| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |  | The following users are actively involved with this article, and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Ahodges7 (talk)
This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute. |  | Talk: United States Military Academy/Archive 1 [edit] Archive of past discussion and peer review There were no active discussions on this talk page and many of the discussions were from as far back as 2005, so I just archived the previous talk page. I've listed the article for peer review and have had several very helpful responses. If you are here to review or edit, thank you very much. The goal is to achieve FA status ASAP. I have the resources and the will to make it happen, please let me know where the article is laking to achieve that goal. Thanks. --Ahodges7 (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC) - I quickly realized that it need lots more work, so I withdrew the Peer Review request. I hope to work through the shortcomings of WP:MoS and WP:CIT in the next few weeks. Ahodges7 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Scout camporee at USMA Does anyone think that the annual Boy Scout camporee [1] hosted by the cadets is worth mentioning? --Lunar Dragoon (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) - Possibly in the "Cadet Activities" section, which is currently lacking in detail given the robust activity program that DCA [2] sponsors. Ahodges7 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Navigation template I would encourage the editors to create a USMA-specific (Template:USMA) navigation template and place it on all the articles in the USMA category. Simply put {{USMA}} at the bottom the articles above the categories. Look to Template:Texas A&M University for a ridiculous example to aspire to or Template:Northwestern for a more tractable starting point. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC) - Template is created. It still needs some work, but it is out there now. Thanks. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Template is getting better. Ahodges7 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Template is pretty good now. Ahodges7 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Administration and faculty thoughts I'd like to see more on the USMA and superintendent's relationship to other senior army staff and the DoD - eg, to whom does the superintendent report or what command are USMA staff under? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- USMA is a DRU, its now added and referenced. Ahodges7 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to know more about the faculty - descriptive statistics, role and nature of civilian faculty, backgrounds and appointment norms of military faculty (do they have advanced degrees, are they tenured, do they rotate through, etc.), interaction with/representation of other branches (if any), relationship with post-graduate military institutions (e.g., Naval War College). Madcoverboy (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC) - I tried to track down a website for USMA's office of institutional research since they always publish tons of great data on admissions, enrollments, faculty, financial info, etc.. The closest thing I could find was the "Office of Policy, Planning, and Assessment" but they have a pretty poor webpage. Maybe if you're on the other side of the military/academy firewall, you can get better data? USMA Library appears to have a rather good digital collection that we should also appropriate and incorporate as possible (annual reports of the superintendent being a potentially excellent historical source], though only archived up to 1989). Madcoverboy (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- OPPA is currently in the process of its Middle State's accreditation review. I'll fish around on the internal net in the coming weeks to see what I can find. Not sure how much of information will be for "public release". I'll look into the faculty & reporting status soon. I know I can find the data somewhere, but it might not be on a public website or published source. More to follow. Ahodges7 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- In an attempt to answer some of the questions, posed....
Civilian Faculty: Civilian faculty generally serve as instructors, as opposed to research or administrative positions. Except in the Department of Physical Education, nearly all have Doctoral Degrees. They are actually government employees, so the process to gain employment is closely related to that of all government employees. Their positions are mostly permanent, though some are hired for limited periods (e.g. to replace a faculty member serving elsewhere as a visiting professor for a year), except in the Math department where many of the civilian faculty are three-year "Davis Fellows." Military Faculty: All "rotating" military instructors have at least a Master's degree, and a few have Doctoral level degrees. The senior military faculty-- "Academy Professors" and "PUSMAs," mostly Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels-- nearly all have doctorates in their fields. The point at which a junior officer would fill his or her career with staff time (after a company level command) he or she can compete to become an academy instructor. If selected, the Army pays for grad school, and upon graduation, the officer is assigned to an academic department to teach. Instructors usually teach 4 years and return to the Army for traditional Army assignments. Later in one's military career, usually after reaching the O-5 level, the opportunity to return as a senior instructor is sometimes afforded to those who taught earlier in their careers. These instructors sometimes return to civilian school for terminal degrees prior to a 2nd rotation at the Academy to teach. The Departments of Military Instruction has a different set of requirements and instructors from this department do not always follow this scenario. [edit] History I would like to see the history section to give a little more weight to the impact of American military conflicts on changes to the campus, organization, cadet life in the last 60 years: there is a decent amount for WWI, but WWII merits only a passing mention, Korea and Vietnam none at all, and nothing on Gulf I, Afghanistan, Gulf II, WoT. My colleagues at the Network Science Center do lots of interesting work under the much broader mission of the shift from Cold War to WoT/non-state actor strategy, so I'm guessing changes on campus aren't limited to just a new research center. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC) - Can do. Will get to it soon. Ahodges7 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the history should also emphasize how the academy was founded to be, and was in many respects, the first American engineering college and influenced later technically-oriented private institutions like RPI, WPI, and MIT (forgive me alma mater, it hurts! it hurts!). Madcoverboy (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Refs: pg. 104, 222 pg. 228 Madcoverboy (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think I've expanded the history section per your request above, but I'm afraid the section may be too lengthy now. Your thoughts on content and length? Ahodges7 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's long at all: it's coming in at just south of 7,000 words of readable prose which is just in the 6,000-10,000 upper bound rule of thumb. I think the history is the most important and often most neglected aspect of the encyclopedia article for a university, so I'm hesitant to strip content out here before attempting summarization elsewhere. In any case, I just went and dropped in a bunch of cites from historical news archives (actually just NYTimes and TIME Magazine) for Vietnam-era stuff. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removed pictures I moved/removed some pictures to de-clutter the page. These images certainly have a place within Wikipedia, but not necessarily here. If you disagree, feel free to re-add them and we'll discuss here. — BQZip01 — talk 08:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] changes Mostly simple ones, but we'll see what others have to say. If help is needed in submitting this to FAC, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Heck, I'll even do it in the near future if no one else does. Though several sections need citations, this article is getting pretty good! — BQZip01 — talk 09:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Article rating I'm still a little new at this, but what does A-class mean? Typically articles are either listed as B, GA, or FA class. Could a more experienced editor or administrator briefly explain the process? I'm trying really hard (when work allows me) to get this article to FA status, and I was wondering if it needed to officially be GA first, since its never been listed as GA, or is it already rated higher than GA? thanks. Ahodges7 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC) - Succinctly put, A is generally regarded as higher-quality than GA and GA is not a prerequisite for FAC. It appears User:BQZip01 promoted the article a week ago. There's no formal review process for promoting universities to A status within the WP:UNI project community, but BQZip01's track record speaks for itself so I'll defer to his judgment. This article is absolutely on the right path to FA right now, but in my eyes it may be a bit premature for FAC - there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved which I will outline more completely when I have more time to dedicate. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if this was a FA before March 1 or earlier. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think one of the most obvious critiques one could make of the article now is it tends to lean on self-published sources in cases when I believe that the same claim could be substantiated with independent or published sources. Some cites are inconsistently attributed to the same publisher (USMA Public Affairs Office vs. West Point Public Affairs Office, Office of the Dean, USMA vs. Office of Admissions, etc.) I believe the cites to the Office of Admissions are likely to be the most problematic from a reliability & NPOV perspective. I'll try to scrounge up other sources for claims attributed to Admissions as I encounter them. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is it not ok to cite the university when specifically talking about university facts? I can understand having an issue about referring to a topic's own website it it were say, a for-profit company or enterprise, but isn't there an assumption that the academy is going to forthcoming and honest on its own website? Also, if a citation is pulled from different departments, aren't those departments the publisher rather than the academy itself? Is the issue that the same department is called by a different name in multiple citations? Ahodges7 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the fact that the specific wording and format of the publisher seems to vary among citations like including USMA as an appended clause in some, but not others, referring to the PA office as West Point some times and USMA as others. You'll absolutely get called on these trivial sorts of things at FAC. Regarding SPS from the Academy, I just think you have to be careful about the source. In the case of an institutional research website, president's report (or superintendant in this case), or other sort of formal, official publication, I have no hesitation about using these as authoritative and reliable sources. Office of Admissions sites are a little more borderline since they often tend to blur and stretch because their goal and mission is to paint the institution in the brightest possible light to attract students/cadets/whathaveyou. However, that mission and bias might get in the way of it being the most authoritative or reliable source. In reality, an admissions office doesn't do any of the number crunching and it just highlights repeats whatever (convenient) facts some other office/report/website tells them. Find the original and most authoritative source and cite that instead as much as possible. Cite the best source, not the first source you find. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Traditions I've moved "plebe knowledge" and "class weekends" out of the "Traditions" section and up to the "Cadet life" because "Traditions was getting too lengthy and i feel that those topics are better suited for "cadet life" anyway. As it was, there were six sub-title traditions and I think it should be whittled down to four or five of the more unique (sedgwick's spurs, cullum #) or trailblazing (class ring). There are literally hundreds of traditions that could be listed, which would make a good sub article if I ever get to it. Also, Plebe knowledge could be a lengthy article by itself, but not enough room to expand it in this article. Ahodges7 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi All,
I added notable definations from Bugle notes to the Traditions section. Another user deleted it and I wondered what the concensus was. Edited Page here Eurbani (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC) USMA '89 - I removed that information because most of it is isn't that notable and the rest that is somewhat notable is already included under Cadet Life (as noted in the edit summary). — BQZip01 — talk 15:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I concur with — BQZip01 — talk's removal. While the information that you added was in good faith, it not appropriate content or notability, nor appropriate prose for this article, which is FA-class. Ahodges7 talk 03:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Notable alumni Apparently the notable alumni section was out of control in past versions of the article. It was whittled down to nearly nothing after being broken out into a separate article. Here's the standard that I've used: listed all heads of state, listed all current elected officials (senator, governors, congressmen), listed any general who is famous enough to be known by their last name only OR is currently in a position of notability such as Petreaus or Odierno. Listed MOH winners (74), founders of universities, major industry founders or CEOs, major sports figures, and the # (18) of astronauts as well as major scholarship winners. I think this list is appropriate in length, yet is not too long. Any thoughts? Ahodges7 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] To do list The "to do" list for this page lists topics entirely suited for the separate history article. I don't want to delete the to do list, but it needs to be cleaned up here and replaced with other to-do items. Should I cut & past it into the discussion page of that article? Ahodges7 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC) - You can do that, if you want to do so. — BQZip01 — talk 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Eric Shinseki should be added to recent notable graduates [edit] Athletics Maybe I missed it, but can we get a count on the number and distribution of intercollegiate teams? X mens, and Y womens? Also anything on number of national championships/champions? Be sure to throw the size of the varsity program into the lead as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC) - Can do. Not sure about total # of national championships. I think as far as NCAA goes, only football. The club program has been far more successful. As far as "size" of the varsity program, do you mean the # of cadets participating, the budget, both, or something else? On a side note. These logo debate issues are giving me a headache. I'm working to get the "written permission". Ahodges7 talk 12:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just the number of varsity/intercollegiate teams or programs for each sex I think would be keeping in line with other university summaries. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Ahodges7 talk 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] GWOT, OIF, OEF I'm concerned about separating Operation Iraqi Freedom from the ongoing Global War on Terror. The term GWOT is used to encompass both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you mention OIF separately, then you should drop the GWOT and say Operation Enduring Freedom instead. While the majority of casualties have been from Iraq, some have been in Afghanistan, and some were from the Sept 11 attacks themselves, so I think the more encompassing term GWOT is appropriate rather than singling out separate conflicts. Ahodges7 talk 15:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC) - I think I intended to convey that OIF was a subset of GWOT, but likely more notable than the latter. I don't think we have to unpack all the semantics and operations of GWOT, but I thought that OIF deserved mention in its own right given the scale of operations there. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I can understand that point of view. Perhaps I just think of it differently. Ahodges7 talk 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I would encourage the editors of this newly-minted FA to get it on the front page for the upcoming March 16 anniversary. See WP:TFA/R. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) - By my count, if I nominate it, it should have 4 pts going for it: Timing 1pt (anniv of founding), Contributor history 1pt (my first), Diversity 1pt (<50 FAs in Education category), and Importance 1pt (basic level, high probability of a 12 year-old using for a report). However, there is already a pending request here for Joseph W. Tkach for 16 Mar worth 3 pts. There are also already 5 requests on the TFA request page, but if my count of 4 pts is correct, USMA would outscore 3 of the 5. I'm still too new to know what to do. I don't want to step on someone else's request, but I feel USMA warrants being on the request page ahead of the two 2-pt requests currently on there (13 Mar & 24 Mar). Anyone have some advice on how to proceed? Ahodges7 talk 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- See comments from User:Wehwalt here. Anyone else think the same? I understand his point, but USMA has no direct link to Memorial Day other than being a holiday of remembrance for the military. Ahodges7 talk 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I"m honestly not that familiar with the process, so I would just be bold and go for it. The links between the day and topic are often tenuous at best and I've seen poorer justifications than Memorial Day-USMA. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Guess they went with something else entirely. Too bad :( Madcoverboy (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yeah, not sure where the 16 Mar article came from because it wasn't on the request list or listed as pending. Oh well, I'll put it on the pending page soon for Memorial Day. Ahodges7 talk 02:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- User:Raul654 picks FAs for Today's Featured Article. The WP:TFA/R process is strictly advisory in nature and is not binding. It doesn't mean he has to pick one from that list. He can pick any article he chooses. On a related topic, I'll be nominating Aggie Bonfire for the 10th anniversary of the collapse. — BQZip01 — talk 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] James W Smith -- First black cadet I removed the reference to the first black cadet from the article. He *was* expelled as the article mentioned, but this was apparently the result of a conspiracy to get him out. Allegedly, he was the victim of an orchestrated campaign of racist intimidation and ostracism. I removed the passage because it was incomplete at best and I don't have the relevant expertise to correct it. Smith's commission was awarded posthumously in 1997 at the request of US Rep John Spratt, US Rep Jim Clyburn and US Sen Strom Thurmond. ([[3]]) McFeely devotes a chapter of his bio of US Grant to the topic, but I haven't read this book. Hopefully someone with expertise in this matter will re-write the deleted material. Dduff442 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) - Sorry; I reverted your deletion. I don't see anything wrong with what's in the article although I'm sure it could be expanded. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- See also (e.g.) contemporary news report regarding Smith's treatment at West Point. [4]. Smith received his commission posthumously and current view is that he was the victim of a conspiracy. The reference to his expulsion without mentioning these facts is misleading. I do hope someone with the appropriate knowledge will re-write the material but it's worse than nothing in it's present form. Dduff442 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt that Smith faced racism and harsh treatment, as did Flipper. As did many caucasian cadets who were dismissed for academic deficiency or simply because the wrong person didn't like them. The scope of this article does not allow for an in-depth discussion of the sociological aspects of every controversial dismissal. The facts are: James W. Smith was the first african-american cadet at USMA, and he was officially dismissed for academic deficiency. This sourced fact was peer-reviewed and survived a FA-review. If you disagree, I suggest the most appropriate course of action would be to start a discussion on this page and make your case, then perhaps add a small comment in the article such as "he was controversially dismissed" or "dismissed under questionable circumstances." By deleting his name entirely, you are doing more of a disservice to history. Another good course of action would be to create a page for Mr. JW Smith and reference it well. This would help your case for modifying the main USMA article and would be a more appropriate place to discuss the controversy about his dismissal. Ahodges7 talk 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your argument certainly has merit for more detail involving Smith's controversial dismissal. In the future, don't just delete something because you think it is a "half truth". Instead, modify it to make it "more correct" and add appropriate source material to back up your edit. I'm not naive enough to think Smith didn't endure terribly racism while at the Academy. I believe that my most recent edit of the material and inclusion of the reference source that you provided appropriately addressed the matter. I still would like to see you start and expand an article about Mr. Smith, as he is certainly a notable historical figure. Ahodges7 talk 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Addition of historical content A recent paragraph was inserted by Barnej, which I reverted. It concerned the controversy surrounding the academy during the Second World War pertaining to abolishing the academy in favor of a much shorter curriculum and converting the academy into officer training school. While the gist of this statement was most certainly true, and I now doubt that Barnej was acting in good faith, please post comments on the discussion page (here) before adding a major unsourced addition to this article, which recently went through a lengthy FAC process. A discussion about the potential "abolition" of the academy certainly has its place, but it would likely be too lengthy to discuss in detail in this article's history section. The "History of the Academy" link is likely a better place for it and that article needs tons of work. Please feel free to add sourced material there if you have the time. Thanks. Ahodges7 talk 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC) [edit] Presidential appointment and sons of Medal of Honor recipients The article doesn't say anything about admission by presidential appointment or admission to sons of medal of honor recipients. Are these commonly retold myths, or is this an oversight in the article? 98.220.35.142 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) - The child of any Medal of Honor recipient is automatically eligible for admission if they meet the minimum standards for admission. It is not really a "presidential appointment". Mostly because of the rarity of the medal of honor being awarded, this form of nomination has rarely been used, and not in the last few generations. Ahodges7 talk 10:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right, those are two different thoughts though. Isn't the president empowered to make appointments as well? If so, this, as well as the children of Medal of Honor recipients need to be added to the admissions section. We can't just talk about the appointment by congressman and ignore the other ways a person can get in just because they don't happen too often. 98.220.43.201 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there are presidential nominations. There are also nominations by the VP and members of the cabinet. These are all routine and hundreds of persons are admitted to the service academies via these nominations each year. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm no admission's guru, but I'm positive that "members of the cabinet" cannot make appointments to the academy. As for presidential and vice presidential nominations, there are various ways to receive nominations, but the candidates don't have to know the president or vp. it is simply another way for the academy to admit a qualified candidate that they wish to admit. Because there are several other ways to gain admission, the article states that " majority of candidates receive their nomination from their congressman". To list and explain all the other possible means of receiving a nomination would be tedious and take too much space in an already lengthy article. Ahodges7 talk 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Secretary of the Army is a member of the cabinet. I don't know if the other members can make appointments (i.e. SecNav can make USNA appointments but probably not West Point). I don't recall if SecDef can make appointments. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- No reason to continuing to argue the point here. I was not considering SecArmy as a Cabinet position, as it is not here. Regardless, as you referenced in the link provided above, there are multiple other paths to nomination, too many to detail in the full USMA article. Ahodges7 talk 11:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Secretary of the Army is not a Cabinet level position, that much is obvious. The point remains that the article only highlights ONE path to admission, while ignoring other paths which one poster has pointed out is the path to admission for hundreds of people. It certainly belongs in the article, and a sentence listing the other ways to gain admission isn't tedious and wouldn't add too much space to the article. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Sports team nickname? Currently, the nickname of Army's sports teams is the Black Knights, but I seem to recall that in past years, they were called the "Cadets." I remember when I watched the Army-Navy football game on TV in the early 1990s, the team was referred to as the Cadets. And that's what they're called in these Wikipedia pages on Army's football team: (1944 Army Cadets football team, 1946 Army Cadets football team). Can someone explain the exact place that "Cadets" and "Black Knights" have in the history of Army's sports teams' nicknames? Sky Blu 2 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - The nickname "Black Knights" comes from an old nickname of the football team from the early part of the century when the New York City sports media referred to the team as the "Black Knights of the Hudson" due to the black color of the uniforms and their idealized reputation as cadets. As I understand it, this reference to the uniform color is also how Alabama became known at the "Crimson Tide. At some point in recent years, the Academy made an effort to capitalize on this traditional nickname. We were called the "Black Knights" in 1994 when I was a plebe, so I don't know at what point the Black Knight nickname became official. Since a student at West Point is called a "Cadet", the sports teams are occasionally referred to as the Cadets of Army vs..., this is especially true when playing Navy, since the Naval Academy embraces the term "Midshipman" as their official nickname. Ahodges7 talk 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New tradition segment I just added the "Punishment tours" segment, a segment that I should have included before the FAC last year. It needs more citations, which I hope to get finished later tonight. Please give me a day or two at most to put these in before anyone hits it with a "citation needed" tag. thanks. Ahodges7 talk 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
