Talk:United States Naval Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Naval Academy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	United States Naval Academy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 8, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed April 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. 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. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. United States Naval Academy is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland. GA This article has been rated as GA-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.) High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Archives

1. October 2003 - March 2007

Contents 1 New majors in Arabic and Chinese 2 Promoted to GA 3 Lopez 4 Rempt-Fowler 5 USNA is AT Annapolis, not IN Annapolis 6 Notable grads/alumni 7 Media 8 Tuition 9 Michael B. Martin 10 History 11 Controversy 12 Marine selectees not attending basic training 13 Firstie Liberty 14 Black History at the Naval Academy 15 Academy Emblem

[edit] New majors in Arabic and Chinese

The Academy really is offering two new majors in Arabic and Chinese; see <http://www.usna.edu/LangStudy/>. Previously, a variety of minors had been offered in various foreign languages (French, Spanish, Japanese, etc.), but no majors. These new majors are available starting with this year's (class of '10) plebes. There's been some entering and removing of these majors by various editors, but the cited webpage that says there are only 19 majors has simply not been updated-- there really are two new majors. I'm not sure if the new majors are in the latest printed catalog, but they'll be in the next, and that's the most authoritative source.MayerG 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew that Arabic and Chinese were actual majors but I couldn't find any source therefore any time an editor would put it on the article I would revert it because there was no source. I think that source you have would be good enough to change the number of majors.--Joebengo 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promoted to GA

I have reviewed this and passed it for GA as the concerns of the last review have been addressed. That WW2-present section is a choppy 'lawyers list' and will not stand up to FA-scrutiny. To approach FA, there must be full compliance with style standards, the writing must be compelling or brilliant, and the coverage must be comprehensive. Meditate upon this. Image content is excellent. You may now toss your hats in the air.BongHitz4Musa 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I'm proud to have gotten this to GA status, now USNA is the only Service Academy that is GA, GO NAVY!--Joebengo 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lopez

While the paragraph on the Commander Lopez is not long, and has been shortened, I would prefer that this be moved to the separate article on notable alumni. Perhaps a bio stub on him could be started and linked from there. My concern is, once we start this, there are a lot of minorities, some of which had a harder time than others (Afro-Americans, for example), Asians at various times, which could merit "equal space." Or maybe a separate article on "equal opportunity" or "minority firsts?" Student7 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the bio stub would be good, just a simple sentence like "the first hispanic american graduated in 1879 was Commodore Lopez." and have that be linked to his bio stub. Either way I don't think that the information should just be completely removed because it is still significant as a part of the history of the academy.--Joebengo 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it to a separate article, leaving a sentence here. He probably deserves to be in "Notable Alumni" anyway. I still don't agree he should be here at all, but I won't move it. Incidentally, I never did solve the category link from Lopez of "Commodore" which is a new one. AF categories are a lot more sophisticated. Should have started on Admiral first as it turns out! Will try to crack it later if no one else has solved it by then.Student7 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rempt-Fowler

The turnover is a big deal for the people involved. But the separate paragraph on Fowler seems a bit much to me. It's all "routine" stuff. Why not just quit with the simple announcement that Fowler is the new Supe and let it go at that? Student7 00:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USNA is AT Annapolis, not IN Annapolis

The Academy is OUTSIDE of the city limits of Annapolis, Maryland, as was its predecessor, Ft. Severn.

It is, although, within the zip codes identified with Annapolis.

Technical, to be sure. But precisely, it is "at," "next to," "adjacent to," or "beside" Annapolis, MD--not "in" Annapolis.

In contrast, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is within the limits of West Point, NY.

This information was gleaned long ago from The [Evening] Capital, the major newspaper of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

136.160.250.253 00:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Brian Simmons, former Anne Arundel Countian

[edit] Notable grads/alumni

We have a list of notable graduates in another article. See List of United States Naval Academy alumni. These guys are heavy hitters many of whom saw action and won major wars for the US. This is where ALL incumbents go after they leave top office with the major exception of Jimmy C. Not many schools have an ex-pres. This is not consignment to the dungeon or anything. If you look at the list, you will see what I mean. Student7 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is "where ALL incumbents go after they leave top office"? What does "after they leave top office" mean? Thanks. Holy 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The article where former incumbents go is List of famous United States Naval Academy alumni. "Top office" may mean "Chief of Staff" or "Chief of Naval Operations," "Commandant of the Marine Corps" or maybe some other significant office like "National Security Advisor" to the President. Once they have left this office (their term having expired usually), they no longer belong in the main article IF they were there to begin with. Hope this helps. Student7 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. OK, so you're saying that USNA grads' names get transferred from the main USNA article to the List of famous United States Naval Academy alumni article after the grads have completed serving in their "top office," right? And you're also saying that J. Carter is an exception to this rule in that he continues to appear in both articles. Am I understanding correctly? Holy 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That tends to be the practice so far. Yes, both articles for JC. Student7 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When I look at the section on notable grads, it discusses how 4 of the 6 Joint Chiefs at one time were USNA grads and then says they were: and only lists three. When I tried to edit, there was a note that says Pace doesn't belong there. I would have edited the section but don't want to start an editing war on something I'm just stepping into, HOWEVER: 1) The hidden note states that Pace is moved because he is out of office. 2) Giambastiani IS listed though he is out of office. 3) Mullen's position is listed as his current position which is Chairman 4) The article is talking about a past event but using current information.

I think what should happen here is that either all 4 gentlemen's names be listed with their old titles but perhaps without links to their (then) titles, or else the whole section removed and the active duty admirals/generals be moved to the section below which is grads currently in the news. Any thoughts?--Billyshakes (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for Jimmy Carter and (temporarily) John McCain, nobody should be on the front page who is out of office/job which is described. It is for current officeholders only. And the reason for being there should be significant ("all from the Academy" for example). Plenty of room in the notable grads article which is separate.

The reasoning here is that the article is about USNA not people per se. Some people, like Carter, are eminent enough to stay "forever." But so far, he is the only one. Our only Nobel prize winner is in the forked article, for example. Old titles and old titleholders belong in the forked article. It's no longer a story.

A persistent problem is that some editors jump the gun and remove a current titleholder when his successor has been named but not taken office. The second problem is keeping old titleholders beyond the expiration of their job. Both are wrong. Student7 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Student7, I see your point but about spinning off non-office holders to the other page. Does that mean we can get rid of Giambastiani then since General Cartwright is currently the Vice Chairman?Cartwright bio I still think it is strange to talk about a past occurrence that deals specifically with a topic regarding 4 specific people and their jobs but not give that information. Not listing all 4 or listing only the ones still active duty but with their current jobs seems misleading to me. As I read the article in its current state, even though it says "current" CJCS for his title, it doesn't necessarily imply that ADM Mullen was not holding that title during the specified time period. Also, it seems awkward to me to state that 4 of the 6 were USNA grads. They were: .... and then only list three. I'm left wondering who the fourth was. The fact that there were four is notable. If they aren't all listed or listed with the jobs that made the item noteworthy, is it worth having the names at all?

Also, if only Jimmy C and (temp.) Johnny Mac make the cut for the front page, are the fleet commanders and CNO "in the news" just because they are the current office holders? I'm speaking of the subsection of Notable grads. I don't see many news stories about ADMs Nathman and Willard though I did recently see ADM Keating(not listed) was in the international news for visiting China. Do you -- or anyone else, though it seems you are the main editor of this section -- think this subsection adds value to the article?--Billyshakes (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have many good questions. Hopefully, I can address a few! Get rid of former officeholders (except Jimmy). That much is clear. (Probably should be in the forked notables article if they aren't already). McCain either leaves permanently or stays permanently by December 2008!

I'm guessing that one of the former officeholders has already left, so that is why the numbers don't add up!

I've forgotten (!) if we had top incumbents there or not. CNO. Armed Forces Chief of Staff. Your choice. See what happens. But not fleet commanders IMO. They put them there because there were so many at one time. An "in the news" type of thing. Let's face it, when there was only one source of officers, these offices were always held by Academy grads! So the news does not "continue" past the expiration date of their office. I think get rid of the "four out of six" remark with now one gone (and another going?). As you point out, the remark is just now too cryptic.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the "current news" stuff. Hard to keep up with. But too many editors thrive in that environment. As you have just illustrated, a new editor has to come along and point out deficiencies after the editor who put it there has lost interest and wandered off! Student7 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agreed completely with your take on "current news" but didn't want to come in and start recommending deleting sections wholesale. Especially since I have just started to get my feet wet in this editing game after long time lurking. As you see, I have removed that section as well as the "4 out of 6" comment. I think it was noteworthy at the time but compared with the others in the section, it isn't quite so timeless. On another issue, I know it is discussed elsewhere but I do feel Nobel Prize winners (currently not listed) should be included here. I think it is -- at the very least -- just as prestigious in the field of academia as the Heisman Trophy (currently listed) is for the field of athletics. --Billyshakes (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! We'll see what happens.

Alas for us! Nobel prize winners, rare at USNA, are a dime a dozen at Harvard (and I suppose other notable universities). They are forked which was a shock when I found that out! We can do no less, I fear. In another category, Rhodes scholars - will have to be forked from the notable grads article! I have the uncomfortable feeling that they aren't even listed at Harvard, etc. And right now, we don't either. (maybe you're not interested in the other article) but anyway, we may need to fork Veracruz Medals of Honor from the notable grads article. They were a travesty, unfortunately. This would have to be summarized first.

Anyway, thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media

The Trident magazine was once a smooth covered publication which was supposed to contain intelligent research by midshipmen, kind of a very very junion Naval Proceedings. Sometime after the 1950s, it evolved from a midshipmen-produced "proceedings" into an informational post newspaper a total metamorphosis. This should be documented somewhere.Student7 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuition

What about tuition and other money concerns? The article mentions that if one leaves the academy that they can avoid the compulsory military duty by reimbursing for $200,000. Does the government pay for everything, or do parents put something into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.216.186 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael B. Martin

[edit] History

Michael B. Martin enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2002 and became a communications specialist. he is currently serving as a 1302 Engineer officer.

[edit] Controversy

Mike Martin is said to have earned the title "BAMF" in a 2004 jello wrestling contest. This claim was shown to be untrue in a 2006 dateline article entitled "Mike Martin really has a giner." Mike refused to comment on these allegations.

[edit] Marine selectees not attending basic training

There is nothing wrong with this statement if (and only if) it is substantiated with a solid reference from someone who has the big picture. If the deleting editor meant that it was "asserted" without being proven, I agree. But there is nothing wrong with criticism here if substantiated. Student7 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - criticisms sourced by solid citations have their place here and in other Wikipedia articles. My main concern with your edit was that it was completely unsourced. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firstie Liberty

Due to the policy changes with the new Supe, ref. 14 is no longer accurate. I deleted the information regarding firstie liberty. 131.122.49.250 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC) AMid

[edit] Black History at the Naval Academy

I am interesting in adding a link to a timeline of Black progress at the U.S. Naval Academy. The timeline lists significant Black Pioneers at the Academy. My link was reject, however, because the address points to wordpress. I'm a little disappointed, and I am wondering if there is a way that this link can be permitted.Twilightandreason (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Twilightandreason, 8:49pm, March 8, 2007

[edit] Academy Emblem

The emblem at the top of the page is grossly underpixelated and needs to be reduced in size. I tried a few ways to no avail. If someone has better script skillz please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.219.24 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)