| Revision as of 18:49, 2 May 2010 editWildBot (talk | contribs)Bots142,891 editsm Found broken #section links to Captain (U.S. Navy)#U.S. Navy.2C U.S. Coast Guard.2C Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:13, 14 November 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers806,691 editsNo edit summary |
| (72 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Captain (U.S. Navy)#U.S. Navy.2C U.S. Coast Guard.2C Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps|Navy Captain}}|m04}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
|action1date=26 May 2006 |
|
|action1 = GAN |
|
|
|
|action1link=Talk:United States Naval Academy/Archive 1#Good Article nomination has failed |
|
|action1date = 26 May 2006 |
|
|
|
|action1result=Failed |
|
|action1link = Talk:United_States_Naval_Academy/Archive_1#Good_Article_nomination_has_failed |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=54894485 |
|
|action1result = Failed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2 = GAN |
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2date = 8 March 2007 |
|
|action2date=8 March 2007 |
|
|action2link = Talk:United_States_Naval_Academy/Archive_1#GA_Review |
|
|action2link=Talk:United States Naval Academy/Archive 1#GA Review |
|
|action2result = Failed |
|
|action2result=Failed |
|
|action2oldid =113490242 |
|
|action2oldid=113490242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action3 = GAN |
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|action3date = 7 April 2007 |
|
|action3date=7 April 2007 |
|
|action3link = Talk:United_States_Naval_Academy#Promoted_to_GA |
|
|action3link=Talk:United States Naval Academy#Promoted to GA |
|
|action3result = Listed |
|
|action3result=Listed |
|
|action3oldid = 120844632 |
|
|action3oldid=120844632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4 = GAR |
|
|action4=GAR |
|
|action4date = May 30, 2009 |
|
|action4date=May 30, 2009 |
|
|action4link = Talk:United States Naval Academy/GA1 |
|
|action4link=Talk:United States Naval Academy/GA1 |
|
|action4result = Delisted |
|
|action4result=Delisted |
|
|action4oldid = 292953372 |
|
|action4oldid=292953372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=PR |
|
|currentstatus= DGA |
|
|
|
|action5date=13:10, 29 August 2010 |
|
|topic=Socsci}} |
|
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United States Naval Academy/archive1 |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|action5result=reviewed |
|
{{WikiProject Universities|class=C}} |
|
|
|
|action5oldid=381463136 |
|
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|class=C}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Maryland|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=C|Maritime-task-force=yes|US-task-force=yes|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|otd1date=2011-10-10|otd1oldid=454878414 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Higher education}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Maryland|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Maritime-task-force=yes|US-task-force=yes|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USMIL=Yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=Socsci}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Secession== |
|
|
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. ] (]) 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:United States Naval Academy/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Green Bowlers== |
|
|
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 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please: ] and avoid ]. My suggestion was made ten months ago with no takers. I never inserted anything relevant to this in the article. Anyway, no ] 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 Misplaced Pages awhile. ] (]) 21:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Shoeless graduation== |
|
|
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 . 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. ] (]) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*Actually this occurs now annually ] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Citations needed== |
|
|
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 ] article which might be helpful. ] (]) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree. Needs some work. See below.] (]) 01:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ricketts Hall namesake== |
|
|
In the subsection on ], there is a building called Ricketts Hall. I looked up "Ricketts" and found the following 2 USNA alumni: |
|
|
*] (1906–1964), United States naval admiral |
|
|
*] (1913–1942), United States Navy Lieutenant and Medal of Honor recipient |
|
|
|
|
|
Is one of them the namesake of Ricketts Hall? ] (]) 05:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Oops, I forgot to include a subject header.) ] (]) 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marines == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Oh, where to begin... ] (]) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's not an answer, Jmdeur. This is not a blog.] (]) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== chapel restoration == |
|
|
|
|
|
Under ], 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? ] (]) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::yes, done last fall - see http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/10/24-19/Naval-Academy-Chapel-restoration-complete.html ] (]) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hubbard Hall == |
|
|
|
|
|
] gives the name of each building's namesake. I just added Hubbard Hall. I then looked up ]; it has only one entry for a USN officer: "] (1903-1942), American naval officer". His page says ] 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 ]. ] (]) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: No, Rear Admiral John Hubbard, Class of 1870. See http://www.usna.edu/usnaathletics/hubbardhall.htm ] (]) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Honor code== |
|
|
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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::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! :) ] (]) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Citation improvements needed== |
|
|
I recommend the following help section to you, which I hope you will read before lending a further editorial hand here: ]. 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.] (]) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Removed passages== |
|
|
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|date=January 2010}}" This was plagiarized from the admissionsconsultants.com 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 admissionsconsultants.com article because it does not fit the topic under discussion. Maybe later, although admissionsconsultants.com is actually a commercial article selling admissions services. Let me think about it.] (]) 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?] (]) 02:55, 24 March 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.] (]) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==CDIO== |
|
|
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. ] (]) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Plagiarized passage== |
|
|
"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 ] in the candidate's home district, but may also come from a ], the Vice President, or the President of the United States.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}} Recent incoming classes have had about 1,200 freshmen (called ] at the Academy).<ref name="Admissions">{{cite web|title=Class Portrait 2013|url=http://www.usna.edu/Admissions/documents/Class%20Portrait%202013.pdf|publisher=usna.edu.admissions|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref> 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Rewrote and installed in same place with old reference. ] (]) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion to editors to add "Hopper Hall" to the buildings list == |
|
==Naval Academy prep school ref== |
|
|
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.] (]) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opened in 2020, Hopper Hall is the Academy’s newest and most state-of-the-art academic building on the Yard. The building is named for Rear Adm. Grace Hopper, an accomplished mathematician who joined the U.S. Navy Reserve during World War II. In her legacy, the Hopper Hall building will be home to midshipmen in the Cyber Operations; Computer Engineering; Computer Science; Electrical Engineering; Information Technology; and Robotics and Control Engineering majors, as well as to laboratories for Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering and Physics majors. ] (]) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
==Size of article== |
|
|
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.] (]) 03:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
Opened in 2020, Hopper Hall is the Academy’s newest and most state-of-the-art academic building on the Yard. The building is named for Rear Adm. Grace Hopper, an accomplished mathematician who joined the U.S. Navy Reserve during World War II. In her legacy, the Hopper Hall building will be home to midshipmen in the Cyber Operations; Computer Engineering; Computer Science; Electrical Engineering; Information Technology; and Robotics and Control Engineering majors, as well as to laboratories for Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering and Physics majors. 136.160.90.31 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.jpg)
