Talk:Virginia Military Institute/Archive 1

message: Archived discussion from spring 2005 to August 8, 2005. Let's hope this movement to the archive will suppress all the blankings and reversions. Hal Jespersen 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Need a source for the claim that "VMI's nearly $300 million endowment, the largest per student endowment of any public college or university in the United States." A quick Google shows other colleges claiming the same thing. User:Rillian 
===Sources for Endowment claim===
 Sources are as follows:  The Petersen's Guide to Colleges, Unique Colleges, US NEWS, and the Princeton Review, to name a few. User:Backrow
: Found the NACUBO survey for 2004 released February 2005 at http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY04NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssetsforPress.pdf. Total endowment is listed at $271,889,000 but no per student ratings. User:Rillian
: Check out "Unique Colleges" and others such as US News, Princeton Review, Petersen's, etc.
: Princeton has a per student endowment of $1.32 million. Dividing $272 million by 1,333 gives VMI a per student endowment of $204,051. This is comparing private to public, so still looking. Can't find "Unique Colleges" on the Web. Other sources just repeat the VMI claim. Need to find a ranking that combines the NACUBO endowment amounts divided by students for public schools. User:Rillian
: Take note of your own statement: " the largest per student endowment of any public college or university in the United States" (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY04NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssetsforPress.pdf)  Your own link provides evidence of the mistake in your statement. Ranking# 165 User:24.58.207.70
:: The key words are public and per student. Those rankings include private and public colleges. For public colleges, VMI ranks highly. When you divide the endowment by the number of students, VMI ranks very high on a per student basis. I have not found any source that contradicts VMI's claim of the "highest per student endowment at a public college." Rillian 13:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim: largest per student endowment of any public college

message: Sources are as follows:  The Petersen's Guide to Colleges, Unique Colleges, US NEWS, and the Princeton Review, to name a few. User:Backrow
: Found the NACUBO survey for 2004 released February 2005 at http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY04NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssetsforPress.pdf. Total endowment is listed at $271,889,000 but no per student ratings. User:Rillian
: Check out "Unique Colleges" and others such as US News, Princeton Review, Petersen's, etc.
: Princeton has a per student endowment of $1.32 million. Dividing $272 million by 1,333 gives VMI a per student endowment of $204,051. This is comparing private to public, so still looking. Can't find "Unique Colleges" on the Web. Other sources just repeat the VMI claim. Need to find a ranking that combines the NACUBO endowment amounts divided by students for public schools. User:Rillian
: Take note of your own statement: " the largest per student endowment of any public college or university in the United States" (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY04NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssetsforPress.pdf)  Your own link provides evidence of the mistake in your statement. Ranking# 165 User:24.58.207.70
:: The key words are public and per student. Those rankings include private and public colleges. For public colleges, VMI ranks highly. When you divide the endowment by the number of students, VMI ranks very high on a per student basis. I have not found any source that contradicts VMI's claim of the "highest per student endowment at a public college." Rillian 13:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Endowment claim

message: I was just wondering why the Halloween Picture controversy paragraph was removed. IT was reported in several reputable news sources and was a fairly big story and scandal. I'm putting it back in for now. If someone could give a good reason why it shouldn't be in I'll accept it. --Gary123 01:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Halloween Pictures

message: Is anyone else who worked on this article opposed to the changes made by 68.65.33.175? The article as of  03:47, 16 May 2005 may have had some writing problems but all in all it was a much more complete and in depth article than before  the changes. Heres a link to the article before the changes were made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Military_Institute&oldid=13961696 I think youll find it to be much more in depth.--Gary123 22:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that you selectively restore the specific passages you like rather than merely restoring the entire older version (if that's what your were contemplatng). The guy who did the edit did a good job of relocating the Battle of New Market material, which doesn't belong in this article in such detail. So please don't restore all that. (I am merely interested in the Civil War aspects of this article, so have no opinion about the modern VMI cultural topics.) Hal Jespersen 23:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edits

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strictly adheres to the policy of NPOV. Consequently, this article should describe VMI factually. It is not a booster site, it is not the VMI web site, it is not a place for "my school is great, you school is worse" comments. From the policy "Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source."
Some current disputes:
*Enrollment: VMI itself says 1,300 - some users keep reducing that to 1,200. Without a credible online source saying otherwise, it should stay at 1,300.
*Commissioning Rate: VMI itself says 40%, many other sources say nearly 40% for the last five years. Using an average of 40% presents the most factual view of the current trend.
*US News ranking: Saying just "#1 public liberal arts college" with no clarification leaves an inaccurate impression and many readers may not realize that "liberal arts college" only refers to 217 colleges in the U.S. and that only 21 of those are public.
*Everyone agrees that VMI is the only public state military college - no need to shout "ONLY"
*"toughest" - NPOV does not support superlatives like best, toughest, most -- based solely on opinion. Without sources that can be cited ranking schools on their degree of toughness, this type of claim does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise this would degenerate into school supporters constantly uping the ante with "my school is really tough", "no, my school is tough and it rains all the time, etc.
I welcome your comments.
Rillian 03:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Rillian

message: You should consider putting captions on all your thumb-nailed photos. I would do the edits myself, but don't know precisely what the pictures represent.  15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: So, anyone objects to the above addition? If so, why? Let's start there. El_C 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object :) 98.204.199.179 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the 71/122 ranking, why omit that? What argument was there for not having both? El_C 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That used to be further down in the edit. In all of the back and forth, it was dropped from this version. the 71/122 also belongs. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what was the argument about, listing the Naval/Military Academies? I don't get it. El_C 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'm ok with this re-wording. I would drop the "100" and just say "top U.S. liberal arts colleges", since 122 isn't 100. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, almost 100 reverts and that's all there was to it? Alright, give it a few days and if there are no objections, we'll go with that. El_C 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because I am pro this edit and the 71/122 was not the issue being contested. I even created an earlier version of this with 71/122 also included, but which was also reverted. The one who is con this edit has not yet weighed in. Neither has anyone else that had been party to the dispute (Vidkun was not really party to the dispute since Vidkun last contributed to the Virginia Military Institute page months ago). 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article seems over categorized. If there is a :Category:Virginia Military Institute, than all the categories on this article should go on that upper category.  Than, the only category that should remain on this article is "Category:Virginia Military Institute".  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: The history section ends with WWII. Has nothing of note occurred since then? Shouldn't 'admission of women' go there?   Will Beback  talk   05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History ends in 1945? 

message: I don't know much about the site but I am a VMI cadet and have heard rumors that Mel brooks is a notable alumnus.  On Mel's page there is a statement that he went to VMI with a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.165.130 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed he was.  There's an extensive section of this interview:  which discusses his time at VMI.  It is unclear if he graduated, as he only discusses his first year there.  But he definately attended.--Jayron32 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Brooks 

message: * ... it became apparent that adjustments to the standards had to be made.
Is this code for Someone noticed that the female cadets could not meet the standards and that they decided that graduated female cadets was more important than maintaining one standard for all cadets? 
And is this in important topic in its own right? Has it affected unit cohesion or morale in any way? Or is everything just find and dandy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a major point of contention when gender integration happened. It's worth mentioning. Buffs (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gender norming]]

message: Why does VMI continue to advance the myth that they are the only college whose entire student body fought as a unit in battle?  In the first place The Citadel, Georgia Military Institute and Florida State all had their entire cadet corps or student body fight in Civil War battles; William and Marys whole student body fight the British in the Revolutionary War. Second VMIs own history shows that at least 23 cadets remained on campus to guard it so obviously it could not have been the "entire student body". Also the claim of being the only school to have earned a battle streamer is obviously false as the previously mentioned schools as well as the Merchant Marine Academy all have been awarded battle streamers for wartime service.  As for the third bogus claim of being entitled to fix bayonets as result of New Market, wrong again; that is a privilege afforded MILITARY UNITS not CADET CORPS.  If you want to keep deluding yourselves fine, just stop posting this trash on public websites.Bob80q (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Claim 

message: Dear Bob80q,   
(Please do not delete entries to this page made by others because you disagree with them or because the truth is too hard for you to handle.  I left your comments below...)
As I wrote before:
You need to check your facts on citadel, because it's definitely YOU who is delusional in this case. I'm not surprised though, citadel folks have tried for years to convince us that the citadel fired the first shots of the Civil War--ridiculous!!!!
For a reality check, Bob, just look at how many times you've edited the citadel pages AND VMI's page.   
FACTS:    
1. Your reference from VMI's archives is a collection of personal archived LETTERS, it's not a scholarly source/historical guide.   
2. The citadel DID NOT EVEN EXIST DURING THE CIVIL WAR--What were the two SC campuses called again? SC Arsenal or SC Military Institute? The Citadel was given that name in the 1920's and the current campus was founded/relocated in the late 70's--"the original SC military institute" is a Hampton Inn in Charleston!! They have great drinks and a fine breakfast by the way ;)   
3. Your claim of cadets fighting as a unit is COMPLETELY false as the 2 SC schools were closed-down. At best, various small groups from the 2 "SC military colleges" entered into various small skirmishes here or there and were not organized as a group.    
Suggest you check YOUR facts, stop your peacocking, and stick to the "citadel" pages in the future     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.47.75 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to side with Bob a bit on this one. Despite its claims, VMI is not the only school to fight in war. Even if you are going to discount "The Citadel" as a unit since only its predecessors fought in the Civil War (always thought that term was an oxymoron), you have to admit that those units DID fight. Folks from the forerunner to the Citadel actually fired the first shots of the war! Other schools fought as a unit in the Revolutionary War as well as the Civil War. Instead of reinforcing this claim (since it is clearly unfounded), why not simply be proud of the service you historically provided? It doesn't make that service more or less great if other schools did or didn't participate. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact not False Claim and "Citadel" Did NOT exist During Civil War 

message: your classless and immature postings are not worthy of this or any other public site nor will I dignify them with comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob80q (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob, please place these notices on the talk pages of the offending IP. Buffs (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  postings by anonymous vmi supporter 

message: Bob80, "....all VMI students are military cadets....."  is completely true.  Regardless of ANY VMI student's affiliation, they wear a VMI uniform and live in barracks...period.  I know it is vastly different from your school which enrolls civilian students, etc. But in the case of MECEPs and STA21s:they are not at VMI.
Now, you want to talk about false claims, your claim of battles for "the arsenal" as it was called during the war is completely false.  A small handful of red-neck kids sporadically running thru the lowcountry skirmishing when the school was out of business does not qualify as fighting as a unit in battle... sorry.  Furthermore, your school makes official false claims.  For example in US News, the citadel still lists 100% of its undergrads as living on campus.  I know this is a false claim because I'm from Charleston and I have a family member pursuing his bachelor's there in conjunction with the community college.  He's not even a cadet, but he proudly wears a citadel ring!
Suggest you stick to your el cidadel pages and leave VMI alone.  VMI is something you just don't understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.139.83 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: only further questionable claims is why a citadel supporter keeps falsely editing the VMI page

message: It reads like a recruiting pamphlet, not what WP:LEAD dictates it should. I'm not saying the given information there shouldn't be included in the article, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. As such, everything in the lead should be discussed more in-depth in the article. As it stands now, almost all of it is information that is NOT discussed in the rest of the article. Responses requested. Buffs (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the intro looks good in its present form. Hawaiia (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "looks" are irrelevant in this case. It must comply with WP:LEAD, a Wikipedia guideline, unless there is consensus not to do so. Buffs (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove those points from the lead unless an expansion of such information is included within the body of the article in 7 days. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead needs some serious work

message: Probably should have list of commandants someplace. If here, list should be "hidden." Student7 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Commandants

message: The 2006 Laws document appears to be lost and not archived. However, a quick look at the current (?) document suggests that it's a valid replacement and still consistent with the text.  It's here: http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2013-Working-Edition-Kappa-Alpha-Laws-FULL-PAGE-LAWS-74th-Convention-REGS-Dec.-16-2013.pdf
I've archived it here: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2013-Working-Edition-Kappa-Alpha-Laws-FULL-PAGE-LAWS-74th-Convention-REGS-Dec.-16-2013.pdf
Having said that, I know almost nothing about frats, so I'm at risk to misinterpreting. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment?  If no-one does, I'll make the change in a few days. --Otus scops (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Kappa Alpha Order's Beta Commission 

message: i want to apply what are process and how much is the tuition fee  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.157 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  applying 

message: Re:         (list incomplete)
I have been watching this silly ping pong game for too long, enough is enough. At least three editors, , 69.1.22.120, and 155.225.144.115, are engaged in a slow-burn edit war, a violation of Wikipedia policy, with no end in sight. WP:EW:
Any interested editors are invited to present their case here, using nothing but reliable published sources. Please refrain from assertions of personal knowledge about this, as Wikipedia is not about personal knowledge.
As far as I can tell, the source currently given does not support the statement; unless a better one can be found and cited, or unless someone can show where that source directly supports the statement with no WP:SYNTH required, the statement should be removed. It matters not what is true, only what is verifiable. Even if the source supported the statement, I don't think it would be acceptable to use VMI's own website as a source for such a claim-to-fame about itself. Either way, the current sourcing is inadequate.
Comments like the edit summary "Please note: As a wiki troll, Bob80 has a history of under-editing the VMI site--please check history and note edits)" violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a widely accepted behavioral guideline, and border on violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, another policy. Comments like "your gutless unsigned insults show what a classless frat boy you are" will result in a trip to WP:ANI and possible sanction; the editor who wrote that should consider this prior warning. 
If no consensus on this question can be reached locally, I will start a request for comment about it. But kindly cease the edit warring now. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This marks the only time in U.S. history... 

message: This is specifically allowed per MOS:MILRANKS and not considered 'honorific', this was discussed on other pages and also on the Wikimedia commons page. Editors obviously need to be more familiar with the rules.Bob80q (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: use of military ranks

message: The article has only a single picture of cadets (a small one at that). Recommend adding some more (surely there are some cadets following this page... Buffs (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no pictures of cadets

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Virginia Military Institute. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/archives/Civil_War/cwgen.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/archives/Civil_War/cwchron.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120909021555/http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/vmi/vmihonor.html to http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/vmi/vmihonor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231020447/http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_iaa/bigsouth/virginia_military_institute/coaching_records.php to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_iaa/bigsouth/virginia_military_institute/coaching_records.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/archives/Civil_War/walkerja.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmikeydets.com/section_front.asp?arttypeid=509
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) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Requesting indef ECP due to long-term, persistent but sporadic sockpuppetry by two indef-blocked users
*Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strgzr1
*Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob80q
Buffs (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to make this request at WP:RFPP. ElKevbo (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; thanks,  Buffs (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ECP request

message: ...sure, but what is wrong with the "West Point of the South"  thing? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally removed it because as it was written it wasn't a comparison that made sense. It's fine to just say that this institution has that nickname (although a statement that simple doesn't seem to belong in the lede). It's better to say why it has that nickname. But the material I removed didn't say that. It purported to do that but then it just said how many students are enrolled at VMI and that they live in "spartan and austere barracks" which doesn't explain the nickname at all. Without an actual explanation it's just trivia that doesn't belong in the lede (and unless the explanation is really interesting and impactful then it doesn't belong in the lede anyway). ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinserted as it is relevant, unique, and worth mentioning. Also elaborated on enrollment numbers and austerity info. I believe it's worth keeping.50.237.45.67 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address the specific issues that I raised. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed issues and provided a reason for the nickname.50.237.45.67 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you haven't addressed anything. And now you're blatantly edit warring to add this material to the article, a tactic that will (a) not be successful and (b) lead to you being blocked if you continue. I strongly recommend that you revert your edit and continue this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  That sock... 

message: someone needs to update the article concerning these recent findings:
https://schev.edu/docs/default-source/documents/vmi-special-investigation-team-final-reporta8b3c750bece61aeb256ff000079de01.pdf
https://schev.edu/docs/default-source/documents/vmi-special-investigation-team-final-reporta8b3c750bece61aeb256ff000079de01.pdf
(June 2021)
161.69.112.11 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a 152 page document. What do you want the article to state based on it? Pagenumbers can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I added it to the Further reading section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  VMI investigated for clinging to racist and sexist culture 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion