Talk:Virginia Military Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review Virginia Military Institute has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

It is proper Wikiquette to sign your posts on Talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Because of this necessity, Wikipedian developers created a very easy way to create signatures. To automatically sign your posts with a date-stamp, add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Rillian 17:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Archives of previous discussions

Please note that Archive pages are necessary when the main Talk page has become so long as to be unwieldy. Moving content you disagree with to an Archive page is considered vandalism. Editing comments other than your own is vandalism. Editing your own comments, other than correcting typos, is considered bad wiki etiquette. Rillian 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rings?

So, can the public expect any citation about the claim that VWI rings are the heaviest class rings in the world, such as verifiable weight statements from VMI, NU, USMA, USNA etc? or even the SuperBowl ring weights as compared to VMI rings? I am familiar with the assertion by a number of military school students that their ring is the heaviest, and that it is a competition each year to see who has it, and who doesn't, but I have never seen any valid citations. I know of at least one class year (1994), from one university, who had ring options up to 38 dwt.--Vidkun 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you wanted to say 38 pwt instead of 38 dwt, and VMI rings from 1994 weighed over 39pwt. You can call Josten's at 1 800-854-7464 to find out for yourself, but yes, VMI rings tend to be the largest collegiate rings in the country and weigh more than superbowl rings. VMI rings generally weigh 39 penny weight and go up in weight from there. Please let me know if you need any more help. Marshall3 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to split hairs (much) but the correct abbreviation for pennyweight is dwt, see pennyweight.--Vidkun 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, you have no verifiable source for the claim. I'm not saying the claim is false, but there is no verifiable source listed here, so, the fact tag should go back in, as that is the wikipedia standard when a specific claim is made that is disputed.--Vidkun 21:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Vidkun, you are mistaken. Webster's Dictionary and countless other sources verify that the correct term for pennyweight is pwt OR dwt...you might want to look that up and make the change to the wikipedia article you cite. Nice try... However, the important issue here is that your original statement of the "college you know of" having a ring that weighs 38 pwt has been considered and is irrelevant, as I've stated VMI's 1994 ring weighs 39 pwt and up. Here's an idea...why don't YOU cite the facts before you go silly adding [citation needed] tags to any statement you disagree with in the future. Troll somewhere else....Marshall3 00:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So, now you have resorted to a personal attack? The VWI article makes an assertion of fact with no citation for it. You don't see me adding to any specific article a claim that anyone has a bigger ring, do you? No. The editors of the VMI page, however, in an attempt to stroke their egos, have made a claim that they do not back up. If it is a true statement, then wikipedia policy requires that those asserting cite it. Maybe try looking at the standards wikipedia holds, and trying to deal with them in an honest and forthright way.--Vidkun 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You sure are neutral, aren't you.......Marshall3 12:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Virginia Military Institute case of the Mediation Cabal if you are involved in the dispute involving the citation of the size of the Virginia Military Institute's ring sizes or the Dabney Coleman hazing allegations. The dispute has been brought to the Mediation Cabal, a place to "...provide a friendly hand in resolving disputes without taking it through a formal channel." Cowman109Talk 02:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I came here at the request of Cowman109, to see if I can't help y'all find a way forward. I've found that most editing conflicts can be solved by a strict adherence to Wikipedia's policies. It may be the case that VMI's rings are the heaviest, but we need a citation to say that with certainty. There's nothing wrong with adding a "citation requested" to a fact that has no sourcing and that is in dispute. I take it that none can be found readily? Perhaps, then, the way to get at this is to find someone asserting that it's true. Then we can say it's asserted to be true, with a source for the assertion. Also, everybody should step back from fingerpointing and namecalling. It's rude and doesn't help anybody resolve anything. Comment on content, not on contributors. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did a cursory bit of searching through Google and Nexis. I can't even find someone making an assertion that VMI's rings are the largest. The closest I've found was a reference to some individual graduate's ring being "hefty," and that's a far cry from "the heftiest." Without even an assertion on record, the information just isn't includeable here. Someone above suggested "calling Josten's" to hear for themselves, but that would be considered original research, which is not permissible. Wikipedia only summarizes already-published information, that way it's easily verifiable by the Wikipedia community. If someone can present a source for someone even making the claim that VMI's rings are the heaviest, this can be reconsidered. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a thought: If there are any VMI graduates out there, perhaps you could take a picture of your ring and upload it here for use illustrating the article. That way people can see with their own eyes what it looks like, and presumably that it is large, instead of trying to make such an assertion. · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As a graduate of VMI (and proud owner of a 44 dwt. ring), I have often heard this assertion. Doing some rudimentary fact-checking, Superbowl rings are designed to meet a requirement of the NFL Game Operations manaul that they weigh no more than 30 dwt.; though some rings exceed this, they are not the norm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05013/441330.stm). The maximum allowed size for a VMI is 44 dwt., as anything greater is classified as a deadly weapon under the Code of Virginia, § 18.2-57. I can not verify that VMi rings are the largest in the nation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.0.10 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a common claim made by military college graduates about their rings: that they are so heavy, that they come close to being banned under various state laws. Trouble is, the section cited does not comment on ring weight.[1] A search for penny, pennyweight, ring, or brass knuckle does not show any references to rings in the Code of Virginia.--Vidkun 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotes "brotherhood"

I don't know, but since VMI now admits girls, wouldn't this more accurately say something like "fellowship?" It's not quite accurate to suggest that VMI's female cadets experience brotherhood. Something for regular editors to think about. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0, Good suggestion. Outside the Institute you would be right. However, at VMI the male and female cadets all have the same standards and requirements (in both PT and military duties). Also, both male and female cadets refer to each other as "Brother-rat." So, brotherhood in this case is considered somewhat correct.Marshall3 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize they have equal PT standards. Speaking as a former ROTC cadet myself (MCJROTC and AFROTC), I find that very impressive. · Katefan0 (scribble) 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment, and another question on sourcing

To the anon: Thank you for those citations. They did help. Not the most reliable sources (a college guide isn't the most unbiased source), but better than nothing. The Petersons site said that the National Association of College and University Business Officers rated VMI as having the highest per capita endowment. I went to their website and looked at their most recent endowment study, and it doesn't appear that they calculate per capita anymore. So I poked around a little more and found the citation I just placed in the article, which states that in 1999 the NACUBO rated VMI's endowment as the highest per capita. Unfortunately the NACUBO site no longer has that particular study online, or it would be preferable to link right to it. But that should suffice I think, as long as we specify in the article that that study was as of 1999; things can change in 8 years.

Kaplan's guide also cites the endowment information as well as other collegiate sources. Hope that helps.Marshall3 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Same problem, really -- those guides are all designed to make colleges look as good as possible. They reference NACUBO, making them secondary sources. It's best to go straight to NACUBO then for a citation, and when you do that you will see that the organization's most recent study (2005) includes no such per capita ranking. Indeed, neither does NACUBO's studies for 2004, 2003 or 2002 as far as I can tell, and their older studies aren't available online. It seems likely that it was an old metric no longer studied, as is referenced in the citation I just placed in the article, which says that as of 1999 NACUBO found VMI's endowment to be the largest per capita. I haven't been able to find any reference to a more updated study, so this assertion should be properly described as old data, as apparently it's no longer kept track of. If someone can find another relaible source that references some different (preferably more up to date) information, that'd be great to look at. · Katefan0 (scribble) 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One other thing -- I don't see in that Petersons link where it asserts that VMI is the only college where students are all "military cadets pursuing undergraduate degrees." Can you show me where that is, or find another citation? Thanks. · Katefan0 (scribble) 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0, since it stirs up controversy, I went ahead and took that statement out. But here's the reasoning for the first statement: all the other "state military colleges" such as Texas A&M, Citadel, Norwich, VA Tech all have civilians and cadets in their student body. VMI is the only all "military cadet" student body senior state military college. It's another one of the many unusual facts which differentiate VMI from the rest of the pack!Marshall3 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Surely that's sourceable somewhere, isn't it? · Katefan0 (scribble) 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Strike Norwich from the list, not in debating the issue of civilians, but because NU is not a state military college. It is the oldest non-federal military college, but it is private.--Vidkun 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number one and removal of supreme court case

I have noticed that numerous times lately the wording in the ranking of the Virginia Military Institute has been reworded to say 'number one' instead of giving the exact details, first out of twenty. It is my personal opinion that claiming it is 'number one' is a tad pushing towards POV. There is no reason for those details to be omitted as they clearly state the school's ranking position.

As for the information about the supreme court case, it appears several editors are intent on removing it. Unless there is some very strong reasoning for why it should be removed, I think it is a helpful bit of information to know further about the school. I don't mean to sound hostile, but the removing of it may be interpreted as people trying to retain the school's positive image. Removing the history of not so positive events that happened in the past, however, is not the way to go about editing Wikipedia. All sides of a viewpoint should be properly given a voice.

So please, I'm asking before you re-remove the supreme court case note or change the ranking back, you come here first to discuss it. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Stating the number one ranking is a fact. Number one of 20 and 73rd of 220 belong together after the initial statement. Remember that POV can go the other way as well... Also, stating the details about a court case from years ago involving prayer is nonsense. Shall we talk about the crazy stuff that happens at the academies...(rapes at West point, Annapolis, and murders involving cadets from the schools)? How about the drugs in university fraternities or the whole gammit of criminal stuff that goes on repeatedly at national universities but never recieves notoriety? Give me a break. Marshall3 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure about the policy for rankings, so I won't touch that area any longer. However, I believe that the things you mentioned actually should be added to the information of other universities. They are perfectly valid information concerning current events. I don't think that the supreme court case can exactly classify as being from many years ago, though, considering the change was in 2004. It seems we won't come to any sort of conclusion here, though, so would you mind if I went in search of a third opinion just to see how an outside editor views the situation? Katefan has recently left Wikipedia so she won't be able to be involved in helping settling the matters here unfortunately. Cowman109Talk 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Cowman109, thanks for the input. After reading your comments again and Rillian's input and reasoning below, I have to say that I have to defer to you guys on this one. Your reasoning makes sense and I'll "chill" with the revisions... Thanks again,Marshall3 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"First out of 20" and "number one" are semantic equivalents, but the former provides necessary detail to enable the reader to evaluate the ranking in comparison to the survey population, i.e. the 20 public liberal arts colleges in the U.S. A school prayer case from 2002-2004 that was appealed to the Supreme Court is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Rillian 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki guidelines on rankings

Did a little research and found a Wiki guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism, with the following suggestions:

If you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest. Claims that an institution "places highly" in rankings are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent," and are more dishonest in that they seem to cite an authoritative source. Where possible, rankings should be reported as numeric values, with years and sources provided; and as they are such specific facts, they should not occupy an article's lead section.

I added the emphasis to two relevant comments. Rillian 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The article, as it stands, is concise and neutral, and I concur with your reasoning on this point. Looks good to me... Regards,207.144.53.169 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor

Since there are seven recipients and all seven Medals are in the Museum there[2], wouldn't it make sense to include them in the list of notable graduates? Do they have a list of them? Superintendent Charles E. Kilbourne was a Medal of Honor winner, but not sure if he was a graduate. --Habap 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Only six of the recipients are graduates (Byrd left VMI early but is mentioned in the Trivia section). There is a list cited in that section and certainly agree that all six are notable graduates and could be included. Rillian 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the Civil War section

I think it would be prudent to expound on the college first, (campus, cadet life, etc.) and then go into the Civil War period. Any thoughts from anyone other than Rillian?Blue2221 04:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Checked out VMI's peers from the top 20 public liberal arts colleges (St. Mary's College of Maryland, New College of Florida, University of Minnesota–Morris, U. of North Carolina–Asheville, Richard Stockton Col. of N.J.). On three of out five Wikipedia articles that have a History section, it comes first. It also breaks the flow for the reader to start with Early History but have the Civil War section several sections later. Rillian 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
To aid in continuity and equivalence of section headers, I put all three history sections as subsections of a new History section. I do not think that the history should be divided up and feel this (the section) will enhance the readability of the article. --Habap 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. A good use of subheadings. Rillian 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/r/Talk%7EVirginia_Military_Institute_f3e6.html"