Talk:United States Naval Academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested removal from Wikiproject:Maryland

I have requested that this article be removed from WikiProject Maryland because this is a national institution, not a state one, and a military base. Please contribute to discussion there (not here).Student7 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Old History

Remved 1911 text:

In 1911, each midshipman was paid $600 a year, beginning with the date of his admission; and he must bind himself to serve in the United States Navy for eight years (including the years spent in the academy) unless he is discharged sooner. The course of instruction is for four years -- "final graduation" comes only after six years, the additional years being spent at sea -- and is in eleven departments: discipline, seamanship, ordnance an 1 gunnery, navigation, marine engineering and naval construction, mathematics and mechanics, physics and chemistry, electrical engineering, English, modern languages, naval hygiene and physiology. Vessels for practice work of midshipmen in the first, second, and third year classes are attached to the academy during the academic year, and from early in June to September of each year the midshipmen are engaged in practice cruises.

The academy is governed by the Bureau of Navigation of the United States Navy Department, and is under the immediate supervision of a superintendent appointed by the secretary of the navy, with whom are associated the Commandant of Midshipmen, a disciplinary officer, and the Academic Board, which is composed of the superintendent and the head of each of the eleven departments.

Needs to be checked before being put back in. --mav 01:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

NPoV

The edits of 131.122.37.113 about 04:19, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC) seem non-neutral point of view. Hu

Rape Statistics

We need to include in this article rape statistics -- dont ask -- but if it's pertinent for the USAFA article than it should be in here -- unless we base all of our "encyclopedia" articles on newspaper articles...

• Why should we have rape stats for the Naval Academy unless we have them for every other college described on here?
  • I concur. This would constitute a non-neutral viewpoint unless it is information we provide for all universities. The case of the Air Force Academy is different as the investigation and the depth of the problem has clearly become a part of the history of the institution.

Ray Trygstad 21:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to being able soon to add well sourced information that the atmosphere at the Naval Academy has greatly improved but fail to see any basis for removing well sourced information regarding the current situation and past incidents. Fred Bauder 14:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the sexual assault statistics. If we're including them, they may as well be correct. - A Midshipman 06 DEC 2005

Make a separate wiki for Academy issues to include sexual assault, honor, gays in the military, prayer, and athletics. These are issues that exist, but should not be included in the wiki about the school. Example: I do not see statistics for how many gays were reported, how many complaints about prayer were reported, or how many people were kicked for honor. Example: Other colleges experience more sexual assaults than any of the SAs, but I do not see statistics included on those pages.

Notable Graduates

The "Graduates famous outside the Navy" should probably me merged with the the other notable graduates. Jimmy Carter certainly acheived his greatest notoriety oustide the Navy, yet is not in the outside the Navy group. John McCain is notable both for his naval service and his post-naval career. Only three astronauts among dozens graduated from the Academy are listed. One of the most well known USNA graduates, astronaut James Lovell is not listed. A deputy assistant cabinet secretary is listed, but 5 secretaries are not. The whole list needs to be rationalized in terms of who to include, and their organization. 24.209.173.129 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think naming Cape Leahy is Adm. Byrd's claim to fame. If no one objects, I'm going to remove it.24.209.173.129 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC) . No objections, so I removed it (now on famous graduates page).-- MayerG 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (same person as 24.209.173.129).

Admissions

The USNA does admit non-americans. their website does indicate some sort of admissions process for internationals.

• That's true. I've changed the article accordingly. A small number of international students (<20) are admitted each year. They tend to be from smaller allied/friendly countries that lack their own academies (e.g. Jamaica); "big" allies (e.g. France, Britain) tend to send exchange students from their own military education programs. The number and country of origin of international students is listed in the Class Profiles published by USNA (cited in note 1). MayerG 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here are the exact figures for the class of 2009, from the Class Profile: "The Class of 2009 also includes 11 international students from the following countries: Guyana (2), Honduras, Ireland, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand." MayerG 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Croquet!

I found the previous depiction of the Navy's performance in the annual SJCA/Navy Croquet Match to be rather misleading, as it implied the Navy did something other than suck out loud, and so have rectified this with statistics showing quite clearly that the opposite is true. I wish the Middies good luck this spring; if the past is an indication, they will need it. 69.140.12.199 01:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

As much as I am interested in reading the article, it has no references, and thus is unsuitable for good article status. There's nothing that can done to avoid the necessity of good references for good articles on Wikipedia. Harro5 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Er, references appear to be there in the form of external links. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • They need to be formatted into a references section. Harro5 06:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• In reality a great deal of input to this article is firsthand knowledge by present and former Midshipmen which is often not easily documentable. Here's one example: I am certain that somewhere there is a document which lists the 36-to-30 company conversions supporting the point that 28th company, which supplies the USNA Croquet Team, used to be 34th company, but I guarantee you is is very obscure and not easily accessed. This is not to say that there should not be some supporting documentation, but do we have an acceptable format for citing firsthand knowledge possessed by individuals contributing to the article? I have written/rewritten major portions of this article, and I actually happen to be the guy who created the first unofficial Naval Academy homepage, which later became the official USNA homepage, and served as the Naval Academy's first Webmaster. The fact is that people like me with firsthand knowledge contribute to Wikipedia in special ways not equalled by other reference sources, and in ways not always easily documentable. Ray Trygstad 20:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, to some extent I'm inclined to agree with that but what about the things that can be documented like "The Commandant of Midshipmen is currently Capt. Bruce E. Grooms, USN, who replaced then Capt. Charles J. Leidig in June 2005. The Deputy Commandant of Midshipmen is Col. David C. Fuquea, USMC. The Command Master Chief of the United States Naval Academy is CNOCM(SW) Bernard B. Quibilan."? There was probably a press release or some sort of official Academey website report. That sort of statement surely has to be documentable. The problem I have with this article is that there doesn't seem to be even enough effort, let alone actual documentation.TonyJoe 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for United States Naval Academy/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

(The first, most glaring thing about this article is it's failure to be "broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic."

The history section ends with the institution through World War I. There's about 90 years of history missing. Those 90 years include World War II, desegregation, and the induction of women (later addressed)

Which brings up the point of it being "well written" specifically b "it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles.;" It seems to have a lot of things scattered about. For instance, the seperation of the Moral Education section and the Mission of the Article section.

Looking at the recent featured University of Michigan article, I think that a better structure could be thought of for this article, especially given its current content and potential.

References and other citations are a problem too (see above) TonyJoe 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports

Where is the sports' section for the USNA? tdwuhs

28th Company

28th Company needs to be a seperate page. It is bias to give info on one company and not the other 29. (28 sucks anyway) --ProdigySportsman 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like it's an example of one of the sports traditions at the academy. (I fixed broken link #1). The article references 28th Company, so I can see leaving it in. If the article went on and on about 28th Company specific info, I can see removing it/spinning it off, but it doesn't. If you don't like it, maybe your company should start a memorable tradition! If it makes you feel better, I edited/updated the article to reflect your shipmates' loss in 2006. :) Pesco 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added most of the info in the Midshipmen Activities about 28's Croquet match with St. Johns. "There is even an unofficial..." It should have been removed and Lenzi (the one who added it) agreed and un-merged it. What shipmate have we lossed in 2006? We lost one in 2005. Oh and by the way my company does have a tradition, croquet. 28 is my company. --ProdigySportsman 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We've had a misunderstanding. On your second point, I was referring to the fact that your croquet team lost in 2006, not a loss of life. I had edited the croquet section to reflect the most recent result. On your first point, when you said "28 sucks anyway" I assumed you weren't in that company. I thought you were bashing 28th Company and the croquet tradition. But I now realize that you were addressing a section already removed talking only about 28th Company not relating to croquet. "Belay my last." Pesco 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I am glad you figured it out. --ProdigySportsman 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When something mentioned on a talk page is resolved on the article page, please follow up on the talk page. Pesco 01:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Merchant Mariner License?

Is it common practice within some majors for Midshipmen to graduate with a Merchant Mariner's License as Third Assistant Engineers or Third Mates? Federal regulation makes it possible, but I wondered if it actually happens. Thanks. Pesco 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

World's Largest Dormitory

Many references can be found citing Bancroft Hall as the world's largest dormitory. Eliminating Bancroft Hall, I could not find another dormitory that so claimed. Why was that phrase eliminated? Either claim needs to have a citation/footnote.Student7 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article ?

I believe that with a little more work this article could be renominated for Good Article status again, as said before there needs to be more history added, I have added history from WWI to WWII but there needs to be history from WWII to Present, There was question about desegregation being a point to discuss in the history but seeing is how the military was far ahead of its time and the first african-american graduate (Lieutenant Commander Wesley A. Brown) graduated in 1949 I dont believe anything more than a little sentence about him would be necessary. Also the structre of the article (where to put certain sections) needs to be discussed. Leave comments on this talk page if anyone thinks they can help and share their opinions.--Joebengo 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for Good Article status after I added all the history from WWI to Present, I also rearranged the entire article for better flow. I also fixed the references.--Joebengo 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Owens case

I removed the following: "other alumni simply realize that there is a profound feminist presence within the administration. Midshipman Owens was separated from the institution for engaging in sexual activity within the dorm. The female with whom he was engaging in these activities remains enrolled and awaits graduation. She was granted immunity for her testimony in the rape case, and despite a number of false statements, has not been reprimanded for her part in the offense." A citation to a Washington Post article documents not this inserted material, but the previous sentence (which remains in the Wiki article). According to the Post, Owens has not been separated (rather, his fate is still undecided). Although the Post article does state that the female midshipman received immunity, it says nothing about her making false statements, nor does it address whether she has been disciplined in some way. The view attributed to "other alumni" is not a view expressed by any of the alumni interviewed by the Post. Rather, they criticized Rempt for being overzealous in cracking down on sexual assault; to quote the Post, "The alumni argue that Rempt's overzealousness in prosecuting high-profile sexual assault cases is part of his effort to advance an agenda designed to appease Congress and women's groups demanding a crackdown on sexual assault and harassment at military academies." This view is contained in the Wiki article, and sourced to the Post. MayerG 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak vs Carter

I'd like to make Jimmy Carter "disappear" from the article. If the current attempt to make Nowak disappear is ultimately successful, I hope I would get support from the rest of you to make Carter disappear. I am more embarassed about him than Nowak.  :) Thanks in advance. P.S. I promise to support anyone else you guys might want to vanish! Student7 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• No one is trying to make the Nowak case "disappear", only removing sections that are not sourced (outside of wikipeida). On another note, Nowak was in the news for 2 weeks and now the whole story has all but disappeared, I don't see why she warrants an entire paragraph when she has already been forgotten by most, additionally she is not made "famous" by her time at the academy but instead her time at NASA so this section would be better fit in the NASA article (which it probably already is).--Joebengo 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this event is a flash in the pan. It will all go away, but not within days. Within months maybe. This paragraph will be greatly shortened, though perhaps never completely eliminated, at that time. I think the point is that we have the opportunity to demonstrate that we are not afraid to report bad news. One of the major faults, IMO, in the US Navy article is that there is no bad news. An absolutely perfect service that's never made any mistakes. What is the problem there? It (therefore) has no credibility.

As far as "fame" goes, almost no one but the football players achieved "fame" at school. It mostly came later. If we take credit when it isn't due, we have to take debit(?) as well.

Actually, I was kind of disappointed to discover that Machine Gun Kelly did not graduate from the Academy, having been told repeatedly, while I was there, that he did! Nowak will have to do, I guess, until we can come up with someone better!  :) Student7 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph you've attempted to add is (a) way too long giving the event undue weight, (b) unsourced by anything except another Wikipedia article which is the same as having no source, and (c) being added into the wrong section. I don't mind Nowak being mentioned as an alumna but the mention must be appropriate in form and content. A brief and well-sourced mention in the new "Graduates currently in the news" subsection would be appropriate, IMHO. --ElKevbo 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. (I didn't write the original article and will defer to others). Student7 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Well, first of all, I think I should note that the GA criteria have changed quite a bit from the last review in May of 2006. I think this is important to note, because the referencing standard may not of been as high back then for articles, and i'm primarily failing this article for not being well-referenced by current standards.

The first three sections, Description, Mission, and History, don't appear to have any obvious citations at all. The Mission section isn't attributed to a source, which makes it look ambiguous, leaving the reader to question whether it is a direct quote, (Which it is, for example, this reference- [1]) or an insanely POV pushing interpretation of the mission (Which would actually be better titled "Mission Statement" instead of just "Mission" in my opinion) by an editor. The sections on war look to be fine, and the campus section appears to comply with Wikipedia:Embedded lists. However, the next four references also have unclear referencing, is something in the Bibliography covering them? And why are there so many citation needed tags in the midshipman activities section? And then there's this sentence- "Robinson himself was the consensus best all-around American college player at the time." Considered by whom, and who mattered in terms of consensus building? Notable graduates seems fine because the parent article is referenced, but the Appointment process section looks suspicious because of lack of apparent referencing and the lack of wikilinks. For one thing, what does "then as long as that candidate is physically, medically, and academically found qualified by the academy, he or she will be admitted, even if there are more qualified applicants." even mean? What standards does the academy use to decide what physically, edically, and academically qualified mean? It looks like somebody just copy and pasted the about page of the collage for the moral education section, which definently is not right, as a reader doesn't have any indication of this, and might assume that some increadibly obvious POV pusher advertiser wrote this section because it is written in such glowing terms. It really ought to be attributed to the source properly, especially if its going to be the limit of content in this section. The satellite program section also appears to of been mostly copy and pasted from various web sources, (I googled a line and got something straight from a collage related site I think) its mostly the compleatly un-wikilinked sections that seem to be copy and pasted. This really isn't a very reliable way to write an encyclopedia article.

Therefore, for a combination of ambiguous referencing, copy and paste jobs in several sections, several sections which a bunch of citation needed tags, and various other problems, I am failing this article. Also, reference 20 isn't a reference, its just an unsourced statement, where are these Class Profiles? Homestarmy 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure reference 20 is a reference, it just isn't an online reference [BTW, it's reference 21 now]. The Class Profiles are printed documents, produced and distributed by the Academy, just like the Catalog. Printed documents are available in libraries, archives, and from the publisher. Class Profiles, in particular, are available for free to anyone in the Academy's Visitor Center; I've not inquired of the Academy how extensive its distribution list is. Parts of some of the Class Profiles are available on the web (the 2009 profile is linked to later in the article), but online sources are prone to instability, so a citation to the actual document is preferable (just as, for example, the Wiki article on Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybridization cites the original published paper), although an online link is useful if available (again, for example, as does the plant hybridization article). Reference 20 provides the title, dates, and publisher of the cited documents, which are the proper elements for citation of a periodical of this sort. You are right, however, that the state of citation in the article is quite heterogeneous. MayerG 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The implication seems to be that online references are superior to hard copy. I disagree. Hardcopy doesn't change. Web pages tend to vaporize. Usually someone spent good money on publishing hard copy. Soft copies are often "for free." Sometimes you get what you pay for! Yes, offline references are harder to check. But they can be way more accurate and "encyclopedic."Student7 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the issues in the GA review and here are the major ones:

• The Mission section isn't attributed to a source--Y
• why are there so many citation needed tags in the midshipman activities section--Y
• this sentence- "Robinson himself was the consensus best all-around American college player at the time."--Y
• Appointment process section looks suspicious because of lack of apparent referencing and the lack of wikilinks--Y, (the whole section is now under one citation)
• The satellite program section also appears to of been mostly copy and pasted from various web sources--Y (mostly removed)

I'd like to get some feedback and I plan on resubmitting the article for GA soon.--Joebengo 23:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SSP

I have never understood the importance of the article on the SSP, it does not seem to help the article in any way and the SSP program is not what makes the academy an important place, either the section should be turned into another article or it should just be removed entirely. If anything it surely does not warrant so much space in the article. If anyone else agrees with me I will be removing/shortening the section by the end of the week.--Joebengo 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As per your suggestion, I changed it. See what you think. The original article did go on. Seems funny to have a stranded college article, but what can you do? Student7 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I read too quickly. Had skipped your message that you were intending to work on it later in the week. Feel free to change anything. You've probably thought about it longer than I did! Student7 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I already thanked you on your talk page but I'll do it here too, you actually saved me from having to do it and since you agreed with me then it is perfectly fine. You did an excellent job.--Joebengo 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

ElKevbo: Your harshness is over the top, and every last nuance does not need some citation. Encyclopedia articles don't read that way, and Wiki is an encyclopedic construct. If you have any questions about USNA, check with me before you delete stuff willy-nilly.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

By the term "black" are you referring to melanin-content in the epidermis? USNA doesn't have epidermis-melanin-content-based pioneers. However, if there are other pages for listing people by gradation of melanin-content, they are likely already listed, since any fame would have made their listing self-obvious. Otherwise, black history at USNA is known as "The Dark Ages", and you'd have to be an alumni to know what that refers to.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Marines

Are there any differences in the curriculum for those going into the Marines as opposed to those going into the Navy? If so, this should be stated.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

no, there aren't. service selection is not made (officially) until the middle of first class year. bear in mind that navy -marine corps isn't the only choice to be made. there are also air, surface warfare and sub service. Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

bear in mind too that although everybody has to take a core curriculum, for the past 30+ (?) years they have had a selection of majors. in the old days everybody took exactly the same courses. one of the upshots of this was that they marched from one class to another. that is no longer possible.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe another editor knows when the curricula switched from same courses. That info should be in history. 30 years is "about" right. Were called "Rickover Commission" changes. If that isn't there it should be. Student7 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Naval Academy in Philadelphia

I am wondering why there is no mention of the old naval academy in Philadelphia. It is located on 24th and Bainbridge, and I know its there because I am moving next door to it in a month. Am I missing a link? If I hear nothing after a few days, I might start something. New article? or Addition? Unfortunately the fortress-like campus has been turned into a gated community and won't let me come in to look around. (Maybe I could bribe the guard with a beer.) CancelHoo72 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

600 pound cannonballs

A 1956 publication refers to two 600 pound stone cannonballs outside the administration building. These were the oldest artifacts on the grounds, having been used by the Turks in the attack on Constantinople in 1453. Does anyone know what became of these? Student7 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

National Historic Landmark

In most other articles, editors would jump at the opportunity to insert a National Historic Landmark infobox! Not here, unfortunately! Hard to see where it would go without displacing a significant picture which underscores why it was selected as a NHL. If it can't go here, ought to be under Bancroft Hall or Naval Academy Chapel. BTW, we have the same problems there with pix of the Chapel and Rotunda! In this article the "infobox" would not impart any more significant information than is already here.

Also, should the category be bumped up to the Category-US Naval Academy and removed here? Alternately, place the category in all three articles? Student7 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Goat court, Jimmylegs (tradition)

I agree that these entries needed proper citation. Also that they probably don't belong in the main article. It would be "nice" if there were a forked "culture" article where this material could be legitimately placed. Not sure that other colleges have them though. If Yale, Harvard and USMA don't, it would be a bit hard to justify. Student7 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have well-cited information about them without the lame and childish attempts at humor. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Part and parcel to this institution is its peculiarities, which set it aside from all other schools. USNA bothers to produce books, histories, Reef Points, and parents guides which contain such lore, and way more than this. USMA has a "West Point in fiction" section, which is less germane that USNA's historical section here. Finally, an article on USNA is not complete without Salty Sam, and Salty Sam says ElKevbo, the deliberately blank one, is the lame and childish attempt at humor. Bottom line, I think any alumni adding a section on the Steam Tunnels or anything else is sufficient citation, but we'll humor the masses, and perhaps allay the knee-jerk deletions. Any alumni will say that the lore of USNA is appropriate. And it was appropriate enough to be a major part of life here.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you review our policies, particularly those related to verifiability of information and ownership of articles. I also ask that you better represent yourself and the institution you claim to represent here, shipmate. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:ATTACK. All material, particularly the really wierd stuff, needs citation. Otherwise it invites top of the head stuff. Also we need to consider that what may seem tremendously memorable to us, may seem strange, peculiar, or unbelievable to others. But point taken on the "WooPoos in fiction." Good point. Student7 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head at these comments, and it seems as if you two have never heard of these things. Goat Court, the Jimmy Legs and the Steam Tunnels are among the more famous items at USNA. This has nothing to do with the accustion of "ownership". And the citation (ample enough for verifiability) is provided from a USNA-sponsored web page to prove its existence, and it's name gives it's intended use. What you call "really wierd stuff" is flat-out part of life and history, so much so that things like the "Jimmy Legs" are found going back in Lucky Bags for almost 100 years. These are not "strange, peculiar or unbelievable", and I really don't know what you're trying to get at with that comment. Wiki articles don't cite every sentence, and there is wiki guidance for Citation-Tag abuse, which is what is going on here (not to mention that we're on about 3 reverts by this point, so please stop). Bottom line, is that this is standard USNA knowledge.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Standard USNA knowledge" is not a valid citation. Verifiability is a core principle here and one we can't waver on or wave off, even when we know something is factual or correct. That's just not how we work here. I know it's frustrating but ultimately it's a good principle as what one person considers to be "standard knowledge" is indeed "really weird stuff" to someone else and I'm sure that we are all skeptical of really weird stuff without a really good source supporting it. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The accumulation of online Lucky Bags is AMPLE breeding ground for a long list of Naval Academy tradition verification material. It is simpler to check on verification than it is to mount a citation-tag-campaign, especially when an Alumni cares to make extremely knowledgeable edits on some minor points at the bottom of the article. Keep in mind this tradition is not usually cited in ordinary books. Some true tradition is mentioned in fiction books, such as Webb's. My beef was that the citation for Goat's court was ample. Every single sentence of the brief item does not need a separate citation. Nor is it common in Wiki for every sentence to be cited, as this distracts from reading the material.Grayghost01 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need to cite references. I don't think that is our most pressing problem, however. I could not find a section like this in USMA, Citadel, VMI, Yale or Harvard. So it seems non-standard. It seems to me that this best fits under "Student life" in the proposed outline in Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure. We can spend a lot of time on this and have it all deleted later for not following the guidelines.

Carrying this a bit further, will our "deviations" from the supposed norm wind up causing problems in other college articles? You may think that this is not our problem, but it can be if something thinks that these other articles are threatened with a lot of unverifiable nonsense, or worse, verifiable nonsense, like nude bicycle rides, dope-out day, etc. Most colleges do not have the unity of purpose (with concurrent bonafide "traditions") that this one does. I think the section is justified here but, outside of most military schools and some ivies maybe, most probably don't merit this type of section. Maybe we should try to establish a separate Wiki Project to ensure control over our article (and allied ones). Student7 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Any graduate of USNA can confirm that the Steam Tunnels and Goat Court are not "dope-out day" or some other type of juvenile B.S. like you see in some civilian university. USNA is a military institution, and has certain traditions that are part of it's military indoctrination. Nude Bicycle Rides and Druggie-Days are not part of that. Based on your comments, you have proven you certainly are not a graduate, because the thought would not occur to anyone to make that comparison. At USNA we also have "Tours", "Bumper Drills", "Brick Awards", "Gouge", "Bilging", "Recons", "Dining Outs", "Red Beach", "PROTRAMID", "Salty Sam", "The Dark Ages", "Plebe Summer", "Reef Points", "Youngster Year", "Chow Calls", "Room Inspections", "Bilger's Gate", "Rickover Interviews", "Parade Season", "MOOW", "BOW-WOW", "WUBA", "Wheel Cover", "Eighth Wing Players", "The Log", "The Dry Dock", "The Ring Dance", "Beaters and Blowers", "T-Tables", "the Anchor", "Beat Army Week", "Carry On", "Bracing Up", "Come-Around", "White Works", "Knockabouts", "CORTRAMID", "Philo McGiffen", and that, good sir, is just 10 seconds of thoughts off-the-top-of-my-head. Much of this is an INTEGRAL part of life of EVERY Midshipman ... and not some Greek-Club-Jerk-Off-Animal-House stunt. So let's separate the wheat from the chaff here. USNA is a military institution, and the content of it's wiki article will necessarily differ from Joe-Blow College. This institution created and still creates the Iron Men of wooden ships, and the leaders of this country. Every USNA Admiral in the Pentagon has rendered a hearty Chow Call for good purposes ... that is ... because he'd better be prepared to perform without choking ... and because every "Firstie" wants to know what's coming in the ward room. Every USNA Admiral is twin-screw operation qualified via bumper drills .... because you don't don the Navy Blue (black) without knowing your core business. And so on.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting money inside a tossed cover is "new" since the 1950s and most likely a lot later. In the 50s children were not the primary collector of tossed covers. Adults and other midshipmen did for 'good luck." Reason that footnotes are needed. At least we'd have a date on it. When did this start? After the cap cover style changed in the early 1900s most likely. Lots of missing dates here.Student7 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "Shipwreck Tech"

Huh? Whoever put the Citation-Needed tag on the "Shipwreck Tech" claim ... I just want to say thank you. I did some googling, and the only use of this term about USNA is on this WIKI article, and the various copies-of-wiki websites. I've NEVER heard this term before, and I've NEVER heard this term from a Woop (West Pointer). Therefore I vote "Shipwreck Tech" OFF-THE-ISLAND if a citation is not forth-coming. If it were true, but citationless that'd be one thing. Also I don't care if it's true or not, and it's welcome to stay if verfiable. But I've not heard of it. And don't come back with a ENCYCLOCENTRAL.COM or other type source. Those are all copy-bots.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "Shipwreck Tech" sentence previously, and am doing it again now, because I'm a USNA grad and never heard of this "nickname" until I read this article. If the person who keeps replacing it wants it left in the article, it needs a solid reference. --67.133.117.210 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and ditto from another USNA grad. "Shipwreck Tech" is made up baloney, so anyone in the future seeing it in this article, please remove it.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Gender neutrality and political correctness

The military is required to be politically correct. They are required to use "gender neutral" terms.

Wikipedia is under no such artificial constraint. It is required to tell the truth. The lyrics can and should be rendered both ways IMO giving the original and the later changes.Student7 (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The traditional lyrics of decades of traditional use has been restored, per the properly cited reference and page numbers. If a contributing editor wishes to start a new section on current events, vice improperly modifying the Naval Academy Traditions section, then by all means go ahead. There can be two sections in the article. But in this section on "traditions" the historical, cited, referenced, provable and verifiable traditions of the Naval Academy should be documented, even if they have ceased to exist or gone to the depths. The section is here, as I started it, partly to pass on the traditions to the new generations. More are to come. You have been given the secret of Salty Sam. You have a new Log. Learn the lessons of those who have gone before you. The new lyrics are not the traditional ones, and they and any other current events, belong in this section not. Thus the Laws of the Navy have been added too ... and are recommended reading for the Class of 2010. Dost think in a moment of anger 'tis well with thy seniors to fight? They prosper, who burn in the morning, the letters they wrote overnight. Looks like we need to add the reef points, for the ratey reefers. (What is a reefer, you ask?) What's next? Bill-Brenda the Goat? Shall we have a neutered mascot as well? I digress with an argument of the obvious. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bios in history

For some reason, we have wandered off the topic of USNA and onto the topic of people who attended or were affiliated with the Academy. There is nothing wrong with explaining why an instructor/supe didn't show up one day: he joined the rebels! But to go on about his career is not relevant to this article. Most have articles already. It's okay to ensure they are in list of notable graduates. And William B Hall needs his own article IMO - he's sufficiently notable. The Confederate Naval Academy obviously needs its own article, but it is not this article! There is no relation! The difference was clear to them then. Try to maintain that distintion please! Student7 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Many institutions, cities, and other such items have an appropriate history section. The USNA is rich with history, unlike this article. Perhaps the history of the USNA needs to be made into a separate article? I am in the processing of creating the CSNA article, which is in one of my sandboxes. Meanwhile, the handful of items under the bare bones ACW history section are an important piece. The first Supe of USNA was the head of the CS Navy. From among the first graduates and instructors of USNA came the first Supe and Commandant of CSNA. CSNA was a spin-off of USNA. This is KEY history to the USNA story. They are tied at the hip. Therefore having a handful of information on the ACW and CSNA ties in this article is COMPLETELY appropriate. The section was already there to begin with, languishing with about one or two sentences. For it now to be a paragraph is very moderate and completely reasonable. Therefore I thoroughly disagree with your position. Furthermore, I would NEVER be so rude as to simply go through and slash out another editors contributions, especially reasonable and good ones. You are out of line, and as I recall, have been out of line on this article in the past, wanting to similarly slash out the USNA traditions material. Next time, consider discussing for a few weeks first ... on this talk page. If you cut material in the future in a similar manner without first discussing thoroughly on the talk page, I will be forced to revert your slashing edit. Grayghost01 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this particular discussion, I strongly suggest you read this policy and note that at the bottom of the page every time you edit anything here is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." --ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And the corollary, along wiki policy as well, is that if you delete reasonable on-topic material, expect the material to be restored, and if it's deleted again, expect a 3RR violation countdown to start. I thoughtfully pared down and reinserted appropriate material for the ACW section, which pre-existed, from a couple of sentences to about a paragraph. Therefore yes, I will edit mercilessly what I consider to be bad edits, but the difference is that I will not begin such tactics without talk-discussion first ... and hope that my example prompts others to follow such wiki-courtesies. For example ... I have not edited the "Canoe U" and "Boat School" baloney in the intro paragraph. I think those are not appropriate there. But I have not "whacked" it, and would discuss it first. Also I have suggested here, without yet taking action, that the history of the USNA may perhaps be too large for the article and need to be replaced with a summary and "see main", just like the list of alumni. But as of yet, expanding a section like the ACW from a couple of sentences to a paragraph is not-yet-long-enough to become a candidate for that. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we appear to have wandered in good faith off WP:TOPIC again. The topic is the Naval Academy. The topic is not the Civil War which I agree was very disruptive to the relatively new school. If 24% of the Academy instructors resigned, that would be notable. If 99% of the US Naval Officers resigned, that would not be notable since its relation to Academy history is not demonstrated. Let's stick to Academy history here and leave bios and Civil War history to other articles. We not only don't need to duplicate them. We must not when the material is not on topic. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Every bit of the slightly expanded ACW section ties directly to USNA. This section started as an anemic couple of sentences. Your complaints are irrational. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is much improved and much more interesting than before. Still could stand a bit of minor editing. I just tried. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor has called for "equal opportunity" for the North in the Civil War area. I thought we had a good summary here but maybe not. Again, we need to be careful that we are documenting USNA and not the Civil War, per se. Plenty of articles on that. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I corrected some of the entries and grouped the text more appropriately to align with the topic sentence that mentions resignation of graduates and mids then many key leaders involved with the founding and establishment of USNA. I have left Buchanan's rank as Admiral because the Navy Historical Center shows that, but am skeptical as the CSN's highest rank was Flag Officer. Buchanan's rank should be verified from an official CSN document. The phrase "the Confederate States Navy as its first and primary admiral" bothers me. It implies Buchanan was directly commissioned as an Admiral; not true. He was a captain when he commanded CSS Virginia. Semmes attained flag rank and fought until Appomattox. So, primary is disputable. I agree Buchanan was the first flag officer or maybe "admiral." Tho' I've temporarily yielded to the NHC, don't trust everything there. NHC calls Waddell a commander, but he was only a lieutenant commanding. Look at any photo and note his rank stripes and official correspondence. I corrected his rank. But NHC never claims Waddell was a USNA grad, having been a mid afloat in 1841 before the founding of USNA. He was a USNA instructor. I added Capt, Sidney Smith Lee, the second Commandant and Lt. Read, who was probably the most audacious naval officer of the war. I moved Maury after Waddell as explained earlier. I'm USNA '78 & know a fair amount about USNA, USN, & CSN. I believe my revisions are historically accurate and these facts about the impact of the War on USNA belong in the article. Traditional Catholic (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Traditional Catholic

NROTC

Someone adding a blurb about the NROTC brings to mind the fact that since both wear the same insignia, there is no good reason why there shouldn't be a "USN Midshipman" article which is linked to by both the this article and the article (if there is one) on the NROTC program. Student7 (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not the best school?

An editor reverted my (cited) insertion about being the "best" school. I can't say I was particularly wild about the blurb, but I would like to read his reasoning. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have is the metric used. For one, the source says that what is essentially a technology school wins the liberal arts category, which is a little silly. For two, the metric itself is based on a completely arbitrary measure of popularity. Most would probably consider the various state schools to be popular based simply on how many apply and not on how many accept an invitation once such an invitation is extended... If you really feel strongly about it, include it, but I think it's just a bad piece of statistics and a bad piece of journalism and thus very misleading. --Izno (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just a bad piece that's not particularly noteworthy or well-written. It doesn't add anything to this article and it elevates a poor source and nonsensical "fact." I object to its inclusion - even if you feel strongly about it. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)