Talk:Virginia Military Institute

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Time to talk, to each other

Refactored, in part from User_talk:El_C#Virginia_Military_Institute

For my own sanity, why don't the two parties begin using the talk page of the article, in the following way: one party articulates the additions/negations that they favour while the other party explains what their objections are; and vice versa. El_C 08:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Proposals moved to the section below 

The contested change is as follows:

Remove from the section Virginia Military Institute#Academic the following:

In 2008 VMI ranked third in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States. Compared to the top 100 U.S. liberal arts colleges, public and private, it ranked 71st out of 122 (including ties).

... and replace it with (referred to in discussion below as the contested information):

In 2008, VMI was ranked the #3 public liberal arts college in the United States in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States.

The 2008 rankings are as follows:

1. United States Naval Academy
2. United States Military Academy
3. Virginia Military Institute

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The placement of ranking information being contested is exactly quoted from [1]. At this link, the following is given verbatim:

America's Best Colleges 2008

Top Public Liberal Arts Colleges

United States Naval Academy (MD)

United States Military Academy (NY)

Virginia Military Institute

Arguments for the above were made at User_talk:El_C#Virginia_Military_Institute. I will make the following additional points here:

1. WP:PRESTIGE clearly states in its first line that it is A voluntary guideline: remember, all "rules" may be ignored if they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. That user:Rillian has chosen to enforce this voluntary guideline by reverting the above 38 times over the last 166 days is unconscionable and goes against the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia.
2. WP:PRESTIGE is composed of an introductory general statement, a guideline, and a list of examples. Inclusion of the contested information does not violate any of these 3 parts of WP:PRESTIGE:
   1. The introductory general statement of WP:PRESTIGE makes 3 statements:
      1. College articles often violate WP:APT. The contested information does not violate WP:APT and is stated almost exactly as in the original presentation by a neutral national source, the US News and World Report.
      2. Wikipedia articles should strive for neutrality. The presentation of information exactly as given by the neutral national source does not violate neutrality of the article.
      3. Editors should be guided by WP:CS, WP:AWW, keep articles verifiable, and avoid boosterism voluntarily.
         1. With regard to WP:CS, from the first addition by user:Pikepk1, the contested information has cited a neutral source of exactly this information in almost exactly the form being contested
         2. With regard to WP:AWW, the contested information is completely free of any weasel words and is given almost exactly as in the citation
         3. With regard to verifiability, the contested information is completely verifiable by following the link given here: [2]
         4. With regard to boosterism, this comment in the guideline is circular since for purposes of Wikipedia, boosterism is that which violates this guideline of WP:PRESTIGE, which the contested information does not.
   2. The WP:PRESTIGE guidelines section contain 4 points:
      1. Avoid vague terms of praise. No vague terms are used in the contested information at all.
      2. Do not bury the reader in fact. ...remember that a university article's lead paragraph should be a quick summary of the most important facts about that institution. Move detailed listings of facts deeper into the body of the article. The contested information is not being given in the lead paragraph of the article and is a detailed listing of facts given deeper into the body of the article.
      3. If you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest. The contested information is precise and honest, by giving the information exactly in the form of which is provided by the neutral citation.
      4. Boosterism is particularly unpalatable to some Wikipedians when describing institutions whose "elite" status is already widely acknowledged elsewhere. The Virginia Military Institute's "elite" status with regard to academic ranking is clearly not well-known. It is not an Ivy League university.
   3. WP:PRESTIGE give 3 examples, none of which apply or are similar to the contested information:
      1. ...is a highly competitive school.... This is an obvious violation of the WP:AWW guideline. The contested information does not use any imprecise words as "highly".
      2. ...is one of the best colleges in (state).... Again this is obviously a violation of the WP:AWW guideline. The contested information does not use imprecise phrasing such as "one of the best".
      3. No public or private university in the ___(region)_____ United States can match the breadth and quality of the university's research endeavors, or its USD$___ million (as of 2001) in annual federal research funding. Although the research funding is precise, "breadth and quality" is imprecise and therefore not verifiable. The contested information is very precise and verifiable.

Conclusion: Editors should not be barred from putting the contested information into the Virginia Military Institute page, and user:Rillian should stop bouncing the contested information up against the WP:PRESTIGE guideline for a 39th time. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with everything listed above, when multiple anonymous IP editors make repeated accusations of POV, some of them from the very start of their editing career on wikipedia, and tar uninvolved editors with the same brush, and when similar accusation have been made by other editors who have repeatedly refused to adhere to policy (not guideline, but policy), it become very easy to do a similar thing - tar other editors with a brush of being unreasonable regarding policy. After having dealt with both UserKoonoonga and UserMarshall3, their harassment, and their absolute unwillingness to follow policy regarding citation ... and then those two editors disappear, and numerous IP editors begin similarly worded attacks, well, assuming good faith is very hard to do.--Vidkun (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Vidkun, you have said this before at User_talk:El_C#Virginia_Military_Institute. I can say definitively that I am neither user:Koonoonga nor user:Marshall3. If you feel that I have violated WP:SOCKS, I would urge you to make your report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, your comments are tangential to the substantive issues behind this edit war. You have performed 2 of the reversions, not enough to presume bad faith. user:Rillian has performed 38 of the reversions, which is more than enough for others to presume bad faith. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't give two flying tags whether you are or aren't either of those two editors. Having dealt with both sockpuppets, and bandwagon jumpers after sock puppets, and then having a comcast ip throw my name into the ring as being a POV editor, in their second contribution, why SHOULDN'T I be a bit heated? Can you give me one reason to trust IP editors on that same page, when other IP editors pull that crap? that's why wikipedia encourages everyone to sign up as a registered user.--Vidkun (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaching a compromise

Forget about all the ips, forget about all the reverts —both sides need to let go of those grievances in hopes of it advancing their position— focus on what you want to add, where; what you want to remove, where. Keep it simple, try to avoid overlinking or de-linking (i.e. make sure everything links everywhere fine, once), because the above is a bit of a mess. The less clutter, the better. El_C 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

98.xx's proposal

Remove from the section Virginia Military Institute#Academic the following: In 2008 VMI ranked third in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States. Compared to the top 100 U.S. liberal arts colleges, public and private, it ranked 71st out of 122 (including ties). ... and replace it with (referred to in discussion below as the contested information): In 2008, VMI was ranked the #3 public liberal arts college in the United States in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States. The 2008 rankings are as follows: United States Naval Academy United States Military Academy Virginia Military Institute

Comments

So, anyone objects to the above addition? If so, why? Let's start there. El_C 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object :) 98.204.199.179 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

So what was the argument about, listing the Naval/Military Academies? I don't get it. El_C 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the above two while still sticking to the normal prose?

In 2008 VMI ranked third, after the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy, in the US News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States.[6][7] Compared to the top 100 U.S. liberal arts colleges, public and private, it ranked 71st out of 122 (including ties).[8]

El_C 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Categories

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)

History ends in 1945?

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)

Mel Brooks

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)

Indeed he was. There's an extensive section of this interview: [3] 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)

Gender norming

• ... 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)