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.
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 {{Fact}} 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.0.10 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 May 2006
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)

[edit] Listed Superstitions

Hi, was just reading through the page and thought the additions of 'ring superstitions' were a little odd. My husband (VMI class of '90) was wholly unfamilliar with these superstitions (throwing the ring at heater, double rings, "golden nugget"). I know the veracity of these types of things are often difficult to prove, so might they best be served in the 'Trivia' section? Also, can other grads vouch for these? Throwing a $500 ring at a heater seems a little strange...If trivia like that is to be included, you might as well add notes about how each class designs their own ring, which side you wear toward you and when, and that you're supposed to give the ring back if you've been rolled. I don't know that any of it belongs in the first place since you'll rarely find statements as such verified by citeable sources. Thanks!Bluebirdred 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm class of '06 and I know that by the time I got there in 2002, it was standard to throw your ring at the radiator in your rat room. It is not, however, your gold class ring but rather the steel combat ring that typically costs 25-50 dollars. The idea is to put a dent right on the VMI spider on top. Of course you won't find this in any "verified source" unless some recent grad rights a book about the place. (Sonlee 10:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC))


Combat Rings used to be (and maybe still are) customizable. You could get the VMI spider on the top or an American flag, Confederate Flag, crossed flags, etc. The idea was that you took your combat ring to the room you lived in as a rat and tried to get a dent in it anywhere on it. I never did this (because I was too lazy to go up to my old rat room) but some people did. I wouldn't say it's a superstition, more of a tradition. 198.76.89.7 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Culmo80

[edit] Service academies?

Quote from the Merchant Marine Academy's webpage "and with the military knowledge for commissioning in a reserve component of the Armed Forces. Few colleges can offer such a full range of credentials at graduation"[3] which shows that at least one of the five Federal Service Academies allows its grads to join any of the branches of uniformed services of the US.--Vidkun 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was left by a Norwhich fan. Response: Check the facts, MMA is not considered one of the nation's main service academies in many regards and for many reasons. MMA is not free and the cadets are not enrolled under the same requirements. On a different note, what is interesting to me is how many of you folks from "military try-hard" schools like Norwich and the Citadel constantly try to associate VMI with your schools. Give it up. VMI is the ONLY classical military college in the U.S. You don't have to ask a VMI grad, "Were you a cadet?" Your schools have civilian programs and grad/online/day/night programs. Your schools enroll civilians and cadets and some of your civilians never even have to step foot on your "campus" let alone carry a rifle or wear a uniform, or march in a parade or adhere to a military cadet lifestyle. You guys are try hards and you need to wake up, leave VMI alone and realize that we are nothing like you...we are a real military school and very different from the service academies. Koonoonga 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
USMMA is a federal service academy just like the other four - see United States Service academies for the details. There are no main and not main service academies, just the five. So the claim is incorrect. Rillian 01:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, USMMA is free: "Since the Federal Government has provided your education at King Point, you will have a service obligation when you graduate -- in the maritime and/or transportation industry, and to Armed Forces Reserve duty."[4] Why must you keep resorting to disinformation to try and put down every school that ISN'T VMI, or puff up information about VMI, to try and make VMI look better?--Vidkun 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Vidkun, since your pal Rillian deleted my previous remarks, let me just say this in response: The question you should be asking yourselves is "Why do we always have to pay so much attention to the VMI page and constantly 'water-down' the facts?" Yes, you guys are constantly trying to weaken and water down the VMI page. (Take a look at the history pages) I've noticed your constant edits on the VMI page and all the other "military college" pages. What you understand (but don't want to admit) is that no other military college in the USA compares to VMI. Your weaker "versions of VMI" (norwich, citadel, etc.) enroll both cadets and civilian students and grant grad/undergrad degrees. Nothing compares to the Spartan existence of VMI cadets, but there's more...Think how cheezy it would be for West Point, VMI, Annapolis, and other schools to have to ask alumni, "were you cadets, or were you day, night, undergrad or grad students?" You guys are just trying to knock the only classical state military college in the nation. If anyone with common sense takes a look at previous edits in the history section of the VMI page, you'll see countless examples of folks (just like you two) constantly weakening the VMI page to make it more comparable to the weaker military schools out there. Take a look at the norwich and citadel pages, they are constantly mentioning VMI, and VMI is nothing like the others. It sounds arrogant, but those are the facts. Get over it and move on...Koonoonga 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What you can't get over, Koonoonga, is that wikipedia is not a place for you to try and advertise how much better you think your school was or is. It's a place for attributable and verifiable information, not your personal opinion. Both you and other people who claim to be VMI grads have made numerous edits that fail to be sourced properly, and amount to peacock terms. You have done this in the VMI article, the class ring article, the senior military college article and the articles of other senior military colleges. When the Norwich article mentions VMI, it does so in context of an attributed opinion about Norwich's influence on the establishment of other military schools and the Land Grant colleges. Would you say that the article tries to compare Norwich to ROTC itself, considering that the it is mentioned as the birthplace of the idea of ROTC? I have not once gone and tried to make any other school look more important than any reliable source has called it.--Vidkun 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Attributed opinion"...more like "misguided opinion." Bottom line, Norwich had absolutely no influence on VMI and to say otherwise is misguided. The source you cite regarding VMI says nothing about Norwich, period. You just throw the reference there because you think it counts as a "source." I'm not changing your page though, because I really don't care what you write about your half-military half-civilian colleges. Truth is, you guys, citadel, texas A&M, north georgia, etc. all are pretty much the same. However, leave VMI off the invitation list for your "Dork Fests," because VMI is completely different...Koonoonga 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro POV

I really have to say that the intro reads like an advertisement rather than an enyclopedia article. It also contains various weasel words. Examples:

VMI cadets have the flexibility - more flexible than everyone else?

the mission statement shouldn't be a third of the intro, it should only be in a section

VMI is known for the financial support of its alumni — in a 1999 study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, VMI's $290 million endowment was the largest per-student endowment of any public undergraduate college in the United States.[4] - see Wiki guidelines on rankings subsection on this very page. Malc82 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You must really HATE VMI, and want to make everyone else in the world look better, don't you?--Vidkun 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Could you name anything wrong with my claims or is it just a general problem with any criticism about something remotely related to an institution you like. All I said was that the intro doesn't follow WP-guidelines. Malc82 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the intro does follow wiki guidelines. It highlights some distinguishing facts and characteristics that distinguish VMI from the other so called "military colleges" like Texas A&M, Citadel, Norwich, etc. The intro is not simply NPOV nor is it biased... all references are provided, outlined, and are relevant. Also, don't mind Vidkun, he's a Norwich grad that trolls on the VMI pages. Cheers...Koonoonga 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Malc, my comment was intended as sarcasm. If you look at the contributions of Koonoonga, you would see he has been involved in a number of edit wars regarding information/wording of VMI stuff. Always, when pointed to wiki policies, he gets defensive, and sometimes, offensive, complaining that changes that reduce what other editors call peacock terms is due to jealousy and harrassment by "weaker" military colleges. He, and at least other editor have been flagrant about their disregard for wiki policies, if adherence to those policies makes VMI look less important than they (VMI grads) want to make it look.--Vidkun 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vmi.jpg

Image:Vmi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Just out of curiosity, you state "images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded." That image was uploaded in 2005. So why is this now being brought up?. Todd Gallagher 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gays and lesbians and bisexuals

are GLB people allowed to attend this school? is there a discrimination policy?CholgatalK! 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no idea about a policy, but since federal law requires all six of the senior military colleges to have ROTC programs, and since VMI is an SMC, and since you are required to take at least two years of ROTC and remain in the corps of cadets all four, I would have to say that gays are a no-go since the military still prohibits them based on the the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.Todd Gallagher 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, while it is an SMC, Federal law also allows SMC's to offer all four years of ROTC to those who will not be accepting a contract with the military. So, in theory, someone could be gay at VMI.--Vidkun 13:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I am not sure about official policy. However, I did just review the school's handbook, and it mentioned discrimination, with no mention of sexual orientation. So my take would be that it is nonbinding on the school. Remember, most parts of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as well as many other civil rights laws do NOT apply to military schools (along with certain other schools as well, such as religious-based ones; Congress explicitly exempted them). When the Supreme Court ruled that VMI had to take women in 1996, it was based on the 14th Amendment, not on legislation. So my take on this, and once again I am no expert here, is that as long as the military maintains a don't ask, don't tell policy, VMI as an SMC can maintain it as well. Although it is interesting that there is no mention either way on the policy. I would figure they would state one or the other. Todd Gallagher 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GLB group

Just to add my two cents about the inclusion of the gay and lesbian organization, I say remove it, for several reasons, most notably because even according to it's own admission it is not an official org. (Also one of the attributions is actually for a Princeton GLB group, not a VMI group). Also the implication of including the mention of the group under the clubs and activities section implies a sense of official endorsement by the school, which I've seen no proof of (it appears to be not much more than just a web forum, which is not notable). I also feel that mentioning this group that is not very notable, but not mentioning any other groups that are much more notable when speaking about VMI (Trident Society, Civil War Roundtable, Promanji), hints strongly of POV. If strong evidence can be found to keep the entry, I'd move it elsewhere in the article. Also, just running off of logic here, but since all cadets are required to participate in ROTC, wouldn't "don't ask don't tell" prevent them from participating in this group?Okisize 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes AR 145-1 specifically forbids homosexual conduct even in ROTC. Under federal law, ROTC is required at VMI. Therefore, homosexual conduct is prohibited at VMI. This is a blatant disregard for the truth. It will be removed. If a new section mentioning clubs and organizations is formed, then fine. It can be mentioned that although not permitted by the school, an alumni organization has been formed promoting homosexual conduct. Until then, it will be removed. Todd Gallagher 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I just added a change to make the section a little more balanced that I hope will work for all parties concerned. If anyone has any issues, please lets try to work it out in discussion instead of just going back and forth on reverts. Thanks and I look forward to working with all of you to help improve this entry! Okisize 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to mention any specific club unless it is significant to the article in some way ... especially if it isn't even on the list of official clubs. Wikipedia is not the place to promote non-notable organizations. --B 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

- B is absolutely right, there's no reason to mention any specific club unless it is significant to the article in some way. The other stuff IS OUT! Nas9t4 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War claims

The claim that only the VMI cadets fought as a unit in the Civil War is incorrect. The (South Carolina) Battalion of State Cadets, consisting of the combined cadets of The Arsenal (all freshmen) and The Citadel (the upper three classes) fought in eight specific battles in the Civil War. See The Citadel and the South Carolina Corps of Cadets, by William H. Buckley, Arcadia, 2004, ISBN: 0738517046, page 24. The gallantry of the cadets from VMI cannot be denied, but should not be advanced at the expense of the sacrifice of other child soldiers. There is a reason why this statement and the "fixed bayonets" claim is not sourced. CidGrad (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    • The main difference, which you fail to point out, is that VMI fought as a unit, whereas the South Carolina Military Academy did not. They were organized as "the Battalion of State Cadets," but never fought as such. As for recognition, South Carolina did not even recognize The Citadel's contribution for 80 years until the school's centennial. VMI fought as VMI, not as soldiers in a larger unit. Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Darker Side?

This is an awesome school and I grew up in Virginia with respect for VMI. However, this article seems to lack some of the more "darker" stories about VMI. Three that come to mind are the very (very) first female cadets who were but a handful (2-3 I think) and there was a scandal with one of them being set on fire or something like that. I have also heard stories from the 50s and 60s about deaths during hazing, and rats getting beaten during the break-out so severely that they had to to the hospital. Then of course there are rumors of an equivalent of "The Ten" and VMI running out undesirable cadets with enourmous discrimination against the first black cadets. These would all need citations, but maybe we can find some and expand the article to cover these issues as well. -OberRanks (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor Recipients

I have noticed this added and removed several times on here. VMI has 7 alumni who have received the Medal of Honor. Six of these alumni are graduates. So people keeping addinga nd deleting this information. Someone just needs to note that it was seven alumni (six of whom graduated). That would not be hard. VI has had many alumni who did not go on to graduate. Some transferred to other schools and some just altogether dropped out, either to enlist in the military or for another reason. So let's just stop the constant editing back and forth. Todd Gallagher (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's notable and worthy of inclusion in an already long article that someone who attended but did not graduate earned the Medal of Honor, then be bold and edit the article. Personally, I think the fact the Byrd attended for a few years, then graduated from somewhere else, then earned the MoH is Trivia in relation to this article (certainly not to the Byrd article). One POV consideration is that VMI, in an attempt to make the MoH fact more notworthy is counting alumni (and in the broadest sense of that word) rather than graduates. Rillian (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, other colleges list their alumni who did not graduate. Perfect example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_non-graduate_alumni_of_Harvard . I see no reason VMI should not, especially since VMI has so many alumni who became famous and of course did not graduate.Todd Gallagher (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vmi.gif

Image:Vmi.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)