Talk:United States Naval Academy/Archive 1

message: I have requested that this article be removed from  WikiProject Maryland because this is a national institution, not a state one, and a military base. Please contribute to discussion there (not here).Student7 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested removal from Wikiproject:Maryland 

message: Remved 1911 text:
:In 1911, each midshipman was paid $600 a year, beginning with the date of his admission; and he must bind himself to serve in the United States Navy for eight years (including the years spent in the academy) unless he is discharged sooner. The course of instruction is for four years -- "final graduation" comes only after six years, the additional years being spent at sea -- and is in eleven departments: discipline, seamanship, ordnance an 1 gunnery, navigation, marine engineering and naval construction, mathematics and mechanics, physics and chemistry, electrical engineering, English, modern languages, naval hygiene and physiology. Vessels for practice work of midshipmen in the first, second, and third year classes are attached to the academy during the academic year, and from early in June to September of each year the midshipmen are engaged in practice cruises. 
:The academy is governed by the Bureau of Navigation of the United States Navy Department, and is under the immediate supervision of a superintendent appointed by the secretary of the navy, with whom are associated the Commandant of Midshipmen, a disciplinary officer, and the Academic Board, which is composed of the superintendent and the head of each of the eleven departments. 
Needs to be checked before being put back in. --mav 01:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Old History

message: We need to include in this article rape statistics -- dont ask -- but if it's pertinent for the USAFA article than it should be in here -- unless we base all of our "encyclopedia" articles on newspaper articles...
*Why should we have rape stats for the Naval Academy unless we have them for every other college described on here?
**I concur. This would constitute a non-neutral viewpoint unless it is information we provide for all universities. The case of the Air Force Academy is different as the investigation and the depth of the problem has clearly become a part of the history of the institution.
Ray Trygstad 21:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape Statistics 

message: The "Graduates famous outside the Navy" should probably me merged with the the other notable graduates.  Jimmy Carter certainly acheived his greatest notoriety oustide the Navy, yet is not in the outside the Navy group.  John McCain is notable both for his naval service and his post-naval career.  Only three astronauts among dozens graduated from the Academy are listed. One of the most well known USNA graduates, astronaut James Lovell is not listed. A deputy assistant cabinet secretary is listed, but 5 secretaries are not.  The whole list needs to be rationalized in terms of who to include, and their organization. 24.209.173.129 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List of famous United States Naval Academy alumni|Notable Graduates]] 

message: The USNA does admit non-americans.  their website does indicate some sort of admissions process for internationals.
*That's true. I've changed the article accordingly. A small number of international students (<20) are admitted each year. They tend to be from smaller allied/friendly countries that lack their own academies (e.g. Jamaica); "big" allies (e.g. France, Britain) tend to send exchange students from their own military education programs.  The number  and country of origin of international students is listed in the Class Profiles published by USNA (cited in note 1). MayerG 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissions 

message: I found the previous depiction of the Navy's performance in the annual SJCA/Navy Croquet Match to be rather misleading, as it implied the Navy did something other than suck out loud, and so have rectified this with statistics showing quite clearly that the opposite is true. I wish the Middies good luck this spring; if the past is an indication, they will need it. 69.140.12.199 01:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croquet! 

message: As much as I am interested in reading the article, it has no references, and thus is unsuitable for good article status. There's nothing that can done to avoid the necessity of good references for good articles on Wikipedia. Harro5 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:(The first, most glaring thing about this article is it's failure to be "broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic." 
The history section ends with the institution through World War I. There's about 90 years of history missing. Those 90 years include World War II, desegregation, and the induction of women (later addressed)
Which brings up the point of it being "well written" specifically b "it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles.;" It seems to have a lot of things scattered about. For instance, the seperation of the Moral Education section and the Mission of the Article section. 
Looking at the recent featured University of Michigan article, I think that a better structure could be thought of for this article, especially given its current content and potential.
References and other citations are a problem too (see above)
TonyJoe 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: 28th Company needs to be a seperate page. It is bias to give info on one company and not the other 29. (28 sucks anyway) --ProdigySportsman 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like it's an example of one of the sports traditions at the academy. (I fixed broken link #1). The article references 28th Company, so I can see leaving it in.  If the article went on and on about 28th Company specific info, I can see removing it/spinning it off, but it doesn't.  If you don't like it, maybe your company should start a memorable tradition! If it makes you feel better, I edited/updated the article to reflect your shipmates' loss in 2006. :) Pesco 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the one who added most of the info in the Midshipmen Activities about 28's Croquet match with St. Johns. "There is even an unofficial..." It should have been removed and Lenzi (the one who added it) agreed and un-merged it. What shipmate have we lossed in 2006? We lost one in 2005. Oh and by the way my company does have a tradition, croquet. 28 is my company. --ProdigySportsman 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had a misunderstanding.  On your second point, I was referring to the fact that your croquet team lost in 2006, not a loss of life. I had edited the croquet section to reflect the most recent result.  On your first point, when you said "28 sucks anyway" I assumed you weren't in that company.  I thought you were bashing 28th Company and the croquet tradition.  But I now realize that you were addressing a section already removed talking only about 28th Company not relating to croquet.  "Belay my last."  Pesco 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I am glad you figured it out. --ProdigySportsman 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When something mentioned on a talk page is resolved on the article page, please follow up on the talk page. Pesco 01:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  28th Company 

message: Is it common practice within some majors for Midshipmen to graduate with a Merchant Mariner's License as Third Assistant Engineers or Third Mates?  Federal regulation makes it possible, but I wondered if it actually happens.  Thanks. Pesco 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchant Mariner License? 

message: Many references can be found citing Bancroft Hall as the world's largest dormitory. Eliminating Bancroft Hall, I could not find another dormitory that so claimed. Why was that phrase eliminated? Either claim needs to have a citation/footnote.Student7 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World's Largest Dormitory 

message: I believe that with a little more work this article could be renominated for Good Article status again, as said before there needs to be more history added, I have added history from WWI to WWII but there needs to be history from WWII to Present, There was question about desegregation being a point to discuss in the history but seeing is how the military was far ahead of its time and the first african-american graduate (Lieutenant Commander Wesley A. Brown) graduated in 1949 I dont believe anything more than a little sentence about him would be necessary. Also the structre of the article (where to put certain sections) needs to be discussed. Leave comments on this talk page if anyone thinks they can help and share their opinions.--Joebengo 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated the article for Good Article status after I added all the history from WWI to Present, I also rearranged the entire article for better flow. I also fixed the references.--Joebengo 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article ? 

message: I removed the following: "other alumni simply realize that there is a profound feminist presence within the administration.  Midshipman Owens was separated from the institution for engaging in sexual activity within the dorm.  The female with whom he was engaging in these activities remains enrolled and awaits graduation.  She was granted immunity for her testimony in the rape case, and despite a number of false statements, has not been reprimanded for her part in the offense."  A citation to a Washington Post article documents not this inserted material, but the previous sentence (which remains in the Wiki article).  According to the Post, Owens has not been separated (rather, his fate is still undecided).  Although the Post article does state that the female midshipman received immunity, it says nothing about her making false statements, nor does it  address whether she has been disciplined in some way.  The view attributed to "other alumni" is not a view expressed by any of the alumni interviewed by the Post.  Rather, they criticized Rempt for being overzealous in cracking down on sexual assault; to quote the Post, "The alumni argue that Rempt's overzealousness in prosecuting high-profile sexual assault cases is part of his effort to advance an agenda designed to appease Congress and women's groups demanding a crackdown on sexual assault and harassment at military academies."  This view is contained in the Wiki article, and sourced to the Post. MayerG 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owens case 

message: Well, first of all, I think I should note that the GA criteria have changed quite a bit from the last review in May of 2006. I think this is important to note, because the referencing standard may not of been as high back then for articles, and i'm primarily failing this article for not being well-referenced by current standards. 
The first three sections, Description, Mission, and History, don't appear to have any obvious citations at all. The Mission section isn't attributed to a source, which makes it look ambiguous, leaving the reader to question whether it is a direct quote, (Which it is, for example, this reference- ) or an insanely POV pushing interpretation of the mission (Which would actually be better titled "Mission Statement" instead of just "Mission" in my opinion) by an editor. The sections on war look to be fine, and the campus section appears to comply with Wikipedia:Embedded lists. However, the next four references also have unclear referencing, is something in the Bibliography covering them? And why are there so many citation needed tags in the midshipman activities section? And then there's this sentence- "Robinson himself was the consensus best all-around American college player at the time." Considered by whom, and who mattered in terms of consensus building? Notable graduates seems fine because the parent article is referenced, but the Appointment process section looks suspicious because of lack of apparent referencing and the lack of wikilinks. For one thing, what does "then as long as that candidate is physically, medically, and academically found qualified by the academy, he or she will be admitted, even if there are more qualified applicants." even mean? What standards does the academy use to decide what physically, edically, and academically qualified mean? It looks like somebody just copy and pasted the about page of the collage for the moral education section, which definently is not right, as a reader doesn't have any indication of this, and might assume that some increadibly obvious POV pusher advertiser wrote this section because it is written in such glowing terms. It really ought to be attributed to the source properly, especially if its going to be the limit of content in this section. The satellite program section also appears to of been mostly copy and pasted from various web sources, (I googled a line and got something straight from a collage related site I think) its mostly the compleatly un-wikilinked sections that seem to be copy and pasted. This really isn't a very reliable way to write an encyclopedia article. 
Therefore, for a combination of ambiguous referencing, copy and paste jobs in several sections, several sections which a bunch of citation needed tags, and various other problems, I am failing this article. Also, reference 20 isn't a reference, its just an unsourced statement, where are these Class Profiles? Homestarmy 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure reference 20 is a reference, it just isn't an online reference [BTW, it's reference 21 now].  The Class Profiles are printed documents, produced and distributed by the Academy, just like the Catalog.   Printed documents are available in libraries, archives, and from the publisher.  Class Profiles, in particular, are available for free to anyone in the Academy's Visitor Center; I've not inquired of the Academy how extensive its distribution list is.  Parts of some of the Class Profiles are available on the web (the 2009 profile is linked to later in the article), but online sources are prone to instability, so a citation to the actual document is preferable (just as, for example, the Wiki article on Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybridization cites the original published paper), although an online link is useful if available (again, for example, as does the plant hybridization article).  Reference 20 provides the title, dates, and publisher of the cited documents, which are the proper elements for citation of a periodical of this sort. You are right, however, that the state of citation in the article is quite heterogeneous. MayerG 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication seems to be that online references are superior to hard copy. I disagree. Hardcopy doesn't change. Web pages tend to vaporize. Usually someone spent good money on publishing hard copy. Soft copies are often "for free." Sometimes you get what you pay for! Yes, offline references are harder to check. But they can be way more accurate and "encyclopedic."Student7 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I have never understood the importance of the article on the SSP, it does not seem to help the article in any way and the SSP program is not what makes the academy an important place, either the section should be turned into another article or it should just be removed entirely. If anything it surely does not warrant so much space in the article. If anyone else agrees with me I will be removing/shortening the section by the end of the week.--Joebengo 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As per your suggestion, I changed it. See what you think. The original article did go on. Seems funny to have a stranded college article, but what can you do? Student7 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I read too quickly. Had skipped your message that you were intending to work on it later in the week. Feel free to change anything. You've probably thought about it longer than I did! Student7 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already thanked you on your talk page but I'll do it here too, you actually saved me from having to do it and since you agreed with me then it is perfectly fine. You did an excellent job.--Joebengo 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSP 

message: The Academy really is offering two new majors in Arabic and Chinese; see <http://www.usna.edu/LangStudy/>.  Previously, a variety of minors had been offered in various foreign languages (French, Spanish, Japanese, etc.), but no majors.  These new majors are available starting with this year's (class of '10) plebes.  There's been some entering and removing of these majors by various editors, but the cited webpage that says there are only 19 majors has simply not been updated-- there really are two new majors.  I'm not sure if the new majors are in the latest printed catalog, but they'll be in the next, and that's the most authoritative source.MayerG 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that Arabic and Chinese were actual majors but I couldn't find any source therefore any time an editor would put it on the article I would revert it because there was no source. I think that source you have would be good enough to change the number of majors.--Joebengo 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New majors in Arabic and Chinese

message: I have reviewed this and passed it for GA as the concerns of the last review have been addressed. That WW2-present section is a choppy 'lawyers list' and will not stand up to FA-scrutiny. To approach FA, there must be full compliance with style standards, the writing must be compelling or brilliant, and the coverage must be comprehensive. Meditate upon this. Image content is excellent. You may now toss your hats in the air.BongHitz4Musa 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, I'm proud to have gotten this to GA status, now USNA is the only Service Academy that is GA, GO NAVY!--Joebengo 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoted to GA

message: While the paragraph on the Commander Lopez is not long, and has been shortened, I would prefer that this be moved to the separate article on notable alumni. Perhaps a bio stub on him could be started and linked from there. My concern is, once we start this, there are a lot of minorities, some of which had a harder time than others (Afro-Americans, for example), Asians at various times, which could merit "equal space." Or maybe a separate article on "equal opportunity" or "minority firsts?" Student7 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bio stub would be good, just a simple sentence like "the first hispanic american graduated in 1879 was Commodore Lopez." and have that be linked to his bio stub. Either way I don't think that the information should just be completely removed because it is still significant as a part of the history of the academy.--Joebengo 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've moved it to a separate article, leaving a sentence here. He probably deserves to be in "Notable Alumni" anyway. I still don't agree he should be here at all, but I won't move it. Incidentally, I never did solve the category link from Lopez of "Commodore" which is a new one. AF categories are a lot more sophisticated. Should have started on Admiral first as it turns out! Will try to crack it later if no one else has solved it by then.Student7 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lopez

message: The turnover is a big deal for the people involved. But the separate paragraph on Fowler seems a bit much to me. It's all "routine" stuff. Why not just quit with the simple announcement that Fowler is the new Supe and let it go at that? Student7 00:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rempt-Fowler

message: The Academy is OUTSIDE of the city limits of Annapolis, Maryland, as was its predecessor, Ft. Severn.
It is, although, within the zip codes identified with Annapolis.
Technical, to be sure. But precisely, it is "at," "next to," "adjacent to," or "beside" Annapolis, MD--not "in" Annapolis.
In contrast, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is within the limits of West Point, NY.
This information was gleaned long ago from The [Evening] Capital, the major newspaper of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
136.160.250.253 00:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USNA is AT Annapolis, not IN Annapolis 

message: The Trident magazine was once a smooth covered publication which was supposed to contain intelligent research by midshipmen, kind of a very very junion Naval Proceedings. Sometime after the 1950s, it evolved from a midshipmen-produced "proceedings" into an informational post newspaper a total metamorphosis. This should be documented somewhere.Student7 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media

message: What about tuition and other money concerns? The article mentions that if one leaves the academy that they can avoid the compulsory military duty by reimbursing for $200,000. Does the government pay for everything, or do parents put something into it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.216.186 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuition 

message: There is nothing wrong with this statement if (and only if) it is substantiated with a solid reference from someone who has the big picture. If the deleting editor meant that it was "asserted" without being proven, I agree. But there is nothing wrong with criticism here if substantiated. Student7 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - criticisms sourced by solid citations have their place here and in other Wikipedia articles.  My main concern with your edit was that it was completely unsourced.  --ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marine selectees not attending basic training

message: Due to the policy changes with the new Supe, ref. 14 is no longer accurate. I deleted the information regarding firstie liberty. 131.122.49.250 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Firstie Liberty

message: I am interesting in adding a link to a timeline of Black progress at the U.S. Naval Academy. The timeline lists significant Black Pioneers at the Academy. My link was reject, however, because the address points to wordpress. I'm a little disappointed, and I am wondering if there is a way that this link can be permitted.Twilightandreason (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the term "black" are you referring to melanin-content in the epidermis?  USNA doesn't have epidermis-melanin-content-based pioneers.  However, if there are other pages for listing people by gradation of melanin-content, they are likely already listed, since any fame would have made their listing self-obvious.  Otherwise, black history at USNA is known as "The Dark Ages", and you'd have to be an alumni to know what that refers to.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black History at the Naval Academy 

message: The emblem at the top of the page is grossly underpixelated and needs to be reduced in size.  I tried a few ways to no avail. If someone has better script skillz please correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.219.24 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Emblem 

message: Are there any differences in the curriculum for those going into the Marines as opposed to those going into the Navy? If so, this should be stated.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no, there aren't. service selection is not made (officially) until the middle of first class year. bear in mind that navy -marine corps isn't the only choice to be made. there are also air, surface warfare and sub service. Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: bear in mind too that although everybody has to take a core curriculum, for the past 30+ (?) years they have had a selection of majors. in the old days everybody took exactly the same courses. one of the upshots of this was that they marched from one class to another. that is no longer possible.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe another editor knows when the curricula switched from same courses. That info should be in history. 30 years is "about" right. Were called "Rickover Commission" changes. If that isn't there it should be. Student7 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marines 

message: I am wondering why there is no mention of the old naval academy in Philadelphia. It is located on 24th and Bainbridge, and I know its there because I am moving next door to it in a month. Am I missing a link? If I hear nothing after a few days, I might start something. New article? or Addition? Unfortunately the fortress-like campus has been turned into a gated community and won't let me come in to look around. (Maybe I could bribe the guard with a beer.) CancelHoo72 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Naval Academy in Philadelphia 

message: A 1956 publication refers to two 600 pound stone cannonballs outside the administration building. These were the oldest artifacts on the grounds, having been used by the Turks in the attack on Constantinople in 1453. Does anyone know what became of these? Student7 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 600 pound cannonballs

message: In most other articles, editors would jump at the opportunity to insert a National Historic Landmark infobox! Not here, unfortunately! Hard to see where it would go without displacing a significant picture which underscores why it was selected as a NHL. If it can't go here, ought to be under Bancroft Hall or Naval Academy Chapel. BTW, we have the same problems there with pix of the Chapel and Rotunda! In this article the "infobox" would not impart any more significant information than is already here.
Also, should the category be bumped up to the Category-US Naval Academy and removed here? Alternately, place the category in all three articles? Student7 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: National Historic Landmark

message: Huh?  Whoever put the Citation-Needed tag on the "Shipwreck Tech" claim ... I just want to say thank you.  I did some googling, and the only use of this term about USNA is on this WIKI article, and the various copies-of-wiki websites.  I've NEVER heard this term before, and I've NEVER heard this term from a Woop (West Pointer).  Therefore I vote "Shipwreck Tech" OFF-THE-ISLAND if a citation is not forth-coming.  If it were true, but citationless that'd be one thing.  Also I don't care if it's true or not, and it's welcome to stay if verfiable.  But I've not heard of it.  And don't come back with a ENCYCLOCENTRAL.COM or other type source.  Those are all copy-bots.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and ditto from another USNA grad.  "Shipwreck Tech" is made up baloney, so anyone in the future seeing it in this article, please remove it.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for "Shipwreck Tech"

message: The military is required to be politically correct. They are required to use "gender neutral" terms. 
Wikipedia is under no such artificial constraint. It is required to tell the truth. The lyrics can and should be rendered both ways IMO giving the original and the later changes.Student7 (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditional lyrics of decades of traditional use has been restored, per the properly cited reference and page numbers.  If a contributing editor wishes to start a new section on current events, vice improperly modifying the  Naval Academy Traditions section, then by all means go ahead.  There can be two sections in the article.  But in this section on "traditions" the historical, cited, referenced, provable and verifiable traditions of the Naval Academy should be documented, even if they have ceased to exist or gone to the depths.  The section is here, as I started it, partly to pass on the traditions to the new generations.  More are to come.  You have been given the secret of Salty Sam.  You have a new Log.  Learn the lessons of those who have gone before you.  The new lyrics are not the traditional ones, and they and any other current events, belong in this section not.  Thus the Laws of the Navy have been added too ... and are recommended reading for the Class of 2010.  Dost think in a moment of anger 'tis well with thy seniors to fight?  They prosper, who burn in the morning, the letters they wrote overnight.  Looks like we need to add the reef points, for the ratey reefers. (What is a reefer, you ask?) What's next?  Bill-Brenda the Goat? Shall we have a neutered mascot as well? I digress with an argument of the obvious. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender neutrality and political correctness

message: For some reason, we have wandered off the topic of USNA and onto the topic of people who attended or were affiliated with the Academy. There is nothing wrong with explaining why an instructor/supe didn't show up one day: he joined the rebels! But to go on about his career is not relevant to this article. Most have articles already. It's okay to ensure they are in list of notable graduates. And William B Hall needs his own article IMO - he's sufficiently notable. The Confederate Naval Academy obviously needs its own article, but it is not this article! There is no relation! The difference was clear to them then. Try to maintain that distintion please! Student7 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many institutions, cities, and other such items have an appropriate history section.  The USNA is rich with history, unlike this article.  Perhaps the history of the USNA needs to be made into a separate article?  I am in the processing of creating the CSNA article, which is in one of my sandboxes.  Meanwhile, the handful of items under the bare bones ACW history section are an important piece.  The first Supe of USNA was the head of the CS Navy.  From among the first graduates and instructors of USNA came the first Supe and Commandant of CSNA.  CSNA was a spin-off of USNA.  This is KEY history to the USNA story.  They are tied at the hip.  Therefore having a handful of information on the ACW and CSNA ties in this article is COMPLETELY appropriate.  The section was already there to begin with, languishing with about one or two sentences.  For it now to be a paragraph is very moderate and completely reasonable.  Therefore I thoroughly disagree with your position.  Furthermore, I would NEVER be so rude as to simply go through and slash out another editors contributions, especially reasonable and good ones.  You are out of line, and as I recall, have been out of line on this article in the past, wanting to similarly slash out the USNA traditions material.  Next time, consider discussing for a few weeks first ... on this talk page.  If you cut material in the future in a similar manner without first discussing thoroughly on the talk page, I will be forced to revert your slashing edit. Grayghost01 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting on this particular discussion, I strongly suggest you read this policy and note that at the bottom of the page every time you edit anything here is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."  --ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the corollary, along wiki policy as well, is that if you delete reasonable on-topic material, expect the material to be restored, and if it's deleted again, expect a 3RR violation countdown to start.  I thoughtfully pared down and reinserted appropriate material for the ACW section, which pre-existed, from a couple of sentences to about a paragraph.  Therefore yes, I will edit mercilessly what I consider to be bad edits, but the difference is that I will not begin such tactics without talk-discussion first ... and hope that my example prompts others to follow such wiki-courtesies. For example ... I have not edited the "Canoe U"  and "Boat School" baloney in the intro paragraph.  I think those are not appropriate there.  But I have not "whacked" it, and would discuss it first.  Also I have suggested here, without yet taking action, that the history of the USNA may perhaps be too large for the article and need to be replaced with a summary and "see main", just like the list of alumni.  But as of yet, expanding a section like the ACW from a couple of sentences to a paragraph is not-yet-long-enough to become a candidate for that.  Grayghost01 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we appear to have wandered in good faith off WP:TOPIC again. The topic is the Naval Academy. The topic is not the Civil War which I agree was very disruptive to the relatively new school. If 24% of the Academy instructors resigned, that would be notable. If 99% of the US Naval Officers resigned, that would not be notable since its relation to Academy history is not demonstrated. Let's stick to Academy history here and leave bios and Civil War history to other articles. We not only don't need to duplicate them. We must not when the material is not on topic. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that it is much improved and much more interesting than before. Still could stand a bit of minor editing. I just tried. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor has called for "equal opportunity" for the North in the Civil War area. I thought we had a good summary here but maybe not. Again, we need to be careful that we are documenting USNA and not the Civil War, per se. Plenty of articles on that. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bios in history

message: Someone adding a blurb about the NROTC brings to mind the fact that since both wear the same insignia, there is no good reason why there shouldn't be a "USN Midshipman" article which is linked to by both the this article and the article (if there is one) on the NROTC program. Student7 (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NROTC

message: An editor reverted my (cited) insertion about being the "best" school. I can't say I was particularly wild about the blurb, but I would like to read his reasoning. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest issue I have is the metric used. For one, the source says that what is essentially a technology school wins the liberal arts category, which is a little silly. For two, the metric itself is based on a completely arbitrary measure of popularity. Most would probably consider the various state schools to be popular based simply on how many apply and not on how many accept an invitation once such an invitation is extended... If you really feel strongly about it, include it, but I think it's just a bad piece of statistics and a bad piece of journalism and thus very misleading. --Izno (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's just a bad piece that's not particularly noteworthy or well-written.  It doesn't add anything to this article and it elevates a poor source and nonsensical "fact."  I object to its inclusion - even if you feel strongly about it. :)  --ElKevbo (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not the best school?