Talk:Virginia Military Institute/Archive 1

Archived discussion from spring 2005 to August 8, 2005. Let's hope this movement to the archive will suppress all the blankings and reversions. Hal Jespersen 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

'''Please do not edit this archive. If you have new comments, put them into Talk:Virginia_Military_Institute'''

Claim: largest per student endowment of any public college
Need a source for the claim that "VMI's nearly $300 million endowment, the largest per student endowment of any public college or university in the United States." A quick Google shows other colleges claiming the same thing. User:Rillian

Sources for Endowment claim
Sources are as follows: The Petersen's Guide to Colleges, Unique Colleges, US NEWS, and the Princeton Review, to name a few. User:Backrow


 * Found the NACUBO survey for 2004 released February 2005 at http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY04NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssetsforPress.pdf. Total endowment is listed at $271,889,000 but no per student ratings. User:Rillian


 * Check out "Unique Colleges" and others such as US News, Princeton Review, Petersen's, etc.


 * Princeton has a per student endowment of $1.32 million. Dividing $272 million by 1,333 gives VMI a per student endowment of $204,051. This is comparing private to public, so still looking. Can't find "Unique Colleges" on the Web. Other sources just repeat the VMI claim. Need to find a ranking that combines the NACUBO endowment amounts divided by students for public schools. User:Rillian


 * Take note of your own statement: " the largest per student endowment of any public college or university in the United States" (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY04NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssetsforPress.pdf) Your own link provides evidence of the mistake in your statement. Ranking# 165 User:24.58.207.70


 * The key words are public and per student. Those rankings include private and public colleges. For public colleges, VMI ranks highly. When you divide the endowment by the number of students, VMI ranks very high on a per student basis. I have not found any source that contradicts VMI's claim of the "highest per student endowment at a public college." Rillian 13:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment To Mistral 3
Mistral3, I assure that the following "advice" given by some users here adhere to Wikipedia standards. Please refer yourself to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution The source for per sudent endowment is an obvious misinformation. While the VMI is ranked #65, there are several (and naturally much larger) public universities and colleges that "outrank" you. Nonetheless your information is based on your own calculation and a pure generalization. You have specifcally stated in your article: "of any public college or university in the United States." Even if this information was correct, even if this link was crucial to the article in regards to the VMI, even if this information had an appropriate link with the appropriate information, the the fact is this information is a pure speculation and thus an opinion (further evident from your source, or lack thereof). We are not arguing, rather we wish that the rules of Wikipedia are followed, something that you ironically seem to know so much about. While this article has seen much improvement, the stubborness to prove some   (un)worthy point is astounding. Again the intentions of these discussions were to insure that the VMI does not provide false information as its fundamental purpose is--afterall--an encyclopedia. Take note of the disputes listed by user Rillian. Discussions are welcome and are needed; erasing the page does not erase the dilemma at hand here. User:24.58.207.70

Halloween Pictures
I was just wondering why the Halloween Picture controversy paragraph was removed. IT was reported in several reputable news sources and was a fairly big story and scandal. I'm putting it back in for now. If someone could give a good reason why it shouldn't be in I'll accept it. --Gary123 01:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major Edits
Is anyone else who worked on this article opposed to the changes made by 68.65.33.175? The article as of 03:47, 16 May 2005 may have had some writing problems but all in all it was a much more complete and in depth article than before  the changes. Heres a link to the article before the changes were made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Military_Institute&oldid=13961696 I think youll find it to be much more in depth.--Gary123 22:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that you selectively restore the specific passages you like rather than merely restoring the entire older version (if that's what your were contemplatng). The guy who did the edit did a good job of relocating the Battle of New Market material, which doesn't belong in this article in such detail. So please don't restore all that. (I am merely interested in the Civil War aspects of this article, so have no opinion about the modern VMI cultural topics.) Hal Jespersen 23:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Commissioning Rate
Based on the following sources, notwithstanding the 2005 spike - a five year average of 40% appears to be the most accurate. Rillian 01:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From http://roie.schev.edu/four_year/VMI/body.asp?c=1&i=1
 * Percent of cadets accepting military commissions
 * 2003 40.4%
 * Five Year Average 37.9%


 * From the VMI Web site: "Cadets must complete classes in one of the Institute's four (Air Force, Army, Marines, or Navy) ROTC programs. ROTC scholarships are awarded on a competitive basis. 40% of each class pursues commissions."


 * From the VMI Board of Visitors Meeting, 2 & 4 December 2004, page 4: "...update on the Class of 2004: 46 % (44% in the U.S. Armed Forces) were commissioned, most since 1991"


 * From the VMI Board of Visitors Meeting, 2 & 4 December 2004, page 12: "Reports were received from heads of the three ROTC departments. Commissioning figures for 2005 are expected to be: Navy 12 (20 in 2004), Marine 19 (14 in 2004), Air Force 40 (14 in 2004), and Army 50 (68 in 2004)."

Comments from 24.58.207.70
I'm not sure what is going on with all these military pages, but it is just proof of the unfortunate unreliability of some articles placed on Wikipedia. However what is important to note is that Wikipedia is not at fault here, but rather, the maturity of some of its users. Even without being in the military, the "advertisement" of your institution is blatant and intentionally filled with misinformation and "facts" supported by specks of hard evidence, without any confirmed proof. Looking into the history of this discussion only proves it. Using big names such as "Princeton Review" do not justify your information. I would advise that you look up your information correctly and place your article in a non-bias manner. This is an encyclopedia, not a billboard for advertising a product you are affiliated to.

Your article is excellent in regards of its contents, however--again--it is mixed in with factual errors. It is my hope that you will take some of my own research into consideration, subsequently allowing you to correct your own mistakes. I will not play the role of this "Rillian" and try to make actual edits myself, but just realize that there are people who look at this website for fair, accurate, and unbias research.

While I congratulate for VMI being in the placed among the best liberal schools, it is unfortunately not Number 1 and has not been for any 3 years. It is ranked number 77. Please be advised of the following sites: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3753_brief.php http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/libartco/tier1/t1libartco_brief.php It appears that Williams College, followed by Swarthmore and Amherst are the top 2 liberal arts schools in the United States

Please also be aware of your information on the institution recieving the largest per student endowment: http://www.virginia.edu/uvimco/openings_3.htm While it is not ranked number one, its amount of $2.0 Billion well-exceeds the VMI. Even without researching, any person of little intelligence and common sense, could easily tell that with a student body of "1,200" would not easily surpass any larger state-college of at least 20,000 students.

Those are just few examples that are an obvious error to even a "civilian". This message is not intended for any other reader but to the person who is directing the progress of this article. Thus it has no effect on whether or not this message gets deleted as long as that specific user reads it (its eventual deletion is an obvious evidence). Again, your article is excellent historically, please keep it that way. Your personal message may reach out to the vulnerable, but to the rest it is well-too exposed and identifiable. That is when Wikipedia (a great resource) is often handicapped of its usefuleness; to researchers, students, and curious minds. User:24.58.207.70 00:46, 14 July 2005

Comment about FACTS
In the future, read articles carefully and with an open mind. VMI has been ranked the #1 PUBLIC Liberal Arts college for the last four years (see source), In 2005, 50% of grads did accept a commission (see source), and 270 million is the largest PER STUDENT endowment of any PUBLIC institution. Those are all facts and you are trying to distort them. Your problem is you are not reading the facts carefully before you try to distort them and put a different spin on them. Sorry for your lack of comprehension. What about the erroneous facts you have entered about South Carolina's military college (see history)...nice try, but you are the biased one, you poor guy. Please leave this site alone and stick to your own propaganda pages. User:207.144.53.83 07:48, 14 July 2005

Comment about FACTS wrongly being disputed
The facts mentioned on VMI's page are correct. Please see the following site about the #1 ranking: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/libartco/libartco_pub_brief.php Check Petersen's and several other sources for the endowment information (per capita and public are key words that should be noted). Obviously, the user Rillian is not paying attention to the words within the article before he deletes them or incorrectly revises them. In 2005, nearly 50% of students were commissioned, but I'm removing that because it really doesn't matter. User:132.50.10.46 15:38, 14 July 2005

Comments from Rillian
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strictly adheres to the policy of NPOV. Consequently, this article should describe VMI factually. It is not a booster site, it is not the VMI web site, it is not a place for "my school is great, you school is worse" comments. From the policy "Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source."

Some current disputes:
 * Enrollment: VMI itself says 1,300 - some users keep reducing that to 1,200. Without a credible online source saying otherwise, it should stay at 1,300.
 * Commissioning Rate: VMI itself says 40%, many other sources say nearly 40% for the last five years. Using an average of 40% presents the most factual view of the current trend.
 * US News ranking: Saying just "#1 public liberal arts college" with no clarification leaves an inaccurate impression and many readers may not realize that "liberal arts college" only refers to 217 colleges in the U.S. and that only 21 of those are public.
 * Everyone agrees that VMI is the only public state military college - no need to shout "ONLY"
 * "toughest" - NPOV does not support superlatives like best, toughest, most -- based solely on opinion. Without sources that can be cited ranking schools on their degree of toughness, this type of claim does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise this would degenerate into school supporters constantly uping the ante with "my school is really tough", "no, my school is tough and it rains all the time, etc.

I welcome your comments. Rillian 03:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Response from Billian

 * Talk about silly! I've already cited the sources.  Just leave VMI alone. 09:16, 15 July 2005

Captions
You should consider putting captions on all your thumb-nailed photos. I would do the edits myself, but don't know precisely what the pictures represent. 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Only Classical State Military College?
Someone might want to check the quote that VMI "is the oldest state military college in the United States and the nation's only classical state military college, meaning all VMI students are cadets." I know it's the oldest, but I think all students at the Citadel are cadets... unless something has changed withing the last ten years or so...  I could be wrong, just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention. User:24.73.87.14 12:56 2 August 2005


 * Yes, VMI is the ONLY classical state military college in the country Checking the facts, yes VMI stands alone as the only all-military state college in the nation. The Citadel, South Carolina's version of VMI, actually has day and night "students" who are not cadets, but get degrees and wear the rings from the college.  Also, the Citadel has civilian day or night students playing on their sports teams.  In past years, the Citadel has had football players on their team who took the minimum classes required by NCAA regulations in the hope of winning more games.  One year, the Citadel had a quarterback who was a former player from Clemson or Auburn that played football under the minimum requirements and then dropped out after the last game. Many VMI alumni have expressed a desire to discontinue playing the Citadel because of how they have been manipulating their athletic teams. All students at VMI are cadets, and every athlete wearing a VMI jersey is a cadet. User:153.26.176.34 07:10, 5 August 2005

Ridiculous Entries
All the facts presented in the article have been proven and documented. Can any other reader see the point of leaving erroneous and wrong info in the discussion pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs) 10:39 7 August 2005


 * Talk pages serve as a record of discussion about an article. The discussion history can be useful to future editors. There is no need to remove content, other than personal attacks. If a talk page gets too long, it can be archived. Rillian 20:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly agree The only reason they kept up all the other entries was to raise doubts. I've checked, the facts all jive... signed, Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 August 2005

Time to talk, to each other

 * Refactored, in part from User_talk:El_C

For my own sanity, why don't the two parties begin using the talk page of the article, in the following way: one party articulates the additions/negations that they favour while the other party explains what their objections are; and vice versa. El_C 08:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) --- The contested change is as follows:

Remove from the section Virginia Military Institute the following:


 * In 2008 VMI ranked third in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States. Compared to the top 100 U.S. liberal arts colleges, public and private, it ranked 71st out of 122 (including ties).

... and replace it with (referred to in discussion below as the contested information):


 * In 2008, VMI was ranked the #3 public liberal arts college in the United States in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the 27 public liberal arts colleges in the United States.


 * The 2008 rankings are as follows:
 * United States Naval Academy
 * United States Military Academy
 * Virginia Military Institute

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The placement of ranking information being contested is exactly quoted from. At this link, the following is given verbatim:
 * America's Best Colleges 2008
 * Top Public Liberal Arts Colleges
 * United States Naval Academy (MD)
 * United States Military Academy (NY)
 * Virginia Military Institute

Arguments for the above were made at User_talk:El_C. I will make the following additional points here: Conclusion: Editors should not be barred from putting the contested information into the Virginia Military Institute page, and user:Rillian should stop bouncing the contested information up against the WP:PRESTIGE guideline for a 39th time. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:PRESTIGE clearly states in its first line that it is A voluntary guideline: remember, all "rules" may be ignored if they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. That user:Rillian has chosen to enforce this voluntary guideline by reverting the above 38 times over the last 166 days is unconscionable and goes against the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia.
 * 2) WP:PRESTIGE is composed of an introductory general statement, a guideline, and a list of examples. Inclusion of the contested information does not violate any of these 3 parts of WP:PRESTIGE:
 * 3) The introductory general statement of WP:PRESTIGE makes 3 statements:
 * 4) College articles often violate WP:APT. The contested information does not violate WP:APT and is stated almost exactly as in the original presentation by a neutral national source, the US News and World Report.
 * 5) Wikipedia articles should strive for neutrality. The presentation of information exactly as given by the neutral national source does not violate neutrality of the article.
 * 6) Editors should be guided by WP:CS, WP:AWW, keep articles verifiable, and avoid boosterism voluntarily.
 * 7) With regard to WP:CS, from the first addition by user:Pikepk1, the contested information has cited a neutral source of exactly this information in almost exactly the form being contested
 * 8) With regard to WP:AWW, the contested information is completely free of any weasel words and is given almost exactly as in the citation
 * 9) With regard to verifiability, the contested information is completely verifiable by following the link given here:
 * 10) With regard to boosterism, this comment in the guideline is circular since for purposes of Wikipedia, boosterism is that which violates this guideline of WP:PRESTIGE, which the contested information does not.
 * 11) The WP:PRESTIGE guidelines section contain 4 points:
 * 12) Avoid vague terms of praise. No vague terms are used in the contested information at all.
 * 13) Do not bury the reader in fact. ...remember that a university article's lead paragraph should be a quick summary of the most important facts about that institution. Move detailed listings of facts deeper into the body of the article. The contested information is not being given in the lead paragraph of the article and is a detailed listing of facts given deeper into the body of the article.
 * 14) If you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest. The contested information is precise and honest, by giving the information exactly in the form of which is provided by the neutral citation.
 * 15) Boosterism is particularly unpalatable to some Wikipedians when describing institutions whose "elite" status is already widely acknowledged elsewhere. The Virginia Military Institute's "elite" status with regard to academic ranking is clearly not well-known. It is not an Ivy League university.
 * 16) WP:PRESTIGE give 3 examples, none of which apply or are similar to the contested information:
 * 17) ...is a highly competitive school.... This is an obvious violation of the WP:AWW guideline. The contested information does not use any imprecise words as "highly".
 * 18) ...is one of the best colleges in (state).... Again this is obviously a violation of the WP:AWW guideline. The contested information does not use imprecise phrasing such as "one of the best".
 * 19) No public or private university in the ___(region)_____ United States can match the breadth and quality of the university's research endeavors, or its USD$___ million (as of 2001) in annual federal research funding. Although the research funding is precise, "breadth and quality" is imprecise and therefore not verifiable. The contested information is very precise and verifiable.

While I don't disagree with everything listed above, when multiple anonymous IP editors make repeated accusations of POV, some of them from the very start of their editing career on wikipedia, and tar uninvolved editors with the same brush, and when similar accusation have been made by other editors who have repeatedly refused to adhere to policy (not guideline, but policy), it become very easy to do a similar thing - tar other editors with a brush of being unreasonable regarding policy. After having dealt with both UserKoonoonga and UserMarshall3, their harassment, and their absolute unwillingness to follow policy regarding citation ... and then those two editors disappear, and numerous IP editors begin similarly worded attacks, well, assuming good faith is very hard to do.--Vidkun (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vidkun, you have said this before at User_talk:El_C. I can say definitively that I am neither user:Koonoonga nor user:Marshall3. If you feel that I have violated WP:SOCKS, I would urge you to make your report at Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, your comments are tangential to the substantive issues behind this edit war. You have performed 2 of the reversions, not enough to presume bad faith. user:Rillian has performed 38 of the reversions, which is more than enough for others to presume bad faith. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't give two flying tags whether you are or aren't either of those two editors. Having dealt with both sockpuppets, and bandwagon jumpers after sock puppets, and then having a comcast ip throw my name into the ring as being a POV editor, in their second contribution, why SHOULDN'T I be a bit heated?  Can you give me one reason to trust IP editors on that same page, when other IP editors pull that crap?  that's why wikipedia encourages everyone to sign up as a registered user.--Vidkun (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaching a compromise
Forget about all the ips, forget about all the reverts —both sides need to let go of those grievances in hopes of it advancing their position— focus on what you want to add, where; what you want to remove, where. Keep it simple, try to avoid overlinking or de-linking (i.e. make sure everything links everywhere fine, once), because the above is a bit of a mess. The less clutter, the better. El_C 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
So, anyone objects to the above addition? If so, why? Let's start there. El_C 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't object :) 98.204.199.179 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the 71/122 ranking, why omit that? What argument was there for not having both? El_C 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. That used to be further down in the edit. In all of the back and forth, it was dropped from this version. the 71/122 also belongs. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So what was the argument about, listing the Naval/Military Academies? I don't get it. El_C 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the above two while still sticking to the normal prose?

El_C 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm ok with this re-wording. I would drop the "100" and just say "top U.S. liberal arts colleges", since 122 isn't 100. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, almost 100 reverts and that's all there was to it? Alright, give it a few days and if there are no objections, we'll go with that. El_C 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is because I am pro this edit and the 71/122 was not the issue being contested. I even created an earlier version of this with 71/122 also included, but which was also reverted. The one who is con this edit has not yet weighed in. Neither has anyone else that had been party to the dispute (Vidkun was not really party to the dispute since Vidkun last contributed to the Virginia Military Institute page months ago). 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories
This article seems over categorized. If there is a Category:Virginia Military Institute, than all the categories on this article should go on that upper category. Than, the only category that should remain on this article is "Category:Virginia Military Institute". Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

History ends in 1945?
The history section ends with WWII. Has nothing of note occurred since then? Shouldn't 'admission of women' go there?  Will Beback   talk    05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mel Brooks
I don't know much about the site but I am a VMI cadet and have heard rumors that Mel brooks is a notable alumnus. On Mel's page there is a statement that he went to VMI with a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.165.130 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed he was. There's an extensive section of this interview:  which discusses his time at VMI.  It is unclear if he graduated, as he only discusses his first year there.  But he definately attended.-- Jayron  32  03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gender norming

 * ... it became apparent that adjustments to the standards had to be made.

Is this code for Someone noticed that the female cadets could not meet the standards and that they decided that graduated female cadets was more important than maintaining one standard for all cadets?

And is this in important topic in its own right? Has it affected unit cohesion or morale in any way? Or is everything just find and dandy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This was a major point of contention when gender integration happened. It's worth mentioning. Buffs (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

False Claim
Why does VMI continue to advance the myth that they are the only college whose entire student body fought as a unit in battle? In the first place The Citadel, Georgia Military Institute and Florida State all had their entire cadet corps or student body fight in Civil War battles; William and Marys whole student body fight the British in the Revolutionary War. Second VMIs own history shows that at least 23 cadets remained on campus to guard it so obviously it could not have been the "entire student body". Also the claim of being the only school to have earned a battle streamer is obviously false as the previously mentioned schools as well as the Merchant Marine Academy all have been awarded battle streamers for wartime service. As for the third bogus claim of being entitled to fix bayonets as result of New Market, wrong again; that is a privilege afforded MILITARY UNITS not CADET CORPS. If you want to keep deluding yourselves fine, just stop posting this trash on public websites.Bob80q (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact not False Claim and "Citadel" Did NOT exist During Civil War
Dear Bob80q, (Please do not delete entries to this page made by others because you disagree with them or because the truth is too hard for you to handle. I left your comments below...) As I wrote before: You need to check your facts on citadel, because it's definitely YOU who is delusional in this case. I'm not surprised though, citadel folks have tried for years to convince us that the citadel fired the first shots of the Civil War--ridiculous!!!! For a reality check, Bob, just look at how many times you've edited the citadel pages AND VMI's page. FACTS: 1. Your reference from VMI's archives is a collection of personal archived LETTERS, it's not a scholarly source/historical guide. 2. The citadel DID NOT EVEN EXIST DURING THE CIVIL WAR--What were the two SC campuses called again? SC Arsenal or SC Military Institute? The Citadel was given that name in the 1920's and the current campus was founded/relocated in the late 70's--"the original SC military institute" is a Hampton Inn in Charleston!! They have great drinks and a fine breakfast by the way ;)  3. Your claim of cadets fighting as a unit is COMPLETELY false as the 2 SC schools were closed-down. At best, various small groups from the 2 "SC military colleges" entered into various small skirmishes here or there and were not organized as a group.    Suggest you check YOUR facts, stop your peacocking, and stick to the "citadel" pages in the future     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.47.75 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to side with Bob a bit on this one. Despite its claims, VMI is not the only school to fight in war. Even if you are going to discount "The Citadel" as a unit since only its predecessors fought in the Civil War (always thought that term was an oxymoron), you have to admit that those units DID fight. Folks from the forerunner to the Citadel actually fired the first shots of the war! Other schools fought as a unit in the Revolutionary War as well as the Civil War. Instead of reinforcing this claim (since it is clearly unfounded), why not simply be proud of the service you historically provided? It doesn't make that service more or less great if other schools did or didn't participate. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

postings by anonymous vmi supporter
your classless and immature postings are not worthy of this or any other public site nor will I dignify them with comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob80q (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

PS - you have been reported for making personal attacks and posting inaccurate and unreferenced informationBob80q (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, please place these notices on the talk pages of the offending IP. Buffs (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

only further questionable claims is why a citadel supporter keeps falsely editing the VMI page
Bob80, "....all VMI students are military cadets....." is completely true. Regardless of ANY VMI student's affiliation, they wear a VMI uniform and live in barracks...period. I know it is vastly different from your school which enrolls civilian students, etc. But in the case of MECEPs and STA21s:they are not at VMI. Now, you want to talk about false claims, your claim of battles for "the arsenal" as it was called during the war is completely false. A small handful of red-neck kids sporadically running thru the lowcountry skirmishing when the school was out of business does not qualify as fighting as a unit in battle... sorry. Furthermore, your school makes official false claims. For example in US News, the citadel still lists 100% of its undergrads as living on campus. I know this is a false claim because I'm from Charleston and I have a family member pursuing his bachelor's there in conjunction with the community college. He's not even a cadet, but he proudly wears a citadel ring! Suggest you stick to your el cidadel pages and leave VMI alone. VMI is something you just don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.139.83 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

removal of previously deleted inaccurate claim
again deleted claim previously indicated as inaccurate regarding entire corps being at New Market, PLEASE refer to your own archives that clearly state that at least 25-30 cadets remained on campus during the battle; see the letter from Gen. Francis Smith. Also see http://www.citadel.edu/root/brief-history#duringwbts, the entire corps of the SCMA (Citadel) fought at the Battle of Tulifinny so even if VMIs entire corps had fought at New Market its not the only time And while you're at it stop the classless, childish insults you gutlessly make anonymously; you are not good representatives of your school.Bob80q (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob, your site of: http://www.citadel.edu/root/brief-history#duringwbts shows just how much your school comfortably "stretches the truth." You are citing citadel propaganda. Please stay away from VMI's pages with your half mil/half-civilian citadel garbage. 
 * Regarding your Tulifinnie claim, the entire student body was NOT there--NOT EVEN HALF! And most Civil War historians don't even consider that a battle--Bottom Line: the "citadel" didn't exist at the time anyway.  Regarding the Virginia Military Institute, of course some cadets remained at VMI, they were guarding the school!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.45.224 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To anonymous poster: you have inappropriately deleted several "citation needed" tags on the VMI page. Please review Citation needed which states "If someone tagged your contributions with "Citation needed" and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page."
 * Further, you have added claims for which sources are required. Most of these claims have been previously discussed on the VMI article's talk page and elsewhere.  Please review WP:RELIABLESOURCES.  If reliable sources exist for these claims, they are completely appropriate to include in the article and would be a great addition in my opinion.  Without reliable sources, however, they should not be included. Ocalafla (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr IP user. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the facts at hand. Ocalafla covered the other salient points. This is not a place to push your agenda. Please don't do so. Buffs (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Buffs, Please ensure in the future that your edits are accurate: ref: N. Georgia is NOT all military...

Thanks, Mr. IP User. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.45.229 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

NAS I can delete your inaccurate posts just as easily as you add them, your gutless unsigned insults show what a classless frat boy you are and trying to continually change The Citadels wikipage is a sign of your immaturity. As always a sad example of your school.Bob80q (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholar claims et. al
In an attempt to reach consensus on the Rhodes Scholar and "unlike any other SMC" disputes, I made a few edits that I will explain here. Perhaps all who make further edits will also explain their choices here?


 * "Rhodes Scholar" Any claim about more per capita or more than other SMC's combined really needs a citation to a reliable source. Further, it should be mindful of WP:NOR.  I think there is a chance that determining the relative number of Rhodes Scholars amongst the SMCs could qualify as a routine calculation per WP:CALC IF reliable sources are provided.  This has not yet occurred.  The per capita calculation might be too complicated, but we really won't know until reliable sources are provided.


 * "Unlike any other SMC"- Again, reliable sources need to be provided.  Further, I tend to think the "in keeping with its founding principles" language is mere puffery and probably not appropriate to include.  Maybe if there were a reference to a specific "founding principle" this might be different.

I welcome a good discussion on these issues. VMI is a great school and deserves a great WP article. Ocalafla (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see a great article on VMI, but this must be done within the policies and guidelines of WP. We cannot continue to have these unverified claims that disparage other schools. FWIW, Texas A&M has had at least 1 Rhodes scholar in the past 10 years. In an effort to keep the peace, I will hold off on any removals for 24 hours. If that does not result in discussion here, I will remove the "offending" text again. If it occurs again, I will request semi-protection to drive the discussion to this talk page so we can work together to form a consensus. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Buffs, Checked it out--Texas A&M has had seven--I updated the page with reference. VMI has graduated 11, which is still more than all the other SMCs combined--it's an unusual distinction.  The per-capita statement is also correct/true and the reference was included 6 months ago.  However, the reference was removed by BOB80(if I remember correctly), a citadel supporter who frequently vandalizes this article).
 * VMI was founded as a military institute, meaning all students are cadets. All the other SMCs (by their own admission on all their websites) now enroll cadets and/or civilians, and have masters and/or distance-masters programs--TAMU and VT offer PhDs.
 * VMI is unique in that it is still ALL-CADET... period. You go to VMI, you wear a uniform and sleep on a cot for 4 years.  It is unlike the other SMCs in this regard and it has remained true to its founding principles. Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.45.229


 * I removed the incorrectly cited statement that The Citadel has never graduated a Rhodes Scholar. While this statement might be true (I honestly don't know) the source cited (www.citadel.edu) does not state that The Citadel has never graduated a Rhodes Scholar. The absence of a statement on the webpage that Citadel has graduated a Rhodes Scholar is not an adequate source.  With regard to "per capita", the VMI Rhodes Scholar page does not support the claim; it only supports a claim that there have been 11 Rhodes Scholars from VMI.  So, I restored the CN that Hawaiia deleted. As for VMI's founding principles and the uniqueness of adherence thereto, I'd say such statements might be appropriate if supported by reliable sources per WP policy.  Feel free to add back if you can provide such sources. Ocalafla (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-added the statement "in keeping with its founding principles" because it is relevant and noteworthy per wiki policy. Also, removed your unnecessary cn re: unlike any other SMCs--again, relevant and uniques to the article.

Despite your family connections with the citadel, the absence of any mention in the website in this case does mean there has not been a rhodes scholar--this fact was also verified via the honors program director at the school, who's name is ironically Lt Col Rhodes... Bottom line: citadel and N. Georgia have not graduated a rhodes scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiia (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me address some of your points:
 * "unlike an other SMC". In your talk post above and in your edit summary you state that this is a "widely known fact" and and you refer us to the other SMC websites.  Per WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." If "unlike any other SMC" is a widely known fact, then there should be no problem producing a reliable, published source to support the statement.  While wikipedia does hold that you don't need to cite to statements like "the sky is blue", it's fair to say that "unlike any other SMC" is not in the same league.  For further discussion of this concept you might look at Common knowledge and WP:NOTBLUE In any case, all that is needed is to provide a reliable source.


 * Citadel lacking a Rhodes Scholar: WP:VERIFIABILITY requires sources to "directly support" the assertion made. Nowhere did I find on The CItadel webiste you cited anything that DIRECTLY supports the assertion that The Citadel has never graduated a Rhodes Scholar.  Further, merely noting that one spoke with some guy at The Citadel does not meet the standards of a "reliable, published source".  Note that none of this means the statement is or isn't true, just that it isn't appropriate to be included in WP unless it is directly supported by a reliable source.  A


 * "Despite your family connections with the citadel" My mention of a distant familial connection to The Citadel was made to show good faith to a CItadel-alum editor of The Citadel article whose edits I have frequently challenged for lacking reliable sources. I have some distant ties to VMI, also  None to Norwich, VPI, A&M that I know of!  But, I have served with graduates of all, and found almost all to have produced some outstanding officers.


 * In light of the Wikipedia guidance I've cited, I'd welcome any thoughts.Ocalafla (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're spot on here, Ocalafla. Buffs (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, pushing this POV (regardless of its accuracy) in the lead of the article is out of line per WP:LEAD. You should also consider discussing this on the talk page before engaging in edit warring. I'm not going to change it back at this time as I want discussion to ensue, not an edit war. This article is about VMI, not The Citadel, Texas A&M, West Point, or any other school. As such, unless it is relevant to include (such as the modern source for ROTC is Norwich or that some of Texas A&M's traditions/language is rooted in West Point history/linguistics), we really don't need the "My school is better than your school!" comparisons. Buffs (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my request, the page is now protected so we can focus on a solution rather than edit warring. Let's discuss and come to a reasonable solution, shall we?
 * I see two major points of contention:
 * Both of these claims are not backed by reliable sources.
 * Even if they are backed by reliable sources, are they relevant to be in the article. If so, is their placement correct?
 * I contend that these claims are not backed by reliable sources and require citations in accordance with WP:RS. It isn't whether or not they are true, but rather that they do not have a reliable source on the subject.
 * So, even if they are backed by reliable sources, they should be placed appropriately in the article. Per WP:LEAD "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." As such, putting a bold claim (even one supported by documentation) in the lead and not putting it elsewhere, violates the purpose of the lead: it's a summary.
 * So instead of bickering over this, let's figure out appropriate sources and include what we can where we should. Deal? Buffs (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Buffs has framed the issues at hand correctly.
 * IMHO, it is quite clear that we do not yet have reliable sources to support the claims. I'd also say the claims, if supported by reliable sources, would not belong in the lead. As to their inclusion in the article at all, I'll try to withhold judgment until I see what the sources say.
 * Thanks to Buffs for creating the opportunity for a good discussion on these issues. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. Ocalafla (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I also thank Buffs for setting up this opportunity, although I disagree with Ocalafla's statement. I believe both statements "Unlike the other SMCs and in keeping with founding principles" are relevant to the article for the following reasons: 1--Points out a unique aspect of the school which is noteworthy (all-cadet/all-bachelor degrees--only other institutions in the U.S. with same attributes as VMI are the service academies. Texas A&M, Nor, Cit, VT, N. Georgia are definitely different from VMI in this regard, which leads to many other nuanced differences in corps cultures, etc. which are difficult to quantify, but are significant, nonetheless.)  2--Displays fact that school has adhered to its established purpose and the reason for its inception from 1839--another noteworthy achievement in today's age.
 * As far as sources, I can cite the founding principles for the "in keeping with its founding principles" portion. The source would come directly from VMI archives and/or Virginia historian's office.  Can we not use the various SMC websites as sources for the "unlike the other SMCs" portion?  Does someone have another idea?
 * Regarding the Rhodes Scholars, I defer to the judgement of this group as how to accurately frame that portion in a way that captures the significance of the scholarly achievements of the school. Hawaiia (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's dial back the rhetoric here. Texas A&M still adheres to its founding principles (as do most schools), but most have expanded beyond those founding principles. Texas A&M still excels in Agricultural and Mechanical sciences and produces engineers and agricultural experts, but we also produce music majors, elementary school teachers, and business professionals. So, it isn't "another noteworthy achievement in today's age".
 * Another example: Our honor code is virtually the same as all other military school honor codes. No, we don't boot people for theft, but we don't tolerate it either. I'm sure the Citadel is the same as are the other SMCs. So, the "unlike the other SMCs" portion needs to go. It's an unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate dig at the other SMCs. Furthermore, it's not like you teach true military maneuvers anymore at VMI. Surely we ALL do basic maneuvers, but you don't teach how to fire musket volleys, align cannons, take a fortification, fire at ships, etc. Times have changed and VMI did change with it. There's nothing to be ashamed about there. It's reality and a necessary part of being an SMC. Likewise, VMI should be proud of its traditions of being an all-cadet, undergraduate school, there's just no need to tear down other schools while stating it.
 * As for how different we are, I would say we are ALL different. Whether one school is "closer" than another is simply irrelevant. Every school is different and while you can point that out, to denigrate the others is simply unnecessary and is opinion, not fact. Since these opinions are self-serving and from the VMI website, they require an outside source from VMI. Should you find a source that backs up that claim, feel free to add it, but not necessarily in the lead. But if you find it necessary to include ti there, make sure it is mentioned elsewhere in the article IAW WP:LEAD
 * Simply pointing out how many Rhodes scholars you have is fine, but you cannot mark the totals as being higher than another school without a reliable source to back up that claim. As such, when the lock is lifted, it will be removed until a source is added. Likewise with the other portion. Buffs (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good discussion here! Hawaiia raises some good questions.  I don't have all the answers, but I have some thoughts.  I think it is relevant and noteworthy to include in the article some ways in which VMI is different from other institutions.  Note that this could include both positive and negative differences.  However, too many of these distinctions could overwhelm the article and turn it from a useful resource for readers seeking information about VMI into a mere vehicle for airing school rivalries.  I'd suggest that our goal should be to find the appropriate balance.  The number of such comparisons, their location in the article, as well as the tone with which they are presented will be relevant.  And, of course, reliable sources that directly support any such comparisons must be included.Ocalafla (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. We're basically talking about placement and reliable sources here. As long as notable claims are backed by third party sources, we should to include them appropriately. That means we need to include them in the body of the article and only in the lead if they are essential in summarizing the article (perhaps they will be), but they need to be added appropriately to the body of the article first. Buffs (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will go one step further and say I would be happy to help try and get this article to FA status, but I think we need a few more people on board to make that push. I think it would be an excellent idea to push The Citadel's article in the same direction...perhaps a competition? Buffs (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Maybe include all SMCs? First one to FA status wins.Ocalafla (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps...but the Aggies have a colossal head start, but if VMI could invent a time machine... ;-)

You all enjoy the competition, but count me out... Disagree with Buffs comments... and for the record, I do not care about Texas A&M--couldn't care less, because this article is about VMI. The fact that VMI is an all-military corps of 1300 cadets is a significant difference from all other SMCs--if anyone thinks pointing out this fact is denigrating their schools, then THAT is THEIR burden and THEIR bias entering into the equation. You mentioned honor codes, etc.--VMI is the only school which conducts a "drum-out" ceremony for cadets who violate the code. This is also a noteworthy fact which was removed. I can tell you with absolute certainty, both as someone who is very familiar with and has been to the other SMCs and as someone who taught at a US Service Academy, VMI's honor code is unlike any other school out there... period. This fact was mentioned, but was removed perhaps because it hurt feelings or made someone's school feel denigrated. Why? Is the uniqueness of this fact not worth mentioning even when all the other SMCs have admitted they do not still utilize or adhere to a "single-sanction" honor code, but VMI still does and will continue to do so? Bottom line for this article: Stating "unlike any of the other SMCs and in keeping with its founding principles" illustrates a factually supported facet of this Institution which is noteworthy in nature. The fact that VMI is different from all other SMCs in this capacity is not "fluff" and is relevant to the article, whether it makes aggies or others feel denigrated or not... Hawaiia (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC) For the record, the article in its present form is suitable to me. The Rhodes Scholar section has been "diluted" enough not to offend and the intro looks acceptable.Hawaiia (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think the article meets WP's standards in its current form. Let's get back to basics.  WP requires reliable sources that directly support a claim.  Does anyone dispute this?  If not, let's look to see what our reliable sources are that directly support certain claims:
 * "unlike any other SMC" I have not seen in the article a reliable source to directly support this.
 * "In keeping with its founding principles" I am not sure what this means.  At a minimum, it needs clarification and then, likely, a reliable source that directly supports the claim.
 * "Per capita, VMI has graduated more Rhodes Scholars than any public college or university" I have not seen in the article a reliable source to directly support this.
 * "more Rhodes Scholars than other SMC's combined" The article has included citation to a sufficiently reliable source that directly supports the claim (VMI's website and some news stories that state the number of VMI Rhodes Scholars) as to the number of Rhodes Scholars VMI has produced. It has also included citation to reliable sources for the number of Rhodes Scholars from A&M, Norwich, and VT. I have not seen citation to reliable sources that directly support Rhodes Scholars, or lack thereof, from The Citadel or North Georgia.
 * So, the question that needs to be answered is: In the absence of reliable sources that directly support these claims, how does WP policy permit these statements to be included? Ocalafla (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer to these questions is simple: WP policy supports including well-known, substantiated and simple facts: Please look again at the smcs and you will agree: 1. "Unlike any of the other smcs and in keeping with its founding principles" is a "no-brainer": - Are any other smcs all-military? NO, they all offer "other" programs for civilians, community college students, and/or night studies, graduate programs, etc.--check websites, wikipedia articles, US News, etc. - What was the original mission of VMI (and most of the other smcs)? Answer: To produce educated undergraduates of a military institute--a mission which has not changed at VMI to include night students, graduate students, or distance learning programs--like the other smcs. Bottom Line: these are no brainer statements and I will ensure they remain. - In regards to the rhodes scholars: do what you will, but you both know citadel and N.GA have not graduated any--if they had, they would be talking about it--The sources have been provided on the other schools and VMI, yet you still refuse to accept, and at this point I do not care. Look, Buffs and Ocalafla, you both are making this far more complicated than necessary. You know full well that VMI is the only all-cadet smc still in accordance with it's mission upon founding--VMI is far different from the others, yet you both want to continue this song and dance. The facts are both substantiated and noteworthy--therefore they require inclusion per WP policy. Again, I will ensure they remain in the intro. Hawaiia (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All that is needed is to provide a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the claims in question. There is not a "no brainer" exception to this core principle of WP. There is a ethic I noted above that one does not need to provide a citation to a statement like "the sky is blue".  A reading of Common knowledge and WP:NOTBLUE should make it clear how the claims in question are very different.
 * I know these kind of things can be difficult for new editors to wrap their heads around. You might find it useful to get advice from an experienced editor who is not involved in this discussion.  You can find more information about this at WP:ADOPT. Ocalafla (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made an edit that attempts to reach consensus. It restores the CN tag to the "unlike any other SMC" claim in the lead paragraph.  I believe Buffs believes that regardless of the presence of a reliable source that directly supports this claim, it does not belong in the lead.  I probably lean in this direction also.  Hawaii believes this claim does not need citation to a reliable source, that it belongs in the lead, and that a CN tag is not appropriate.  So, perhaps this edit is a middle ground?
 * Note that if reliable sources that directly support this claim and also the Rhodes Scholar statements are not added within a reasonable time, the claims may be deleted per WP policy.Ocalafla (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hawaiia, this is not a battleground and your opinions are not sacrosanct. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a dictatorship. You cannot dictate what will and will not be in the intro ("I will ensure they remain in the intro"). Likewise, neither can I. Articles are formed by what the collective editors of WP decide, not you or I as individuals.
 * That said, Ocalafla and I believe that these are not supported by reliable sources. Whether or not they are true is actually irrelevant: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". By WP policy, this material may be removed:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. (underlined emphasis mine)
 * Accordingly, I will give you another week to add a citation from a reliable source for each of these claims. After that, they will be removed. If you can't find them in a week, there is nothing preventing you from re-adding them later with reliable sources.
 * I concur with Ocalafla (and we've disagreed on PLENTY of occasions!) that this is indeed a middle ground. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I feel strongly about the "in keeping with its founding principles statement," I understand the views of others and concur with present form of article. I believe the intro looks good.

Hawaiia (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs some serious work
It reads like a recruiting pamphlet, not what WP:LEAD dictates it should. I'm not saying the given information there shouldn't be included in the article, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. As such, everything in the lead should be discussed more in-depth in the article. As it stands now, almost all of it is information that is NOT discussed in the rest of the article. Responses requested. Buffs (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the intro looks good in its present form. Hawaiia (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "looks" are irrelevant in this case. It must comply with WP:LEAD, a Wikipedia guideline, unless there is consensus not to do so. Buffs (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will remove those points from the lead unless an expansion of such information is included within the body of the article in 7 days. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Commandants
Probably should have list of commandants someplace. If here, list should be "hidden." Student7 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Kappa Alpha Order's Beta Commission
The 2006 Laws document appears to be lost and not archived. However, a quick look at the current (?) document suggests that it's a valid replacement and still consistent with the text. It's here: http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2013-Working-Edition-Kappa-Alpha-Laws-FULL-PAGE-LAWS-74th-Convention-REGS-Dec.-16-2013.pdf

I've archived it here: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2013-Working-Edition-Kappa-Alpha-Laws-FULL-PAGE-LAWS-74th-Convention-REGS-Dec.-16-2013.pdf

Having said that, I know almost nothing about frats, so I'm at risk to misinterpreting. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment? If no-one does, I'll make the change in a few days. --Otus scops (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

applying
i want to apply what are process and how much is the tuition fee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.157 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This marks the only time in U.S. history...
Re:        (list incomplete)

I have been watching this silly ping pong game for too long, enough is enough. At least three editors,, 69.1.22.120, and 155.225.144.115, are engaged in a slow-burn edit war, a violation of Wikipedia policy, with no end in sight. WP:EW:

Any interested editors are invited to present their case here, using nothing but reliable published sources. Please refrain from assertions of personal knowledge about this, as Wikipedia is not about personal knowledge.

As far as I can tell, the source currently given does not support the statement; unless a better one can be found and cited, or unless someone can show where that source directly supports the statement with no WP:SYNTH required, the statement should be removed. It matters not what is true, only what is verifiable. Even if the source supported the statement, I don't think it would be acceptable to use VMI's own website as a source for such a claim-to-fame about itself. Either way, the current sourcing is inadequate.

Comments like the edit summary "Please note: As a wiki troll, Bob80 has a history of under-editing the VMI site--please check history and note edits)" violate Assume good faith, a widely accepted behavioral guideline, and border on violation of No personal attacks, another policy. Comments like "your gutless unsigned insults show what a classless frat boy you are" will result in a trip to WP:ANI and possible sanction; the editor who wrote that should consider this prior warning.

If no consensus on this question can be reached locally, I will start a request for comment about it. But kindly cease the edit warring now. Thank you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The entire student body? Were there no VMI cadets who were loyal to the Union, as obviously there were graduates who were loyal? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Re your revert, multiple points.
 * "look Battle of New Market up" - Look it up where? If that's a reliable source, it's what we should be citing here. If not, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you wish to include this content, it's your responsibility to produce the valid source to support it, not mine. You can't just revert and tell others to "look it up".
 * "other school falsely claims" - I'm not aware of the other school of which you speak. If they have a Wikipedia article making a controversial claim without adequate sourcing, that claim should also be removed per WP:V. In any case, I'm not here to decide the "truth" of this matter, only to implement Wikipedia policy—and every Wikipedia editor should do the same, including you.
 * "and cites NO source data" - As I said in my edit summary, VMI cannot be used as a source for its own controversial claim to fame, as it has an obvious vested interest. Even if the VMI source in fact supported the claim, it would carry no more weight than "NO source data".
 * WP:ABOUTSELF, particularly its items 1 and 4, is the most directly applicable part of the WP:V policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

use of military ranks
This is specifically allowed per MOS:MILRANKS and not considered 'honorific', this was discussed on other pages and also on the Wikimedia commons page. Editors obviously need to be more familiar with the rules.Bob80q (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why no pictures of cadets
The article has only a single picture of cadets (a small one at that). Recommend adding some more (surely there are some cadets following this page... Buffs (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's avoid boosterism
The "mine's more austere than yours" mantra is uncited/unproven thereby failing WP:SOURCE. Additionally, per WP:LEDE It would need to be in the body of the article; it isn't. If you want to add it in, please cite your sources and expand upon it in the body of the article. If you believe my assessment to be incorrect, please explain why. Buffs (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Understand your point, but it's not exactly boosterism. Sleeping on cots in a room with very little in it isn't exactly the best boosterism statement, but it is fact. Not only that, the current form has held for over a year, why change it now? Additionally, your wording and grammar leaves much to be desired... I'm changing it back for now, but let's send this up to an admin if you think it's worth it. Cheers!Strgzr1 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also included the 1400 cadet number as I agree with you, it's relevant without being boosterism.Strgzr1 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you've basically said "no, I like it the way it is and it's been that way for so long so we should keep it." The fact is, it isn't expanded upon beyond the Lede and fails on that point alone. The fact that it's been this way for a year is irrelevant. As to whether it's boosterism, it falls into the category of "we're tougher because we have it harder". Removing it again as it fails WP:LEDE and lacks a source.
 * Buffs good luck winning a debate with strgzr, he will keep spewing disinformation and making snarky remarks until somebody is brave enough to shut him down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to "send this up to an admin". We should be able to discuss this here. Address the issues brought up, don't just add it back. I've also removed your revision "...making it the largest non-service academy military commissioning source in the United States. In fact, VMI holds the distinction amongst all other Senior Military Colleges of having the highest percentage of it's graduates commission in the military." The only thing the source shows is how many graduates and what percentage they had. It doesn't mention the other SMCs nor does it say whether the percentage is higher or lower. Lastly, the source is the subject of the article. While it's certainly a respectable institution, please use 3rd party sources where possible. Short version, your revisions a) lack a source that backs up the claims and/or b) fails WP:LEDE. Feel free to add it back with a source for your claim AND make sure that the Lede is expanded upon in the body of the article. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you add it back? I see no source nor justification to include it in the lede. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Virginia Military Institute. 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/archives/Civil_War/cwgen.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/archives/Civil_War/cwchron.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120909021555/http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/vmi/vmihonor.html to http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/vmi/vmihonor.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231020447/http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_iaa/bigsouth/virginia_military_institute/coaching_records.php to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_iaa/bigsouth/virginia_military_institute/coaching_records.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/archives/Civil_War/walkerja.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmikeydets.com/section_front.asp?arttypeid=509

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (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) 14:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll need to make this request at WP:RFPP. ElKevbo (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks, Buffs (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That sock...
...sure, but what is wrong with the "West Point of the South" thing? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I originally removed it because as it was written it wasn't a comparison that made sense. It's fine to just say that this institution has that nickname (although a statement that simple doesn't seem to belong in the lede). It's better to say why it has that nickname. But the material I removed didn't say that. It purported to do that but then it just said how many students are enrolled at VMI and that they live in "spartan and austere barracks" which doesn't explain the nickname at all. Without an actual explanation it's just trivia that doesn't belong in the lede (and unless the explanation is really interesting and impactful then it doesn't belong in the lede anyway). ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reinserted as it is relevant, unique, and worth mentioning. Also elaborated on enrollment numbers and austerity info. I believe it's worth keeping.50.237.45.67 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please address the specific issues that I raised. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed issues and provided a reason for the nickname.50.237.45.67 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't addressed anything. And now you're blatantly edit warring to add this material to the article, a tactic that will (a) not be successful and (b) lead to you being blocked if you continue. I strongly recommend that you revert your edit and continue this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

VMI investigated for clinging to racist and sexist culture
someone needs to update the article concerning these recent findings: https://schev.edu/docs/default-source/documents/vmi-special-investigation-team-final-reporta8b3c750bece61aeb256ff000079de01.pdf (June 2021) 161.69.112.11 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a 152 page document. What do you want the article to state based on it? Pagenumbers can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I added it to the Further reading section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Vmi 164.jpg