Talk:United States Naval Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article United States Naval Academy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Maryland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.


I eliminated a factually inaccurate claim that Lincoln disbanded the Maryland legislature. In fact, Governor Hicks originally refused to even call the legislature into session in order to avoid a debate on secession. Later the legislature met and did not propose secession. The arrest of some legislators came after this meeting and the decision was originally made by military leaders, not Lincoln. In any event, it does not seem appropriate to discuss the various political and military machinations that went on in Maryland in this particular article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States Naval Academy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article needs some improvements for it to keep its good article status.

  • Several sections and paragraphs are uncited, including:
    • Most of the paragraphs in "Description"
    • Several paragraphs in "History"
    • "Campus (The Yard)" is unreferenced
    • Most of "Halls and principal buildings" also
    • All of "Faculty"
    • And so on.

Please keep this page updated with the article's status, thanks. Gary King (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No improvements made since this review began, so it is being delisted. Gary King (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Bowlers[edit]

There was a report in 1942, that a tiny group of USNA alumni (from 1907 or thereabouts) had banded together to form a secret clique to ensure that they each made admiral. It was called "The Green Bowlers" and apparently received quite a bit of publicity. See Time letter for one. Probably other refs out there.

Anyway, inspired by this piece of information an entire class of then-brand new grads (1945 I think) decided that they were going to be the "Green Bowlers" (the identity of the others being credibly secret!) and showed up for alumni meetings in, appropriately, and anything-but-discrete, bright-green bowlers! The idea was quite funny at the time. Don't know where mention would go. The first "real" group, which encountered extreme suspicion and publicity, should go somewhere. The second is more for fun than anything else.Student7 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, student (where?), I don't think you are taking WP seriously. I didn't either when I started, but this encyclopedia is read by quite a number of millions at home and abroad and articles such as this represent our country. Would you expect read about the British military academy and see a bunch of "in" jokes there? This isn't a blog site. If something encyclopedic needs to be said then say it otherwise your advice about what "needs" to be in here is pretty much what needs to be out of here. I repeat, this is not a local blog site. What you or we write is read by the whole world. Is that what you want to say to it? If so, maybe we should start a juvenile section for you, son.Dave (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please: WP:AGF and avoid WP:PA. My suggestion was made ten months ago with no takers. I never inserted anything relevant to this in the article. Anyway, no WP:RELY source. The real Green Bowler cabal should probably be listed as it pertained to the Naval Academy alumni only and was therefore quite relevant. National news at the time and a focus of a congressional investigation.
What is the big deal about suggesting something? What is the big deal about trying to discuss something no matter how outrageous? Are you suggesting that people should not discuss things by making it "troublesome" and threatening for them? FYI, I have been on Wikipedia awhile. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoeless graduation[edit]

A "prank" that might be mentioned is the class of 1952 who stepped out of their shoes when parading for the final time. See description which sounds worse than what I had heard. That wouldn't even be tried today, I don't think. Whatever possessed them?  :) This is a good ref BTW which could be used for contructing a sentence someplace. Student7 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually this occurs now annually JWithing (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The practice has been actively supressed by the administration in recent years. During the 2007 color parade, the firstie class removed their shoes, and some even sent them flying through the air. Subsequent classes have been threatened with delayed graduation as there is a shoe inspection which follows every color parade now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

Following up on the GA review comments, this article is missing enough citations it doesn't qualify for Milhist B-class. I added some citations on the Midshipman article which might be helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Needs some work. See below.Dave (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ricketts Hall namesake[edit]

In the subsection on Halls and principal buildings, there is a building called Ricketts Hall. I looked up "Ricketts" and found the following 2 USNA alumni:

Is one of them the namesake of Ricketts Hall? Eagle4000 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(Oops, I forgot to include a subject header.) Eagle4000 (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

it's named after Claude Vernon Ricketts. source: Raine (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I just added text at "Ricketts Hall" and your source at Claude V. Ricketts. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Are there any differences between what those who go into the Marines do while at the Naval Academy compared to those who go into the Navy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin... Jmdeur (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not an answer, Jmdeur. This is not a blog.Dave (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

chapel restoration[edit]

Under United States Naval Academy#Halls and principal buildings, at "Naval Academy Chapel", the final sentence says: "From February 2009 to the late fall of 2009, the Chapel is undergoing a restoration project, severely limiting its space, capacity and usage." Is the renovation completed? Eagle4000 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, done last fall - see Jmdeur (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hubbard Hall[edit]

United States Naval Academy #Campus gives the name of each building's namesake. I just added Hubbard Hall. I then looked up Hubbard (surname); it has only one entry for a USN officer: "Harry Hubbard (1903-1942), American naval officer". His page says USS Harry E. Hubbard is named for him. Is he the building's namesake? If so, we should (1) add his name to the Hubbard Hall paragraph and (2) add Hubbard Hall to his bio page, with a link to United States Naval Academy #Campus. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Rear Admiral John Hubbard, Class of 1870. See Jmdeur (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Honor code[edit]

Well, there is an alleged article in the Navy Times, March 22, about the honor system having its worst year (2008-2009) ever. 172 cases. Most treated lightly. This needs to be in here if anyone has access to the print version or online version. I don't. Student7 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This needs not to be in here. An encyclopedia article is not interested in the state of individual years in any specific aspect of the institution. It is interested in the general history and characteristics of the institution. Encyclopedia is the key word. Essay-type material such as beefs about individual failures to meet the honor code are not encyclopedic. Sorry. Stick to the point. If the gunnery officer asks you how many yards to the target he wouldn't be interested in whether the observer is having a good or a bad day.Dave (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If the article is going to imply how wonderful the honor code is and how wonderful that so many attest to it, it needs to provide specifics, much as a school that claims to be "academic." The latter either needs to provide good examples, or failing that, bad examples. These are quantitative, not subjective WP:PEACOCK type material. Either the peacock material goes, or the truth needs to be in there. You can't censor out the bad once the wonderfulness issue has been raised. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)nd t
Well hello there. It was probably you that left me the unsigned message about attacking editors. I doubt if a less experienced editor would know enough to do it in the way it was done. I do apologize. I should know better and I do appreciate experience. Congratulations on your medals. Now, I agree, a wonderful honor code should be supported by specifics on what makes it wonderful. However, I distinguish between honor code the ideal as expressed in the regulations and the honor of individuals. The latter can in no way be used to discredit the former. For example, the law forbids murder, theft, selling drugs without legal sanction, and so on. The state (abstract use) promulgates the law. The degree to which individuals do or do not obey the law cannot consistently be used in any way to characterize it, the two are completely different. If no individual obeys the law at any time you cannot logically call the state murderous or rapaceous. Its population are murderous, etc., but that is a matter for demographics not of political science. I therefore recommend if you want to cover the topic you do it in a different article or a different section of the article, such as "The problem of enforcing the honor code" or "Problems in adhering to the honor code." But even so I have deep misgivings. What are you going to say about the USNA? It has no real honor code? It has a slipshod honor code? It isn't concerned about honor? The academy is not its current population. Two and two make five, if you pluck the extra one from a different time frame. And the United States also continues to affirm its ideals even though at times they have been nowhere to be seen. I've been through the gamut, believe me, and times when truth and justice were nowhere to be seen and were ridiculed in the street were often shortly followed by revolution in some form. So, I suggest we present the academy as it is defined by law to be and if there are any offenders they should be treated under a different topic. Well I have said the best. I'll be cleaning this article up for a while, but I want to do other things also so I may not address every issue simultaneously. Again I do apologize and I recognize your credentials on the encyclopedia. My bark is worse than my bite.Dave (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Your gracious apology accepted.
I don't suggest that anything should be inferred from the statistics. They are merely statistics but should be reported. It is up to the reader to draw any conclusions if any need to be made. Similarly for all Academy endeavors. "There are x Rhodes scholars." "An average of xx% flunk out." Simple reporting of the dry facts. Some restructuring of the current material might be necessary. I don't visualize anything drasic. Not WP:SOAPBOX.
An analogy is in "place" articles, violence rates for cities may be published. This may not infer the city is violent. Maybe, if low, just the opposite conclusion may be reached, again by the reader, not by us editors. And BTW, no one has come up with the entry for this yet. I don't have it. Apparently, until I can get my hands on it, which may be never, it won't get published. So no problem!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
For conciseness and clarity, even in discussion, please refer to the governing document of the Honor system at USNA as the "Honor Concept" and not the "Honor Code". It is referred to correctly in the article. West Point and the Air Force Academy have "Honor Codes" which are "zero-tolerance" policies while Midshipmen at the Naval Academy are expected to exercise discernment and judgement in handling of honor violations. Ray Trygstad (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation improvements needed[edit]

I recommend the following help section to you, which I hope you will read before lending a further editorial hand here: Wikipedia:Citation templates. In looking over the citations in the references given I notice they are not in recommended WP format. That is a requirement for a good article. Moreover, too much liberty is taken with the wording. We don't want editorial comments on the source, we want the properly cited source. Don't rename it and don't tell us all about it. And finally, these "sources" are sometimes used in notes that do not support the statement noted. I am sure you have heard this many times before, but let me repeat it: if you don't know, don't guess. Whether you get your two cents in here is of no concern or importance at all. This has the makings of a good article content-wise. The makings, I say. I will try to do a few of these as an example but I'm not going to do all the work here. I will give reasons below when required.Dave (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed passages[edit]

We're definitely not getting off to a good start. If you worked on this article before I recommend you not work on it again. Here are some removed passages:

"Candidates for admission are judged on their academic achievement, demonstrated leadership, athletics and character.[citation needed]" This was plagiarized from the write-up on the Air Force Academy. If you can't even plagiarize from the right article I'm not wasting my time discussing anything with you. Get off the article and stay off. I'm not citing the correct article because it does not fit the topic under discussion. Maybe later, although is actually a commercial article selling admissions services. Let me think about it.Dave (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"historically just under 1,000 of those will graduate." Give us a break. What are you, a prophet? How can recently incoming classes have a history? May they go to school first, do you think? I suppose you are trying to say past data indicates about x% of incoming plebes will graduate. But, you have to say that and you have to give a credible source on the %. Hearsay does not count. Numbers from credible sources count. You don't have any of those, do you, editor?Dave (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing is entirely clear, as the fact that you understood it shows, and requires no prophecy beyond the usual expectation that, barring noticeable changes in causal circumstances, the future will resemble the past. Graduation rates are easily obtained from Academy documents issued at each commencement (not sure if they are online), and from the NCAA website (which keeps track of graduation rates at member schools). 1000 out of 1200 seems a bit low; last time I checked the NCAA the rate was high 80s, not 83%, but that was a few years ago. MayerG (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"do not rank the Naval Academy directly against other colleges because of service academies' special mission" Alhough it is true the class portrait mentions a mission, the news agency says nothing at all about it. The agency's reason for not ranking it is that it specializes in engineering and is thus in a very small category. The agency, however, is inaccurate. The curricula currently offered by the NA are quite broad with a number of majors available. I get the point the editor is trying to make. Why not state that just as the sources do? I'm removing the editorial linking to mission and specialty but that still leaves us with the agency's false reasoning. I think that can be solved by putting it forward as their reasoning, not general truth. For the mission, you might want to use that elsewhere. By the way, if I've been a bit tough on you I do apologize. The article should come first. We have a way to go on it yet before excellence is achieved. Thanks.Dave (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


The CDIO navigational template seems a bit spammy to me. Why, knowing that the Academy was a "Conceive, Design, Integrate, whatever" college, why would I want to know (navigate to) the others? It seems pov "pushing" IMO. It's simply some fashionable technique that (as they all do) come and go. I would tolerate a link to a list of schools contained in some article on CDIO, but that is pretty much it. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarized passage[edit]

"To gain admission, candidates must pass a physical fitness test, undergo a thorough medical examination, and secure a nomination, which usually comes from the member of Congress in the candidate's home district, but may also come from a Senator, the Vice President, or the President of the United States.[citation needed] Recent incoming classes have had about 1,200 freshmen (called "plebes" at the Academy).[1] Tuition, room and board are all paid for by the U.S. Government. Midshipmen receive a monthly stipend, but have to pay for uniforms, books, and class supplies from this, and incur a commitment to serve a number of years of military service after graduation."

I suggest we not set a bad example for the military academy students. This paragraph differs but little from the same passage in the Air Force Academy article, and that was taken from the Air Force Academy web site without attribution. You need to attribute these things. In this case we cannot attribute the Air Force Academy site for the Naval Academy. Repetition of stock paragraphs is not or should not be what WP is about. The topic actually is covered in some detail in the article so there is no need to rewrite this material. Its view of admission is too general to give much of an understanding so let's concentrate on the part of the article that DOES cover it. For example, it fails to mention the congressman's competitive exam, or the sons and daughters of congressional medal of honor winners not having to take it. There are a lot of ways in, it's a complicated process, and resorting to duplicating stock propaganda is not worthy of us or you. We need an article here.Dave (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right. A similar paragraph needs to be there. Should we even have it on the talk page? Maybe just delete the above and write a brief spec for a replacement paragraph? I can't do it (rewrite it) right now. Student7 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Rewrote and installed in same place with old reference. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Naval Academy prep school ref[edit]

Was not that. It was the main page of the NA Foundation and did not mention the prep or any other school. Sorry, to look for a ref on a prep school and find there instead link to a site dunning you for money for something else is not WP policy, no matter how good the cause. Contribute to this excellent cause, by all means. But, as of now, you can't advertise it on WP as a supposed scholarly footnote.Dave (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Size of article[edit]

Some space can be saved by doing proper citations, which I have started to do. The article will still be too long. It appears as though we have to continue to split. This will end by being a catalogue artcle. Some splits I suggest are "Naval Academy Campus" and "Naval Academy Admission Process". I'm off again now, back later, weeks later.Dave (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone working on a possible "Naval Academy Campus" article might want to take a look at United States Military Academy grounds and facilities, for some ideas. Eagle4000 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The USMA campus article is horribly disjointed and lacks a predominate style (list vs prose). it's been on my to-do list forever... I'm hoping to give it some attention this summer. Please look at it for "ideas" only.  Ahodges7   talk 21:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I would caution against a standalone article for the "Naval Academy admission process" since it's not particularly distinct from those associated with the other academies and of dubious standalone notability even thus generalized. Following precedent on other university articles, if a campus article is to be spun out, it should be titled "Campus of the United States Naval Academy" or perhaps "United States Naval Academy grounds and facilities". Finally, considerations of space or length should not include citations: do not strip out citations because the article is too long! However, I fully support any efforts to standardize the use of citation templates. I had added USNA to my watchlist primarily because having lent a hand around Army, I wanted to be fair :) Let me know where I can chip in. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If we are voting (!), I would prefer the dull but generic "Campus of the USNA" for reasons unrelated reasons. It might be okay to fork this material if the article is getting too long, but I'm not finding that many campus articles.
Madcoverboy's remarks suggest that there could be an integrated admissions article for the academies. Student7 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pan in the New York Times[edit]

This was an op-ed in the New York Times May 2010. I am not suggesting we incorporate it, but it should probably be "addressed" in some manner. "A professor stated that ...' maybe. I think we need to consider the framework of the article within the scope of his comments. He is not the only one to suggest that Academy grads are no better than ROTC ones. The military's friend, Senator Sam Nunn, tried to close the academies! Student7 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

At best it should be a reference to a statement asserting the existence of critics and attempts to close the academy. If it gets more traction, it's just one person's opinion (albeit one published in the most prominent of newspapers). ElKevbo (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree will ElKevbo.  Ahodges7   talk 20:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is a discussion of criticisms of the Academy, this should be included as a cite at minimum, but no more than a sentence should be devoted to what is simply one individual's perspective. Oh wait: what ElKevbo said. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There was a truncated response to the letter by Fowler at There should be a longer one somewhere online that hasn't been cut, but I couldn't locate it. Student7 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Professor's complaint[edit]

A professor complained about the academy, summarized, with embellishments by the media:

With this heading to the Inspector General and Chief of Naval Operations, it would seem to me to merit a line or two. It sounds real. Particularly since the Freedom of Information obtained test results, etc. Well-documented IMO. Student7 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

here is a link to the article in the chronicle of higher education, the academic world's paper of record, detailing the handling of the professor's complaint:

a friend of mine teaches in the same department at the boat school as the prof in question, and has told me of having football players with verbal sat's in the low 400's. granted this is,at best, anecdotal, and the whole issue of limited relevance to the wp article, but some mention ought to be considered.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I put in two extremely mild sentences, each referenced with detailed material. What is the chance that they won't be WP:CENSORed? Probably not good seeing that nothing is in there now after only 160 years, suggesting that the academy is less than perfect. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Plebe year[edit]

Any class graduating prior to (say) 1975, the most memorable year (to put a pretty face on it) was plebe year. They were faced with an excruciatingly Spartan and sometimes arbitrary discipline. Meals usually revolved around the "handling" of plebes, in one form or another.

This was considered "traditional" and "illogical" by people running the school. It was examined and found wanting after women entered in the 1970s. It was replaced with an an excruciatingly Spartan plebe summer. But the rest of the year, though the classes interacted, they were "students in uniform," who occasionally marched together.

This needs documenting badly. It is probably the most glaring omission from this article. I tried inserting the following with a reference from the classic work by Webb, then an ex-Professor, and some rough notes from a graduate. Both are considered "primary" references, but there is nothing wrong with primary references when they are the only references. They may be debated for veracity like all the others. I don't think these lack veracity. The insertion that was deleted was:

"*Plebe Year. During its first year, each class has had to undergo a certain amount of extra discipline. The demands have diminished over time, leading senior classes to deride the underclass as "never having a real plebe year. In the 19th century and early part of the 20th, this discipline could include physical punishment. Direct abuse was eliminated in the mid-20th century. Plebes marched outside their rooms in the center of the corridors. They braced up at tables.(footnote)[1](end footnote) They were emotionally harassed by the first and second class. They were subject to "come arounds" to the upper class rooms at reveille and just before taps. In the mid-20th century, each plebe had a First Classman who would advise him and protect him from unwarranted abuse. This system expired with the advent of the arrival of women in the mid-1970s.(footnote)[2](end footnote) It was replaced by the system described above."

It could doubtless, be better worded and have more citations and information. Student7 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For an accurate treatment of this topic, it will be necessary to reference more than Webb's well publicized diatribe against the admission of women to the United States' military academies. The statements above are not accurate, since the activities described continued well past the admission of women, and it is not true that each plebe had a first class to "protect" him, before or after the admission of women. There are many references in print and in news archives describing the evolution of the indoctrination of plebes over the years, as the pendulum swings back and forth over time, often in correlation with US involvement in war/conflict. It is also worth taking into account that it is the custom for each class to claim that it had the last "real" plebe year whenever citing a reference such as a classmate memory page. Mhjohns (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Mhjohns (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
1. There is entropy over time in all culture. These are often documented. It is called "history" along with all other changes.
2. While Webb may have apologized for his remarks about women for political reasons (he was either in line for Secretary of the Navy or running for US Senate at the time), it was a well thought out, polished article, by a former Naval Academy professor who was nobody's fool. His writing cannot be dismissed offhand as if he were a crackpot. The admission of women was a watershed which forced the rethinking of the plebe system. Can you force a woman to "come around" at reveille when the upper classmen are getting dressed? And if not women, then nobody? It was clearly a demarking of the old traditional system which was (apparently) replaced by one that was openly discussed and perhaps less arbitrary and actually made some sense. Webb is WP:RELY for all that. Student7 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You still have the facts wrong. Plebes (men and women) were still coming around in the '80s, still chopping, still doing chow calls, still squaring corners, still sounding off and still learning rates. Plebe year was not thrown out the window with the admission of women. Mhjohns (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Webb's opinion is certainly notable but it remains his opinion and should not be cited as historical fact or without clear attribution. ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Right now, I have one cite (Webb) which is fairly notable, being "primary" does not diminish that. And a second cite (blog) which is not quite in a polished format. No one else has anything except "personal observation" to refute this. This seems to fall into the "I just don't like it" category of rebuttal. Student7 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it seems like you've got one person's opinion. Although that opinion is notable if it's all you have it sounds like it's not something we'd incorporate into an article.
(And it's not "I just don't like it" so much as "I know it's not true" with a dash of "Jim Webb - or at least the opinion about women in the Navy he held in the 70s and 80s but has since recanted - is notoriously sexist and controversial.") ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So you are pretty sure that 1) either plebe women "come around" at reveille while the upper class (mostly male) is still in their underwear or 2) that no one does this anymore? If 2, this is definitely a change. Student7 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Plebes were still doing come arounds at 0630 when I was there in the mid-late 90s. It's possible that it's changed but given how tradition-bound the Academy is it's doubtful.
Men and women live in rooms across the hall and next door to one another in Bancroft Hall. The only gender segregation that occurs is within specific rooms. So men and women mingle constantly and no one leaves their room without being dressed. And no one enters the room of another gender - not even upperclass barging into a Plebe's room - without first knocking and asking if the occupants are "decent."
"When I was a Plebe" (Midshipman universally groan and roll their eyes when someone begins a statement with those words!) come arounds were at 0630 but Plebes were allowed to wake up 0530. Come arounds were held in the p-way (the passageway, the nautical term for hallway) outside the upperclass's room. Some time ago, come arounds were transformed from whatever hazing ritual they originally were to professional development sessions with each week having a different focus (ship classes, aircraft armaments, special warfare, etc.). Come arounds were held with your Youngster on Monday and Tuesday, your Second Class on Wednesday and Thursday, and with your First Class on Friday with a Brigade-wide quiz for plebes on Sunday evening closing out that particular prodev topic.
So yes, I am relatively sure that this process still exists in some form as I know it was in use in the mid-late 1990s. Your objection - undressed men wandering the passageway in Bancroft - doesn't make much sense given its setup and the discipline under which the mids live their daily lives. ElKevbo (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Interesting. For the record, even in the barbaric "old days", no one was "undressed" in the passageways. Bathrobes were allowed for a period of time in the am. Come arounds were arbitrary, given solely by 1st and 2nd class as punishment for some offense, real or imagined. 3rd class were referred to, only half-jokingly as "plebes with 'carry on'." So giving them something real to do was brand new when it happened.
But it's this "focused" prodev that needs (along with dozens of other things over the years) to be given a sentence or two.
Physical hazing was common in nearly all colleges in the 19th century. So the environment has changed gradually over the decades. This all is misssing. (The physical hazing is curiously omitted in most college articles, BTW :). Student7 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


I noticed Rugby_School#School_slang subsection and wondered if such a section could be included here. Undignified, of course, but accurate and interesting. Student7 (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Only if it's included in WP:RS. Beyond that, I don't think I would include per editorial judgement. It seems outside the scope of a WP:GA/FA to me. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
There are quite a few reliable sources for USNA slang if we opt to include it. The most obvious place to start would be Reef Point. In fact, it would be a neat addition to this article if we included some of the USNA-specific and historic slang and cultural bits e.g. formulaic answers to questions like How long have you been in the Navy? or How's the cow?. ElKevbo (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a fork if we get to that. Slang vs "plebe knowledge." Laws of the Navy? Gracious!  :) So what would be here would be eye-catchers. While I've a Reef Points, it's a bit outdated! Was hoping to defer to later classes. Note that "some" of the older slang is probably not printed, even if used. Like "Jimmy-legs" for security guards, "bricks", a term for supposedly less than pleasing-to-the-eye women.
Another lengthy paragraph would be bringing about a full-rigged ship, even when I memorized it, was a half-century removed from ships masts! Another was memorizing the instructions for a marine guard. I don't know if that was universal. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
For a stand-alone article, we'd definitely need more than just Reef Points as we'd want to talk about the significance and history of the ideas. I bet that such sources exist although I don't know how many would be of high quality (as opposed to amateur publications or surface-level analyses lacking sophistication and rigor).
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't have time to dedicate to writing such an article. I could help a little bit but I've got my hands full with another small writing project of my own. ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to fork history section?[edit]

Although it needs a lot of editing, the history section appears to be long enough for us to fork it into a separate article. It's a fairly common practice and this section is certainly substantial enough to stand on its own. ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

File:1924 Map of US Naval Academy.png[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:1924 Map of US Naval Academy.png will be appearing as picture of the day on June 30, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-06-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day
United States Naval Academy map

A map of the United States Naval Academy, as it appeared in 1924. Established in 1845, the service academy educates and prepares officers for commissioning into the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps. During the 1920s, the academy's athletics program began its era of success, taking a gold medal at the 1920 Summer Olympics and tying the University of Washington in the 1924 Rose Bowl.

Map: C.E. Miller; restoration: Awardgive
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

  1. ^ "Class Portrait 2013" (PDF). Retrieved 27 March 2010.