Talk:United States senior military college

Order of SMC's Listed
I have no problem with their being listed in alphabetical order, but I see it has been revised twice now. It is not that big of a deal; in fact, the U.S. law does not even list them in alphabetical order when it cites them.

stray apostophes
Todd has made several revert's to thi's article, in spite of having it pointed out by several editor's that hi's overuse of apostophe's is both confu'sing, and gramattically incorrect. The use of an apostrophe, like all punctuation, is functional, and governed by quite clear rules. for example, in answer the the question "What can you see mate?" the answer "I can see the boys cock" can have three quite distint meanings.


 * "I can see some young human males pal" is written "I can see the boys cock"
 * "I can see the penis belonging to a boy" is written "I can see the boy's cock"
 * "I can see a rooster belonging to several young men" is written "I can see the boys' cock"

The humble apostophe serves to identify which of these three possible meanings the writer is trying to convey. It has a purpose:it serves to clarify the meaning, and remove any possible confusion. it is, if you like, an instant disambiguation page

SMC's used in this article totaly reverse this accepted use of an apostrophe, leading to possible confusion. how would you refer to the college's grounds? as SMC'S still? or even, heaven help us, how about the pupils of several colleges? would they be SMC's' students?

We now have a new rule, it seems: " Apostrophe s is used to refer to the possessive and avoid confusion with the plural(except on certain parts of Wikipedia where it means the exact opposite)" does this realy make any sense? What purpose exactly does the apostrophe in the word SMC's (when used as a plural) have? I'm assuming that no one would make such effort to reinstate it it it was purely arbitrary (I've got a " ' " key on my PC, so will damn well use it), which leaves either cosmetic (perhaps it makes the word look prettier), or functional. If functional, then what information does it convey? would the meaning of the phrase be altered (or unclear) if it was not there, as clearly happens in the above examples? or would the meaning, in fact, be more clear without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilbobee (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

whoops - sorry, thanks Bilbo B 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with what I have chosen as a rule. Amazing that you state: "in spite of having it pointed out by several editor's that hi's overuse of apostophe's is both confu'sing, and gramattically incorrect." I guess the colon is wrong when it is used as an indication of ratio, in time to distinguish the hour from the minute, in verses to distinguish different sections, or maybe, just maybe, it has multiple uses. Perhaps the period confuses people when it is used in initialisms and abbreviations; they must think it is the end of a sentence. Why not change that rule? Or hey, why even have a rule; let's just make these things up as we go along. The whole point is that the apostrophe has several uses (not just for conjunctions or possession). The apostrophe is used to denote plurality with acronyms that have not yet been absorbed into the English language as a non-acronym (e.g., the words sheriff, laser, radar, modem, etc. [<==wow, should this period be removed since it might be confusing for the end of a sentence?] would not use them because they are not readily identified as acronyms, but are standard words now. On the other hand, acronyms, abbreviations, and initialisms that are still recognized as such, as well as letters, numbers, and other symbols use the apostrophe for plurality (e.g., ROTC's, SMC's, 1's, $'s, S's, s's, etc.). It is true that some contemporary writing styles recommend not using the apostrophe if the writer thinks it is unnecessary; in other words, the reader would readily understand the meaning. However, when conflicting rules exist, and Wikipedia has not directly addressed it, the original writer's chosen style trumps the others'.Todd Gallagher 16:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the instances you've mentioned above, the punctuation all serves a purpose, clarifying the meaning of the word/sentance. Exactly what function is it you think the apostrophe serves in SMC's? is SMCs open to some other interpretation? Perhaps the members of the San Marino Chess Society might fail to notice that the final "s" is in lower case? If the apostrophe conveys no information then it is redundant, and if it is redundent then it is out of place.--Bilbo B 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
There was a request for mediation here. As of this posting, the article looks dormant, and I have had only one response to the request to mediate. Happy to mediate if people still feel it's needed, but I'm going to remove the request some time next week unless someone objects. Cheers. IronDuke 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Rillian and Todd are on board, thanks to both of you for working together on this. Bilbo B seems to be elsewhere, perhaps on vacation. As I said before, this is purely informal, I have no make binding decisions. Could you each restate, briefly, why it is that you think an apostrophe should/should not be attached to SMC? IronDuke  15:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if I could get you guys not to edit war over this while we work on the problem, I think that would be helpful to the process. IronDuke  15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While there are few sources who take the contrary position, the majority of style manuals recommend reserving the apostrophe only for possessives other than when the addition of only an "s" will create more confusion than a "'s" such as "Mind your p's and q's" (compare to "Mind your ps and qs"). The Wikipedia article on English plurals states "individual letters and abbreviations whose plural would be ambiguous if only an -s were added are pluralized by adding -'s." Since "SMCs" is not ambiguous, there is no need for a -'s. Using Todd's proposed standard, what would the possessive of SMC be -- " SMC's' " or perhaps " SMC's's "? Rillian 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Two comments below moved by IronDuke from mediation page to keep discussion in one place

As Todd states "unless there is some substantial reason for the change. . . . defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

The article refers to "Cadets of the Senior Military Colleges" in one place, so it is quite feasable that another editor may wish to make a similar reference and use the perfectly acceptable term "SMCs' Cadets" to avoid tedious repetion. This term clearly only works if "SMCs" is used as the plural- surely no one will write SMC's' and leaving the first apostrophe out in this instance would be inconsistant with SMC's as plural.

Using the apostrophe where Todd has limits future editors' choices without adding anything to readability or understanding of this article.Bilbo B 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not every rule of grammar makes sense. That is no argument. Let's look at initialisms and abbreviations, which use periods. If one occurs at the end of a sentence, you do not repeat the period (e.g., "I want to wake up at 6:00 a.m." versus "I want to wake up at 6:00a.m..") This is a rule that has evolved. Next, let's look at quotations. By tradition, and subsequently formalized writing style, all periods and commas are inserted into a quote if it is at the end of a sentence; e.g., "John said: 'I hate you,' so I did not call him back." The comma goes in the quote, not out like many try to do. By this same rule, all colons and semi-colons go on the outside of the quote, whether they are a part of the original or not. Exclamation points and question marks are the most interesting of the rule. If they are a part of the original quote, they go on the inside; if they are not, they go on the outside; and if they are both, they go on the outside.

Examples: He asked, "Where is John?" Who said, "My name is John"? Who asked, "Where is John"?

So let's not use the argument that one rule makes more sense than another. Otherwise we can get into debates about many grammatical rules (such as underlining versus italicization, both of which mean the exact same thing and are acceptable.Todd Gallagher 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've asked twice, using your proposed standard, what would the possessive of SMC be? Rillian 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not my standard; this is a standard. Now, I guess it would be accomplished by using the possessive "of." However, the same question can be asked of don't, thinkin ', or it's. How would you make a plurality of these words? Using your argument, which is what you are trying to set up, you would say: "In the English language, don't 's use as a conjunction is accepted." In this case, you would avoid the use of the possessive case or it would cause confusion. Are you going to argue against the apostrophe in these words merely because they would have an awkward possessive case? Todd Gallagher 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try again. You state the plural of SMC should be "SMC's". What do you propose as the possessive of SMC? Rillian 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you obviously can't deduce what I am saying above, let me simplify it for you. You would drop the apostrophe representing plurality. As with the period used in initialisms and abbreviations, you omit the period at the end of the sentence and the one period represents both the initialism and the end of the sentence. For instance, the phrase "do 's and don't s" omits the last apostrophe for the exact same reason. So let me reiterate so you don't need to retype your question over and over: Singular: SMC / Plural: SMC's / Singular Possessive: SMC's / Plural Possessive: SMC's. Todd Gallagher 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it. So the plural = singular possessive = plural possessive, i.e. no differentiation. Rillian 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject my two cents here, the purpose of an apostrophe is to replace missing characters or, in conjunction with an "s" indicate possession. When combining the two functions, the correct usage is quickly muddled. I would like to pose the question, what do each of the forms of the abbreviation stand for (P.S. I know the grammar on this sentence is horrible, but I don't feel like changing it)? I think this will more clearly show how the apostrophe should be used. 1. Singular: "Senior Military College" becomes SMC 2. Plural: "Senior Military Colleges" becomes SMC's 3. Singular Possessive: "Senior Military College's" becomes SMC's 4. Plural Possessive: "Senior Military College's" becomes SMC's. It is hard to debate 1 and 3. They seem to have no other usage that would make sense. 2 and 4 are where the big problems lie. I propose that 2 should be SMCs and 4 should be SMCs' for the following reasons. Using and apostrophe to indicate mising characters does not make sense because it is not used for the rest of the abbreviation/acronym (S'M'C's). On top of that, you must be able to distinguish between the 3 usages in 2-4. How are you supposed to determine the indicated usage if all of them are the same? I'll admit the apostrophe looks awkward at the end of a word, but it is still correct.(No user name, Henley) 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...in retrospect, I think that there is only one SMC reference in the article and it is used in the manner I stated. No problems :-)

Compromise
I've taken a little liberty and put up what I hope is a compromise version. Obviously, I won't object if someone reverts, but I hope instead we can discuss it first. IronDuke 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks to me like this problem is solved, at least for this article, although there is still plenty to discuss. I'm going to take this out of mediation in a few days if no one objects. IronDuke  15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have taken this out of mediation. I hope the resolution was satisfactory to all. Cheers. IronDuke  22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Give a source
If 75.70.247.207 is so insistent upon making such changes, please cite your sources. To quote the line below, "...content must be attributable to a reliable source..." BQZip01 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's likely you won't see that, as the same requests have been made to User:Koonoonga, and met with derision, hostility and outright personal attacks. I believe that anon IP to be the same one Koonoonga is editing from.--Vidkun 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We shall see... BQZip01 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

here we go again
Adding the VMI clarification regarding baccalaureate ONLY is unneeded. What does federal law say about SMC's? It says that they must offer a baccalaureate degree. Adding the VMI clarification doesn't meet the "so what?" test except to try and make VMI look more important.--Vidkun 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This constant reverting is getting quite annoying. If we want to add a quick blurb on each of the SMCs (yes it is SMCs and not SMC's...let's not get into that argument again), then why not add a quick section to cover each of them? This could clarify the differences between each without throwing additonal info into the mix. BQZip01 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "...except to try and make VMI look more important..." IMHO, this phrasing does not make the school seem more important, but less important. Its policies drastically limits its potential student population by negating anyone who doens't want to be in the military and thereby restricts the free flow of ideas. In this respect it is almost identical to the Service Academies (this is not a compliment of either institution). Anyone up for adding a new section? If so, I'll do A&M's section. BQZip01 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Major format change
Hope everyone likes it! BQZip01 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tweaked a few things in cleanup, but I'm figuring there will be gnashing of teeth soon. Thanks for the good work, though!--Vidkun 17:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One issue I have with your recent changes, adding citation needed tags. It's counter to what is said at summary style - Citations and external links ''There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole.'' --Vidkun 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! "The 'Summary style' article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole." All I am asking is for the main references. There are none right now. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your citation needed spree, however, was primarily directed at subtopics.--Vidkun 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we agree to disagree. I feel that the text put in adds to the article, as a whole, but needs references to be valid (some of the claims are pretty big). Tell you what, I'll add what I can find in the next couple of days. Fair 'nuff? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional information
Let's not delete relevant information regarding the history of these schools. There is no legitimate reason I can see that says we can't have this info presented here. — BQZip01 — talk 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple. Each of the schools already has a detailed article. No need to keep facts updated in two places. This is an article about the concept of a Senior Military College. Let's not add trivial details about the individual schools. (Trivial to this article, certainly not trivial on those schools' articles.) Regards, Rillian 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, not so simple (and you declaring it so, doesn't make it). This information (should it need to be updated) can be updated in multiple places. In addition, you made changes which, in English, change the meanings of the sentences.


 * "Military Colleges or SMCs" should not be changed since the sentence refers to Senior Military Colleges'. plural usage is important here.
 * Warning in comments is left there to deter vandals who continue to make changes up at the top.
 * I don't mind the unsourced comment deletion, but give it one more month (supposed to give three)
 * others are small changes, but be careful with these and don't change the intended meanings too.
 * — BQZip01 — talk 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
Summary style includes a basic summary of information. While the history of each school and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, they also provide perspective to SMCs in general. What is the history of the 6 colleges? What makes each distinctive? Are there any people related to the school that have done amazing things? All of this provides an insight into SMCs as a whole. A single paragraph isn't going to hurt anything. If we keep it that short, it easily falls within the summary style. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

North Georgia first for women?
The citation provided isn't a third party source, so I have to question it, just like I would question a source saying XYZ has the biggest ring, when the source is from the school itself. Can we get a date for when the first women were admitted to the various cadet corps? I see from one sheet maintained by the college that it was 1973, with the first female cadet graduating in 1976 (did she enter the program as a sophomore?) but is there an independent source for that? I think it likely that there is, but I'd like to see it.--Vidkun (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vidkun, While I admire your enthusiasm, your criticism is not necessary. IAW WP:V and WP:RS, this claim does not need to be from a third party source. That they claim it is enough and an accredited institution of higher learning is pretty reliable as a source. If you have something that says otherwise, then by all means, please show how they are wrong. This discussion on the Aggie Band page led to very bad feelings and a hostile talk page very quickly (and I'd hate to see that here). In short, this is acceptable for an article/section about themselves, but not other schools (I wouldn't expect it to be on the Texas A&M page. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * your criticism is not necessary I disagree.  And I think you are taking insult where none is intended.  Norwich makes the same claim about females, and the article in wikipedia continues it.  I don't know which is correct, but there are competing claims.  Simply saying that  an accredited institution of higher learning is pretty reliable as a source is the same thing that led to a mediation case regarding class ring size.  We have two competing claims for having been the first corps of cadets to admit women.  Obviously BOTH can't be right, but because it's automatically a POV issue, it needs independent verification.--Vidkun (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got two sources that says NU was first, but have a date AFTER NGCSU's claimed date of 1973 - .  NU says 1974.  On the face of it, NGCSU would be considered first.  But, obviously, there are sources which disagree.  Heck this very summary article, has said it was Virginia Tech, with L squadron, in 1973: Women had been admitted to the school as civilian students since 1921, but were permitted to join the Corps in 1973. SO, it looks like both VT and NGC claim 1973.  Again, competing claims now require independent sources.--Vidkun (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly reasonable to accept a college's claim of when it first admitted women and sourcing that claim only to the college's own web site. What should be verified is the claim that a college was "the first to admit women." As Vidkun has pointed out, we have overlapping claims and conflicting dates for that milestone. Rillian (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I never took it as an insult, so you can relax on that :-) (maybe I need more smiley faces... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) )
 * I would take the claims of universities on their website over some no-name website. That said, a simpler solution may simply be to state that all the SMCs became co-ed in the early 70s and leave "first" out of the picture. How does everyone feel about that? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Norwich even comes into the picture. Their own website lists 1974 as their first year for women: "Norwich was one of the first military colleges to accept women." Nowhere does that say they were the FIRST . . . http://www.norwich.edu/about/firsts.html . North Georgia's website literally says first SMC, and lists 1973. Only takes simple math to figure out which was first. I go to Texas A&M's website and nowhere do they say they were first. http://www.tamu.edu . The Army officially lists South Dakota State Universitya s the first school to graduate a female ROTC cadet: "Women entered the Army Reserve Officers Training Program (ROTC) beginning in September 1972. South Dakota State University was the first to graduate women in the college ROTC program, on 1 May 1976." It does not say which college first accepted them, but I know North Georgia was not it. The University of Georgia opened first in 1973 and we have always said they were first in Georgia and North Georgia second. It was, however, the first SMC.Todd Gallagher (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So if both North Georgia and Virginia Tech admitted women in 1973 per their cited claims, that would tie them for "first SMC to admit women". Rillian (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. North Georgia and the University of Georgia both admitted women in 1973 but North Georgia admits UGA admitted them first. North Georgia and South Dakota State University both graduated women in 1976--but South Dakota State University is credited with graduating the first woman. This is because years have something called months, and months something called days. Obviously, South Dakota State University graduated their female cadet first in 1976, then followed by other girls from other colleges later that month. The same holds true for the SMCs. Just because two schools admitted women in 1973 does not mean one did not admit them first. Where does Virginia Tech claim to have admitted women first? I have found that claim nowhere on their site and would imagine that if they had that they would claim it. In fact, after looking it up, Virginia Tech merely claims the same thing as Norwich, that they were among the first, not THE first: "In 1973 Virginia Tech was among the first Corps of Cadets in the nation to enroll women, assigning them to L Squadron." Only North Georgia openly claims to have enrolled teh first woman among the SMC's. I have found this nowhere challenged by the other schools, even when they openly claim, perhaps, to have been teh first school to have admitted a black, or perhaps the last school to have admitted women, etc. Todd Gallagher (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is because years have something called months, and months something called days. Drop the sarcasm, and give us reliable sources, then, showing the days, months, and years that NGC admitted their first female cadet.--Vidkun (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of this discussion is that we don't have third party citations for the claim that North Georgia was the first to admit women. The fact that North Georgia makes the claim on their website and VA Tech doesn't isn't proof that North Georgia was the first. Since both admitted women in 1973, we need some unbiased citations to determine who was first. Rillian (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SMC's that only have cadets
I see these lists on here about which schools only have cadets or which schools are all military. None of the SMC's are all military anymore. Two of the SMC's are still all military as far as resident students (VMI and The Citadel), but both VMI and The Citadel allow noncadets to take classes, whether as commuter students, evening students, or transient students. Someone posted on here that VMI was the only school to have only cadets. That is not entirely true. VMI only graduates cadets, but they allow noncadets to enroll in classes on campus as well such as transient students from Washington and Lee University.Todd Gallagher (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Only VMI is all-military
All VMI students are cadets. Unlike ANY other Senior Military College, there are no day or "night" degrees or graduate degree programs offered at VMI for civilian students. All VMI students must be cadets... period. VMI's Registrar will confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.246.52 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully. What's your point? Is there something wrong with the article? — BQZip01 —  talk 03:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like user was responding to the incorrect statement by Todd Gallagher above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.132.92 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * VMI students themselves must be enrolled in the military program. However, that is misleading. Nonmilitary students are allowed to take classes at VMI. A perfect example are the students at Washington and Lee. West Point does not have a program like this. VMI, on the other hand, does. So my point is that none of the SMC's is exclusively military. There are classes at VMI that do not have all cadets in them. Here is a link to the school's own statement on the subject: http://registrar.wlu.edu/curriculum/exchange/exchVMI.pdf ,Todd Gallagher (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems somewhat legit to me, but I think this is more of a reciprocal agreement with other institutions. They really aren't VMI students, but they are taking some classes at VMI. Thoughts anyone? — BQZip01 —  talk 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree they aren't VMI students. That is why it is confusing. I did transient study at two different schools when I was in college. You are still a student at your home school, but you are enrolled at the other school. VMI allows non-cadets to take classes at VMI, but they must be enrolled at another school which has an agreement with VMI. Hence, you will find nonmilitary students at VMI taking VMI classes . . . I guess a way to look at it is that VMI has nonmilitary students on campus who are transient students, or "exchange students" as they call them, but VMI is still the only SMC to graduate military students exclusively.Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

VWIL Edit
Removed VWIL from the listing, as they aren't a SMC: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00002111---a000-.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.75.27 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Forbes, US News rankings
I wanted to explain my edits to the VMI section of the article that references Forbes and US News rankings. The original text stated that "According to several top Collegiate ranking systems, VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" and cited Forbes and US News. It is accurate that Forbes ranked VMI the highest of the SMCs in its list of top schools. Forbes, however explicitly excludes reputation (more or less synonymous with prestige) as a criteria. That is why I changed the text to say that Forbes ranked VMI "highest". I am attempting to make it clear VMI ranked highest, but wanted to avoid any confusion on the criteria Forbes used.

With regard to US News, its ranking of VMI does not support (or, for that matter, refute) an assertion that "VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" US News' rankings have VMI, The Citadel, Virginia Tech, and Norwich in different categories. This separation makes it impossible to determine where US News comparatively ranks the SMCs.

It might make sense to move the ranking portion to its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) If you want to make a ranking section, that's a fine idea, but it needs to done in a neutral manner. I concur that the claims are spurious/erroneous/misleading. synthesis isn't allowed on WP. Buffs (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

5 star general issues
The citation needed tag keeps getting deleted. Until there is a reliable third party source which states that VMI is the only one to have graduated a five star, the inclusion of that statement is original research, because it is synthesis - you have looked at the list of five star generals, seen only one who went to a senior military college, and make the statement. It's a true statement, I'll grant that; but it's still original research that cannot be included - it has to be backed up by a reliable source which makes that statement - we can't even use reliable sources listing the five stars, and where they graduated from, to include that statement, as it is derivative information which is not (in the example given) explicitly stated in the sources.--Vidkun (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not synthesis, that's accuracy. It's fine. There are a total of 10 people that achieve 5-star rank in the US. Only one was from VMI. All others came from service academies (except General of the Armies Washington who was given the rank posthumously in 1976). Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I'm removing the tag. Buffs (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source--Vidkun (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Vidkun. It is synthesis, though only to a tiny degree. IMHO the CN tag was appropriate. I think Todd Galalgher's citation gets pretty close to what is needed, though perhaps not quite there.  I regret he felt the need to be uncivil when providing the cite. Ocalafla (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...". Where exactly is the challenge? "...you have looked at the list of five star generals, seen only one who went to a senior military college, and make the statement," Pretty much proves the point beyond all reasonable doubt. It's much like saying "Here's a list of all the attendances at all college football stadiums and 'here are the ten largest crowds'" is somehow WP:OR. It isn't. It's a simple fact. I don't need a source to prove that stoplights have red on top in the US or that stop signs are red. These are non-controversial claims and are not WP:OR. Adding tags when they aren't warranted are inherently disruptive and, IMNSHO, are vandalism. I'm not advocating a block or anything (hell, I've made changes that, in retrospect, I'd consider vandalism now), just don't do that anymore just to be disruptive.
 * As for Galalgher's comments, I concur that they were not necessary but I concur with the sentiment. Buffs (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. So, are you, for the record, stating that you concur with his personal attacks in edit summaries? I have reviewed a number of edit wars he has been in, and it appears he is usually the first one to begin disruptive insults.  I'm considering skipping right over third opinion, as this no longer involves simply two editors, as you appear to support his regular antagonistic actions.--Vidkun (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments are that he was intentionally being disruptive and intended to harm the appearance of the page/attempt to bring disrepute to the section on a rival school. Accordingly, it was vandalism. As for Galalgher's comments, the specific word choice WAS inappropriate, but the overall sentiment of frustration was apropos and accurate. I do NOT support his word choice.
 * Other issues aside, Buffs' recent edits made any synthesis de minimus or non-existent. Matter closed IMHO. Ocalafla (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, here. Buffs (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Proper noun?
Buffs, What is the case for "senior military college" as a proper noun? Didn't want to revert without seeing if I'm missing anything Ocalafla (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/Show.asp?durki=454

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530013601/http://www.vtcc.vt.edu/About/ROTC.php to http://www.vtcc.vt.edu/About/ROTC.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim that SMC cadets are not required to commission
The page claims that "Cadets at an SMC are authorized to take the ROTC program all four years, but taking a commission upon graduation remains optional, unlike other colleges where ROTC cadets are required to sign a contract to take commission before entering their final two years."

The U.S. code describing support for SMCs, (linked here, does not mention anything of the sort.

What is the source for this claim?

2601:5C2:103:FAA0:34A3:D183:9045:C542 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added one Billcasey905 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ECP request
Requesting indef ECP due to long-term, persistent but sporadic sockpuppetry by two indef-blocked users
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Strgzr1
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Bob80q

Buffs (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection.  Seagull123  Φ  15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do; thanks. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)