the other "military colleges" out there. Check your facts Vidkun, and please stop the distasteful and unfactual character attacks.Grity1 14:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, Grity, you look at both Marshall and Koonoonga's attempts to get unverified information regarding VMI rings added, repreatedly. K was asked to provide citation for his claim that Virginia state law defines rings of a certain size as brass knuckles. He didn't. He merely repeated his claim, and reiterated that anyone challenging him was anti-VMI. When items were cited from authors who claim Norwich's existence influence the state legislatures in Virginia and SC, K said he didn't care what anyone else said. If you actually looked at the history of the various disputes on wiki that deal with VMI, a good number of them revolve around VMI supporters not wanting to be bothered with citing their sources, and disagreeing with cited sources. Are you suggesting, wiht your accusation of "unfactual character attacks" that this didn't happen? Or maybe this doesn't show any history of K or M's disapproval of anything that shows their claims about VMI's "superiority" to be less than citeable? Or how about this? As for trolling the military pages, if you look at my contributions, you'll see that I have worked on quite a number of articles having nothing to do with the military. How about you? Pot, kettle.--Vidkun 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment: proper listing of The Citadel in Military academy[edit]

This is a dispute about how The Citadel (military college) should be listed in relation to other military colleges and colleges with corps of cadets. 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT:

I see the point on both sides of this heated discussion. However, after checking reliable sources, I've found that The Citadel does maintain both a "cadet corps" and a civilian student population. Both the cadets and civilian students attend classes on campus and both groups are instructed by Citadel professors. Although they are slightly different in size and appearance, both the civilian and cadet students graduate with "Citadel" diplomas. Based on this information, it is my opinion that the school should not be listed with the US Service Academies or the Virginia Military Institute, which enroll only cadets pursuing bachelor degrees. One more interesting note is that while I was inquiring and learning about the military colleges in the US, I found a marked similarity between Norwich University in Vermont and the Citadel in South Carolina. The "cadet corps" at the schools and the number of civilian students at the schools are nearly identical. In addition to being very similar in size and composition, the freshman initiation systems and the organization of their "cadet corps" are very similar as well. North Georgia Military College also has a great deal in common with these two schools. I also found that the Texas A&M and Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets also share many similarities. Any thoughts on other similarities between these very similar schools?Profjob 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER COMMENT:

Another indicator that VMI should be categorized by itself or with the academies can be found in the latest issue of US News 2008. This is how US News and the Carnegie Foundation classify the schools:

Rankings of Public Liberal Arts Colleges:

1. US Naval Academy 2. US Military Academy 3. Virginia Military Institute

The other "military colleges" are categorized as follows:

1. National universities: Texas A&M, Virginia Tech 2. Regional Master's Degree colleges: North: Norwich University, South: North Georgia College and the Citadel

Just some more indicators that VMI is different from the other "military college" type colleges out there.Jacapo1 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Russia?[edit]

Please don't tell me for Russia's military academies, you've just got "Soviet Union". The Soviet Union collapsed years ago, and the Soviet Union was not Russia, it was a collection of eastern countries of which Russia was the biggest. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I don't believe any of these external links are necessary and in fact may destroy a neutral point of view. Right now there are only links to specific academies of other countries, such as the South Korean and Thai academies. I believe the best way to establish neutral point of view is to either eliminate all specific links or create one for every military academy in every country. For now I will delete them, let me know if you disagree. --Banime (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article reassessed and graded as dab. --dashiellx (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listlike...[edit]

This should be an article discussing the history of military academies rather than a list. This and a couple articles could use some cleaning, so I'll be around soonly to have a look at tweaking/overhauling. --Izno (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: at present, this is really more of a List of military academies by country. Maybe that portion of this article can be spun off & the remainder turned into a genuine article on military academies. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: @DASonnenfeld: I see not much has changed in a decade. Yes, I agree; the list of military academies should be spun off into a separate article. - Sdkb (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​ Wow. :) --Izno (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of military academies seems reasonable as a title; no need for a lengthy one. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at it, someone did some work to split a portion to List of government-run higher-level national military academies. I think it would be a good idea to retitle that one per discussion and then merge the list here to that page. (Or the latter before the former, whatever floats boats.) It doesn't make sense to retain two separate lists on the point. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Military academy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Military academy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV problem[edit]

The section Pre-collegiate institutions comes across as propagandistic. Back in the '60s, it was not rare that a troublemaker would be given a choice by a judge to serve prison time or to enlist in the military, even though I've been told that this was illegal. Similarly, an "incorrigible" boy (for delinquency, truancy, rape, or fighting) might be transferred to a military academy. The section denies this, offering up only a memoir as a countercase.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_academy&oldid=1194080980"