Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Military Academy


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009.

United States Military Academy

 * Nominator(s): — BQZip01 —, Ahodges7, Madcoverboy, Alex Middleton, BlueAg09

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-referenced, well-constructed, and one of the best articles I've seen here on Wikipedia. It meets all the standards and would be a fine addition to the list of FAs. Props to Ahodges7 for pushing this one! — BQZip01 — talk 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support refs have improved and the article checks all the boxes. WP can be proud of this article. Comment I think the citations still need some more standardization and work to increase reliability. Sources like flickr, admissions office, GoArmySports, geocities are borderline reliability as either authorities or SPS. Not insurmountable, but my primary concern. Standardizing formatting of citations also needs some massaging. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments
 * Wilco on the massaging. On a related note, some of the refs' links (see the tools on the right) seem to have gone bad since the beginning of January. I'll double check. SPS aren't prohibitted, but their information should be suspect. If there are extraordinary claims, I would expect backup from another unrelated source. The admissions office is a primary source for basic information like enrollment figures and is appropriate in this case. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the reference cite*d by geocities; it was a factoid not necessary for the article. The flickr reference is merely a picture of what the sentence claims and it is also backed up by another reference, so, while flickr isn't necessarily the best source, it certainly paints an accurate picture in this case. The rest are primary sources of information and are not controversial points of fact (enrollment, record of football team, etc.). BTW, I put you in as a co-nominator. If you don't want to do so, feel free to remove your name. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Flikr reference. I reworded the sentence and provided a photograph in the article to verify the statement that "Beat Navy" is prominently displayed on campus (the Beat Navy tunnel in particular).  Sorry to have wasted so many people's time with a Flickr citation when I could (should have) just taken the photo myself.   Ahodges7  20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Even if the Flickr ref. is backed up by another (reliable source), what about it merits its inclusion? It's still practically a self-published source, and while Wiki allows for self-published sources in some cases (if the author has been published in a reliable third-party source), there's nothing to indicate that the author of the Flickr picture being cited is such an author. Also, if the picture itself is being cited, there isn't anything in the picture to back up the statement (that "Beat Navy" is painted on the bleachers). Same goes for the YouTube ref; there's nothing to indicate that the videos meet WP's criteria for the inclusion of self-published sources.
 * Also, in some cases, a magazine's title is italicized, while in others, it isn't. Shouldn't the magazines' titles be in the "work" field of the citation template and the publishing company in the "publisher" field? That would also solve the consistency problem with the italicization of titles, I think. Ink Runner (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Right you are. I've removed the sentence backed up by YouTube and the flickr ref (wasn't really needed anyway) . My reference to SPS's is for matters of public record for which USMA (as a segment of the Executive Branch) is responsible for publishing. While USMA may publish them and the article is about USMA, these facts are backed up by the federal government and a well-respected institution of higher learning and should be accepted for basic claims (student population, demographics, etc) as they are primary sources. Working on the inconsistencies in the citation templates. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fixed all the refs. The Flickr picture should stay. It isn't an SPS because it was taken by someone else other than a USMA employee IAW his/her duties. As for the medium in which it is published, a picture is, by definition, an original source. It can't be anything else. It is fine and should stay, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see comment about Flickr resolution above (it's no longer in the article).  Ahodges7  20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose on criterion 3 - Significant work needs to be done to bring the images into compliance with WP:IUP:
 * File:WP Ring.jpg now File:WP Ring 2.jpg - The jeweler owns some copyright in this image and thus this image requires a fair use rationale, if the jeweler is not the US federal government. See, for example, File:AggieRing.jpg.
 * Replaced image and added copyright info, but with Fair Use tag. The manufacturer may not own a copyright on the design, but that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't own the rights (such as the Class of 07 class council or something like that)
 * We need to list the copyright holder and I'm wondering if the resolution is too high on this image. Usually, fair use images have a lower resolution than this - well under 1000px on each side. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we don't know who the copyright holder is. All the designs are made by the cadets while the 3-D implementation and the actual molds are retained by Jostens. Quite frankly, both are given appropriate credit and this is a fair use application of the image no matter which entity controls the copyright. As for the resolution, there is more to it than just the size of the image, but the detail contained in said image. The image at this magnification has a quite low resolution. I could take this image and blow it up to 10x the size, but it wouldn't increase the resolution. As stated on the image page, the resolution is low and it cannot be used in any appreciable way to infringe on any copyright. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg - Can you find me a statement on the website that says all material is in the PD or something to that effect?
 * Note: This is the sole remaining "unresolved" photo from original comments.  The remaining objection to it is incorrect.  The photo is an official army command photo, the same as seen in the articles: Wesley Clark, David Petraeus, or Richard A. Cody.  It should be considered resolved and struck.   Ahodges7  talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This photo is no longer in the article. I've replaced it with File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg, which is sourced, attributed, and tagged PD.  Should be resolved.   Ahodges7  talk 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Official photographic portraits are PD, by definition, as much as any other official Federal document. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am simply looking for a statement on the website that says this material is in the PD - I looked for a while, but I couldn't find it. Again, we need proof. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg with a correct link for its source and author with proper PD tag.  Ahodges7  11:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we know "USMA Public Affairs Office" is the author? Can you add such a link to the image description page?Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to call and verify this is the case. What is it you are looking for? Obviously we aren't providing the information you want. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will repeat myself: The image description page claims that USMA Public Affairs Office is the author of this photo and, thus, that the image is in the PD. I cannot verify that information any where on the website, as required by WP:IUP. Just show me where it says this on the website. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not required to verify this information on a website IAW WP:IUP. The policy you are citing only states that asone of the options:
 * "Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
 * Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
 * done
 * Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer..."
 * done
 * I think some of this may be a misunderstanding too. Not all military images are kept on the internet. The vast majority are retained on local Intranets that encompass the base with limited access to other bases as well. Military members such as myself and Ahodges7 have access to stock photography that may or may not be on a publicly accessible website. Personally, I have about 120 such images but I have chosen not to upload them here (most are just neat photos with limited encyclopedic value). They also haven't been placed anywhere online for the general public (keeping all of them available everywhere & all the time is cost-prohibitive). In the case of these images, the best information we can give you is that they came from a specified source and give their contact information. Should those images be placed on a website, I would have no problem citing that website. Should we get more information, we would be happy to place it on the image pages. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I contacted the PAO office and got the name of the photographer. The image now has the source and controlling agency link attached as well as the author's name.  What else does it need to satisfy your issue with it being in the public domain?    Ahodges7  talk 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly an OTRS verification per comments at the Bob Knight picture below. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This information is not required. All required information is available. If the same user uploaded a picture from within a book published in 1919, there would be no reason to believe it is anything other than PD. An applicable source, credit where credit is due, contact information, etc. is all available. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (undent) On a stretch here, but: Army websites would use Official Military Photos that are taken by authorized studios (explanation of these Photos here). Illustration of the portraits for promotable colonels and generals could be seen at the Pentagon Portrait/Department of the Army (DA) Studio.  Would this be convincing enough to state that all portrait images on official US army websites are Official Military Photos (especially those of colonels and generals with the American flags in the background); thus the Hagenbeck image here can be PD-USArmy even though it would have "unknown" in its author field?  Jappalang (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These photos aren't taken by "authorized" studios. They are taken by soldiers (or Department of the Army civilians) whose primary career field is professional photography. They are usually taken on the installation in which they are stationed, though I've seen a few taken at previous assignments where they actually received promotions too. Aside from that little misunderstanding (which I think I could have explained better earlier). I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make that assertion, but the unit and/or installation that created the photos should be credited if no author can be identified ("HEY Murray! Do you know who took the photo of the Commandant?...Yeah, me neither.") If the Army is anything like the Air Force, Public Affairs or a separate photography unit took the photos. Let me know if I'm on the money or way off Hodge.  — BQZip01 —  talk11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BQZip01 is on the money, except I've already done the legwork for the user by contacting the Public Affairs Office and getting the name of the photographer of the Supe's photo. The "authorized Visual Information (VI) activities" thatJappalang referenced here are official government photography shops, run by Department of the Army civilians or military photographers.  As a result, the photos that they create are official US Army (and hence US Government) documents, and are PD, just like any other Unclassified government document, OR like the official photos of elected officials.  Ahodges7  talk 16:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:West Point Fortifications.jpg - This image looks like it is copied from a powerpoint presentation for a class. We need to know where it was originally published to establish that is in the PD because it is a work of the federal government.
 * Note: this image is no longer in the article, but the opposing editor has yet to strike the comment.  Ahodges7  talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be from a class at West Point (noting the logo in the lower corner). The images on here appear to be public maps (planning charts, etc.). My career field is navigation and I can assure you that these are PD and the work of a federal entity. The fact that they are published now by a federal entity is the key, though. With no disclaimers, this document, as a production of a federal entity, is PD as are any images contained in it. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Including something in a powerpoint presentation for a class is not "publication". To establish that this image is in the PD, we need to know the original publication information. It does indeed look like other US maps I've seen that have been made by the military, but that is not enough. We have to be able to prove the PD claim and so far we cannot. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've located the course description for the current version of the class cited as the source. The class nomenclature has changed since the source link was posted.  I'll track down the course director on Monday to get updated information on the image.  What would satisfy the criteria beyond establishing that it is a work of the USMA Dept of Geography and being used in its Military Geography class?   Ahodges7  12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That it is being used in a military geography class is irrelevant. We need to find out when and where it was published and who wrote it. That information needs to be verifiable by users. Hopefully the course instructor knows the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what we're both getting at is that this information was published as part of the courseware. The important thing is that the USMA Department of Geography is the publisher of the image. Their academic standing is on the line and they wouldn't publish something like this without it being a PD image or clarifying it as such (a violation of copyright is a pretty serious offense in academia). — BQZip01 —  talk 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that this powerpoint presentation has been published by anyone - that it has undergone editorial oversight. We need to know the origin of this image - that is what establishes the PD claim. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? I'm sorry. It is a PDF of a Powerpoint presentation that is part of the published courseware for a class at the Academy. Why doesn't it meet all the criteria you mentioned? — BQZip01 —  talk 06:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that it is Scott (http://www.i3mm.com/#page=scott) who uploaded that powerpoint to Scribd.com and not the USMA, it might be prudent to inquire if he was the author of the picture in question. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not claiming he is the author, so, no. This was a USMA-produced document. That Scott posted it is irrelevant to its original source. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is a USMA-produced document, it should likely be on the USMA site, yes? Jappalang (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The individual departments publish their course documents online from time to time, but the vast majority of this exists behind the USMA firewall.  Because of the (nearly) unique status of USMA being a top-level college and at the same time a military installation, the academy balances the need for openness to foster collaberation and learning along with the need to protect its network from cyper-terrism and hackers.  So long answer to your quesiton is "no", just because the academy produced the document, it doesn't mean that document will be on-line.  Like BQZip01 has tried to explain, you can contact the Department of Geography to verify if the document came from them, but you are unlikely to find it on the academy's or department's website for the reasons I just listed.   Ahodges7  talk 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (undent) For the sake of progress, could this rough sketch of a map from a powerpoint presentation of unverifiable origin not be replaced by the old maps here, here, here, or this book? Jappalang (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It can. I've replaced File:West Point Fortifications.jpg with File:1780 Map of West Point Defenses.jpg.  The monochrome sketch map looks more appropriate given the Colonial period being described anyway.  Thanks to Jappalang for posting this image.  I still side with BQZip01 as to the PD status of the previous image, but this resolution should move us towards resolving objections to the article on image rights disputes.   Ahodges7  talk 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg - This may need a fair use rationale - I'm not totally sure. I'll look into it.
 * Note: This image is no longer in the article, but the objection remains unstruck.  Ahodges7  talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FUR only applies to copyrighted images. It doesn't apply to trademarks. As such, trademarks are free images which have restrictions on commercial applications. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Trademarks are different from copyrights. Ignoring the troubles that brew behind the scenes, Manual of Style (trademarks) and Logos state that such logos used here are for identification of a primary subject (i.e. at the start of the article).  This article is about the USMA, not the Black Knights.  Public domain or not, trademarks must be used appropriately on Wikipedia.  Personally, the article must discuss about the logo in question to qualify for "criticism or commentary" of the subject (e.g. discuss how the logo came about).  Putting it here without such information renders the purpose of use as purely decorative, the logo is just there because the body it represents was mentioned.  Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually doesn't say that. It applies to "Product logos and corporate logos". As this is not a product nor a company, this guideline does not apply. Furthermore, and I really hate to go toe-to-toe with you on this, your personal ideas as to when a logo is appropriate in your eyes is not policy or a guideline. It has no backing with regards to consensus. Neither source you provided states "logos used...are for identification of a primary subject (i.e. at the start of the article)." — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the very first sentence in Manual of Style (trademarks), "Product logos and corporate logos, such as the stylized rendition of the word Dell used by Dell, Inc., whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, or company." Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just see below, but short version: this doesn't apply because it is not a product, corporation, company, or service. This doesn't meet the criteria described above. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the below, it is relevant because this trademark, aside from branding the team, is for commercial marking of merchandise associated with the team. Hence it is for commercial use (product).  Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg is part of the USMA.edu Public Affairs press release website. The purpose of this website is to allow the use of the image to represent Army Athletics for identification, such as with news agencies.  I don't see why its is an issue to use it to identify the athletic program on the Wikipedia article for USMA.  Regardless, I am in the process of contacting Mr. Jim Flowers, the director of licensing for USMA athletics to gains written permission.  Will that satisfy your objection?   Ahodges7  talk 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the logo from the article. This should end the debate.   Ahodges7  talk 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * Note: This image is no longer in the article, but the objection remains unstruck.  Ahodges7  talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can contact the USMA DPE if you wish to verify the photo. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This source is too vague - most users will not know what "USMA DPE" means nor how to contact them. You need to give as much information as possible to allow users to verify this image. Currently, not even its license can be verified. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg with File:Coach Knight and Coach Krzyzewski at West Point Oct 2007 1.jpg, which came from the USMA Public Affairs office and has a US Govt PD tag on it as well as a link to the PAO's office for verification.  Ahodges7  11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The new image doesn't have a source link or specific source publication information. We need one or the other. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be published or have a source link, merely a source. PA usually takes lots of stock images and only uses a few here and there. You can contact them to verify anything needed. Would a phone number help? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Users need to be able to verify the image and its license, per WP:IUP. We cannot do that with this image yet. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See above under the general's photo. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have updated the source link (as good as it is going to get) and the author information. If an editor wishes to verify further, they are going to have to contact PAO because the photo is not on an internet link that the general public can access.  I believe that the photo should meet the standard now.  It was taken at a public event, by a government photographer in the performance of his duties.  It is properly cited and attributed.  What else does it need?   Ahodges7  talk 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, in these cases where the source of the information is not verifiable to the norms (on-line, books, videos), the OTRS is the avenue to pursue; forward confirmation with the USMA that this image was taken by an army employee to the foundation. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This information is not required and jumping through these hoops isn't necessary. All required information is available. If the same user uploaded a picture from within a book published in 1919, there would be no reason to believe it is anything other than PD. An applicable source, credit where credit is due, contact information, etc. is all available. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg is no longer in the article. I've replaced it with File:West Point Rugby Player.jpg, which is sourced and should have no issues being PD.   Ahodges7  talk 02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved image comments from


 * File:The USMA Corps in mid 1800s.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image. Note that WP:IUP says "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified." - "USMA" is too vague to allow a user to verify anything about the image.
 * File:The USMA Corps in mid 1800s.jpg is from the USMA Bicentennial History website. The image was taken circa 1870.  I have updated the licensing tag, per BQZip01's comments below. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Henry Flipper First African American USMA Graduate.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * Same source as above, PD for the same reason. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Washington Road West Point c1880.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * Same source as above, PD for the same reason. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Class of 1980.jpg - We need to link to the appropriate file at the National Archives so that we can verify the license.
 * This photo came from The Smithsonian National Museum of American History website entitled "West Point in the Making of America". It credits the photo the the National Archives.  I've updated the photo with an NARA license tag.  Is this OK, or is anything further required? Ahodges7 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The NARA tag is not a licensing tag. Note that it says "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work." We need to find the NARA ID number of this image - once we do that, we can see the information about it and identify the proper tag (assuming it is in the PD). Awadewit (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have located File:Class of 1980.jpg at the National Archives and updated the source, author, NAIL Control Number: NWDNS-111-C-CC117640, and affixed appropriate PD tag.  Ahodges7  12:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added the ARC number so we can link directly to it. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:USMA Cadet Rank -1.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * The image comes form Bugle Notes (1994), published by the Directorate of Cadet Activities, which is an entity of USMA, and as such a government agency. Never the less, I've contacted the publishing coordinator at DCA and received permission.  They can be reached at 845-938-2780 or webdca@usma.edu if anyone wished to verify permission.  I am not sure how to tag the photo, so I've tagged it as the work of the US Army while at the same time stating the author as DCA, while providing contact info to DCA. Ahodges7 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What we need to do is to list more information about this publication. If you could provide a complete bibliographic citation, that would be best. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: Hulse, Glen (1994). Bugle Notes:86th Volume. West Point, NY: Directorate of Cadet Activities, p. 62.  I've posted the same bibliography on the image under "source". Does this suffice or some other format needed? Ahodges7 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Bastille Day 2002 westpoint2.jpg - We need source and author information for this image.
 * I've removed File:Bastille Day 2002 westpoint2.jpg because I'm not sure where the photo came from. It was an artifact from a previous version of the article.  I've replaced it with File:2012s Motto Beast March Back.JPG which is more appropriate for the topic being discussed in that section anyway.  I took that photo, and release the rights for its use. Ahodges7 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Goat Engineer.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * This photo was taken by a soldier from USMA's Public Affairs office on 3 Dec 08. I've updated the image and credited the author. Ahodges7 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * I changed File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg with File:USMA Graduation Hat Toss 2008.jpg, which should have the appropriate PD tags and citation. Ahodges7 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uploader (User:Ahodges7) will have to answer that for these. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:The USMA Corps in mid 1800s.jpg, File:Henry Flipper First African American USMA Graduate.jpg, and File:Washington Road West Point c1880.jpg are from the USMA Bicentennial History website. Perhaps I was mistaken, but since USMA is a governmental agency, I thought that it was legal to use a photo that is posted on their website.  The photographs are 130-150 years old, so their should be no photographer's rights infringement issues I would think. Ahodges7 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't just use an image because it is on a government site (realize this is not necessarily a legal issue, but one of Wikipedia policy with regards to copyrighted images). Those images may be copyrighted and the site using them under license or with the permission of the entity which owns the copyright. That said, these images are Public Domain because their copyright (if one was ever formally in place) has long since expired (1923). — BQZip01 —  talk 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue with these images was that we could not verify anything about them because the sources listed for them was too vague. Now we can verify them, which I have indeed done. Note, however, that File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg still has source that is too vague. Users do not know where to look to find this image. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See response to File:West Point Graduation Hat Toss.jpg issue above.  Ahodges7  10:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:U.S. Military Academy COA.png - We need a source for this image.
 * Why isn't the given source enough? — BQZip01 —  talk 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a source on the image description page. What is it? Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia produced by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a summary section to File:U.S. Military Academy COA.png which includes source link as well as dates and author(s).  Ahodges7  11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ahodges7. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:DMI USMA crest.gif - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
 * You can contact the department listed — BQZip01 —  talk 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the link to DMI on the image. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the link. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:DPE Shield.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves. Also, if this is a government-created image, it should have the appropriate US federal government tag.
 * You can contact the department listed — BQZip01 —  talk 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added link to DPE] for the image source and have placed a US Gov't PD tag on it. Ahodges7 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the link. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:SR01 032.jpg - We need to link to the HTML page where this image is found, not directly to the JPG file, per WP:IUP.
 * No, we don't need to. "A good source for an image from an internet location is to point to the HTML page that contains the image...and not directly to the image itself". While I admit it is a good idea, it isn't mandatory and is simply a "good" way to do it, not the only way it has to be done. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason this is a good idea is so that information about the image can be verified. Currently, nothing about this image, including its license, can be verified. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced File:SR01 032.jpg with File:USMA Color Guard on Parade.jpg, which is appropriately sourced and tagged PD as a comparable image.   Ahodges7  17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ahodges7. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Sedgwick's Spurs.JPG - Who created this statue and when? I'm wondering if WP:FOP is applicable here.
 * It isn't and was dedicated in 1868. applies.  — BQZip01 —  talk 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the date to the file so that no further questions arise. Please add the name of the sculptor. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the name of the sculptor to the description of File:Sedgwick's Spurs.JPG.  Ahodges7  11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Dwight D. Eisenhower, official photo portrait, May 29, 1959.jpg - The source links are broken.
 * Fixed. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please respond under each image name with questions or comments. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose on inappropriate image use: File:DMI USMA crest.gif and File:DPE Shield.jpg &mdash; I am raising these two again here on concerns about their appropriate uses. Per Logos, has specific permission been requested and received for the decorative purpose these images serve in this article?  Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved image comments from


 * The reference you cited states, "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. However, this does not affect the copyright status, because as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain.". This is primarily for the use of items like the Presidential Seal which is protected by law. There is no evidence that these department logos from West Point fall under such an exemption.
 * Hopefully that clarification addresses your concerns.
 * I respectfully request that you put this in your own section as an object or comment. This is another user's section. We may address all of his/her concerns and attain support, but get your support. This is your objection, not his/hers. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let us go over the sentences. They state "Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. However, this does not affect the copyright status, ..."  The meaning is not "public domain trademarks can be freely splashed on any page".  "Restrictions of usage" are separate from "copyright status"; the statements declare that a trademark does not affect the copyrights of a logo.  This is the principle behind the considerations of trademark use in this project.  If a logo is copyright-free but registered as a trademark, the necessity of why such an image should be used  in an article must be carefully considered, pertaining to its encyclopaedic purposes.   The onus is to show that the USMA allows the insignias of its departments to be used for any purpose.  Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving these comments. This is much better.
 * I never said "public domain trademarks can be freely splashed on any page". Trademarks are restricted from certain use. They need to be associated with the entity they represent and not another entity. They cannot be used for commercial purposes or to indicate an entity supports or endorses any statement without their consent.
 * You parsed out a crucial part of the sentence "However, this does not affect the copyright status, because as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain." They are still PD images even if restrictions exist (and I'm not contending they do exist).
 * "Use of such logos" is in reference to the previous sentence: "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission." These designated logos of government agencies are spelled out in U.S. law, primarily, in 18 USC Chapter 33. Some examples: Sec. 711, Sec. 711a, Sec. 712, Sec. 713, Sec. 715. All of these are specifically mentioned in law. Outside of those specifically mentioned, government images are PD. Permission is not needed in this case because it is not a designated logo.
 * The purpose of this image is to identify the paragraphs related to athletics and the trademarked logo associated with that athletic organization. It is appropriate and is used all over Wikipedia and, more importantly, on almost every featured article about an American university:
 * Texas A&M
 * Duke
 * Michigan State
 * University of Michigan
 * Florida Atlantic University
 * Texas Tech
 * UC Riverside
 * — BQZip01 — talk 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not parse out important detail. The crux is "public domain (copyright)" and "trademark (permission)" are two separate concerns, not one.  Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the trademark link for the USMA you have supplied. Download the ppt pointed by "West Point Institutional Names and Identifying Marks is a visual portfolio of our logos, marks, verbiage, and colors. Please note that this list is non-exhaustive; the absence of a mark from this list does not constitute a waiver of any intellectual property law rights."  The insignias and trademarks listed are in the Powerpoint.  Regardless, the site itself has stated that permission should be sought to use the marks related to USMA.  From the very start, this is not a matter of copyright; it is a matter of permission, and appropriate use of image.  Sidenote: refer to Insignia.  Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I firmly believe that it was legitimate to use File:DMI USMA crest.gif and File:DPE Shield.jpg, I've decided to end this debate. I have replaced those images with File:USMA Cadets Cross a Rope Bridge.jpg and File:Horizontal Ladder and Vertical Rope USMA IOCT.JPG, which both should have no issues with being PD.  They have appropriate PD tags and source information.  Can we close this lengthy debate?  Jappalang, do you oppose the article's FAC on any other reason than those two (now removed) images in question?   Ahodges7  talk 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So stricken with the replacement of the insignias. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S.


 * The following requires a citation: "Since Douglas MacArthur's tenure as superintendent, every cadet has been required to participate in either an intercollegiate sport, a club sport, or an intramural (referred to as "Company Athletics") sport each semester."
 * Reference provided now. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to revisit this sentence (spelling and gramma): "Cadets are not refereed to its as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors."
 * Spelling and grammar fixed. Sorry for the typos. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments from Ealdgyth
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
 * The only citation I saw with this error was #15 (List of NHL by state from the NPS). It is now fixed. Ahodges7 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dead links. Link checker tool is showing a number of them, please fix.
 * Fixed or removed all dead links per link checker tool. should be good now.    Ahodges7  19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 130 (USMA, Princton ...) is a .doc, and should be noted in the reference
 * The link went dead last week, it is now removed.  Ahodges7  19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 29 (John Brubacher...) the publisher here is not Google books, which just hosts the scans. Its the original publisher of the printed book. The ref should be formatted as a book, not a website.
 * Fair enough, but we should list where we got it, not just who published it. It's fixed now. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noted current ref 60 (Shcumach..)) but there may be others)
 * All the NYT and Pointer View citations are now italicized. Some very senior MoS editors have scrubbed this and not italicized Time Magazine, even though it uses the cite news template, so I'm leaving those alone.   Ahodges7  11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the publisher for current ref 70 (In Memoriam...) the West Point Association of Graduates?
 * It is the Association of Graduates. Apologies for the misspelling.  AOG typically refers to itself  as "The Association of Graduates", not the "West Point Association of Graduates", even though this particular web page does so.  Since that is how AOG is titled in this particuliar reference, I'll change it in the citation.  Occasionally, "USMA" is added after AOG as well for disambiguation. Ahodges7 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 141 just refers to a wikipedia article, that's not reliable.
 * Moved that "ref" to a wikilink. It really wasn't so essential there
 * Current ref 149, is Pointer View a newspaper? If so, should be in italics. (used again 172...)
 * Current ref 176 (Edson...) is lacking a page number.
 * The Edson reference (currently #180) is included without a page # because the title of the book is what is need to support the statement. The statement is that the football team has historically been called the "Black Knights" even though that was not a school mascot, and the Edson book is a history of Army football titled "The Black Knights of West Point".  Do I need to cite a page number in this instance or does the book title sufice?   Ahodges7  talk 13:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * what makes http://freshmanperspective.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/secrets-of-west-point/ reliable?
 * I had included that citation simply for its photograph of the "Beat Navy" tunnel, not for any of the text content. I've removed the citation and placed a self-taken photograph of said tunnel to support the statement concerning the rivalry with the Naval Academy.   Ahodges7  20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * what makes http://www.aldenpartridge.com/ a reliable source?
 * It is not. I've replaced it with a citation from Norwich University.   Ahodges7  11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/09/03/how-they-teach-at-west-point/ a reliable source?
 * This one's been replaced. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. It's simply been removed. There were two other sources that backed it up and a third simply wasn't needed. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.nndb.com/people/361/000099064/ is not reliable, it needs to be resourced
 * Now appropriately sourced. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * from? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/10/what-keeps-bill-parcells-awake-at-night/ — BQZip01 —  talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this site, what makes it reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a well-respected online journal. That Bill Parcells was an assistant is not a controversial fact and is backed up by numerous references, but apparently these don't meet your concerns; if my answer does not satisfy your concerns, can you pick a site from this list that does meet your reliability concerns? I'll be happy to replace it in the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/content/sports/epaper/2008/11/15/a1b_dolphins_1116.html will work fine. Newspapers will be a lot less open to question when your article hits the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes. (I noted RMC of Canada...but there may be others...)
 * This is in the title of the article. If anyone wants to know more about an acronym used in the article, they are welcome to do so, but that has little to do with the information contained in this article, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only common courtesy to spell out abbreviations that folks won't necessarily know. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the context in which it is used, I would assume (I know, I know...) that its usage would be obvious. Still, I annotated the acronym at its first usage in the article, but this isn't a policy or guideline of which I am aware. Please educate me if I am in error. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the article needs a lot of WP:MOS cleanup; I left some sample edits, but there is more (also image layout issues). I suggest asking  to help out.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up all the disambiguous links other than "USMA" and "West Point" which are at the top of the article. Pardon my ignorance, but I believe this clears up the disambig links? Ahodges7 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've contacted to see if they can help out. As for disambiguating "USMA" and "West Point", I'm not sure what to do there.   Ahodges7  18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * has answered the call for help and made many WP:MoS corrections.  Ahodges7  12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - I live less than half an hour from West Point, and have attended a couple of football games at Michie Stadium. I like to comment on the Athletics sections in university articles, and am happy to do so for this one in particular.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments from


 * "U.S. sports media use Army as a synonym for the Academy and is officially endorsed by the Academy." Doesn't work grammatically.
 * fixed. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Football: "but Army avenged the loss in Annapolis the following year.[182]The academies...". Space needed.
 * space added. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Second Earl Blaik link isn't necessary.
 * agreed, removed. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cadets attendance is mandatory...". Change to "Cadets' attendance is mandatory...".
 * fixed Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "In recent years, Army was a member of Conference USA". Instead of using a term like "recent", it would be better to state when they were in the conference.
 * dates of membership the the conference are now added and sentence is reconstructed accordingly. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That covers most of the section. I'll try to do the rest at a later time.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to conclude the section review.
 * "Every year, Army faces Royal Military College of Canada Palladins in the annual West Point Weekene hockey game." Either add "the" before Royal or drop the Palladins nickname.
 * sorry, a previous version had "RMC" not spelled out, when it got spelled out, forgot to add the "the" in front. fixed now.   Ahodges7  talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "where they lost to the Tennessee, 102–54."
 * another correction casualty. was "the Tennessee Volunteers", dropped the Vols, should have dropped the "the" (dang!) - fixed  Ahodges7  talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comma after "before moving on to Duke".
 * fixed  Ahodges7  talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "West Point captured the national title in cycling and women's team handball." Perhaps make "title" plural.
 * fixed  Ahodges7  talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Future NFL coaching legends Vince Lombardi and Bill Parcells...". A term like "legends" is usually considered point of view for FAC purposes. Also concerned about "historic Michie Stadium".
 * while I can see Parcells being debatable as a "legend", surely all would agree to Lombardi's "legendary" status? either way, I understand NPOV rules and "legends" is removed.  I've removed "historic" Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is unchanged. Was it changed back?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happened there. It's back to being fixed. The sole remaining "historic" reference to the stadium is in relation to its status as a historical landmark. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose Being a summary, a well written lead will need few if any refs. Details requiring requiring refs should be in the body. There are 9 refs in this lead.  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments from  — Rlevse


 * It is my understanding that leads are allowed to have citations, as seen by FA's Texas A&M (2 citations in lead), Duke (8 citations), and Ohio Wesleyan (8 citations). Do you object to this article's lead having citations or to the actual content or structure of the lead section?   Ahodges7  talk 12:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I can't keep an eye on every article and it's lead, but I did see yours. I have not seen the others you mention. Leads can have refs but when I see more then 3 or so, that's a signal of one of two things:
 * The lead is not a summary and has details that are not repeated in the body
 * The lead is a summary that is expounded upon in the body and has refs that it really doesn't need
 * The problem with this lead is it sounds like a brief intro, it should be a summary of each major topic in body, then you won't need all that detail and refs. You have entire sections of the articel that are not mentioned in the lead.
 * So, if you want you can work on this yourself or if you want I'll fix it for you. — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but WP:LEAD says otherwise:
 * "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."
 * I concur on so many levels that a lead shouldn't need citations at all since it is a summary of the article below, but inclusion of citations shouldn't be a problem either. I'm sorry it leads you to believe those things, but I have personally faced significant problems when references aren't in the lead because some readers are simply too lazy to look through the article to find out where you got them (and later when you show them, they still insist on a citation in the lead (of course, sometimes these same people make completely unreasonable demands such as, "you need to have everything sourced to someone unfamiliar with the topic" or something like that). IMNSHO, I think leaving the citations in the lead is fine, doesn't contradict any policy or guideline, and potentially prevents problems in the future.
 * This issue is completely independent of the content of the lead. It should be both a summary of the article and an intro, per WP:LEAD. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'as appropriate is the key here'. If it's well written, the refs won't be needed in the lead. The problem in this case is there are so many details that entire sections of the body are skipped, making it a non summary lead.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the summary and removed citations. All needed citations are now in the body of the article. The lead works better now anyway.    Ahodges7  talk 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Rlevse, I guess we disagree on appropriateness. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with Comment In the same way that the lead does not need to be referenced if the info is referenced elsewhere in the article, the infobox does not need references if the info is referenced elsewhere. Since all the information in the infobox is referenced elsewhere in the article, I think all the references in the box should be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While they do provide summary information, they do not always repeat the same information. An infobox may include information not included elsewhere and the references should be kept, IMHO. On a related note, this was specifically removed from the WP:LEAD section because WP:V requires verifiability when challenged. Keeping the references means we have a way to easily source the information instead of having the reader verify details in significantly varying sections of the article. If this explanation doesn't address your concerns, I guess we agree to disagree, but it isn't a policy or guideline to remove references in either the lead or the infobox, it's a preference. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support It's a well written, thorough article and has nice supplemental photographs/images. The only real issues I noticed were related to image positioning and subsequent 'text sandwiching' and title displacement.  These problems are easily remedied and even if left as-is are not significant enough to prevent a FA blessing (in my opinion).--Elred (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support:


 * From the second para of the lead, should the comma be inside the quotation marks or outside? "a cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do".
 * Which comma are we talking about? — BQZip01 —  talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not comma, the period. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Inside/outside is a standard which varies between citation standards. Wikipedia doesn't specify anything in WP:MOS. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of the academy's age and unique mission, its traditions influenced other institutions. This is not a good sentence to start a paragraph. I am also of the school that "Because" should rarely/never be used to start a paragraph.
 * Then I guess we disagree. This sentence is structured properly with respect to grammar and follows WP:MOS — BQZip01 —  talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We may disagree, but I still don't think this is great writing. Also, where in the article is the information about how its traditions influenced other institutions? KnightLago (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * all seem to disagree with you. I think the first one explains the rationale best.
 * The traditions influenced the building of other technical and military schools. This is addressed in the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have the time to go read the entire article at the moment. In the interest of getting this FAC over so we can all go back to our lives, which section is it in? KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I now see where it was added. KnightLago (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the school have an endowment?
 * It is a federal institution and has the backing of the US government. It doesn't need an endowment. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, then how is the school funded? Does it have a set budget from the Army, or does it go to Congress every year? KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It gets money from Congress like just about every other U.S. Government entity (exception: non-appropriated funds entities like AAFES). — BQZip01 —  talk 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this in the article somewhere? Non-government universities talk about their endowment in at least a sentence. KnightLago (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Explained its funding line in association with its establishment. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why isn't the number of students in the infobox?
 * Ummm, it is: 4,487 — BQZip01 —  talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. KnightLago (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Under athletics in the infobox, I think Black Knights should be in the nickname or mascot field. I would put something like NCAA Division 1, independent or multiple? in the athletics field.
 * Fixed, but NCAA Division 1 could be misleading. This is better addressed with an explanation (already contained in the athletics section). — BQZip01 —  talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * West Point was first occupied by the Continental Army on 27 January 1778,[7] making it the longest continually occupied post in the United States. Does this meant the town was first occupied?
 * This is a common misunderstanding about the term "West Point". There is no town of West Point, though there is a West Point, NY, which is a Census designated place for the purpose of counting the population living on the USMA reservation.  During colonial times, the series of defensive forts defending this s-shaped curve in the river was know as "West Point".  The closest town to the area is Highland Falls, NY, just outside Thayer gate to the south.  So when the article says "West Point first occupied..." it means the physical geographic area where USMA now is located.  The Army had a garrison there called "West Point" for 24 years before the academy was founded.  The academy is often called "The United States Military Academy at West Point" for this reason.   Ahodges7  talk 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand now. Do you think there is anyway to make this more clear for people who aren't from the area? KnightLago (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've debated trying to explain this in the article, but like we've been discussing at the bottom of your comments, there just isn't much more room in the article. I'll try to work something up in the "Campus" section, and keep it short.   Ahodges7  talk 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Founded to be a school of engineering, for the first half of the 19th century, USMA graduates gained recognition for engineering the bulk of the nation's initial railway lines, bridges, harbors and roads. There is a lot going on here. Does this mean that after the first half of the 19th century graduates lost recognition for engineering or did not receive any?
 * fixed. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The academy was the only engineering school in the country until the founding of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1824, and West Point was so successful in its engineering curriculum that it influenced every American engineering school founded prior to the Civil War. There are two separate thoughts here mashed into a single sentence. Maybe make two sentences?
 * Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nearly every general officer of note from either army during the Civil War was a graduate of West Point. Really? What does of note mean? How many general officers were in the war total? Did West Point have that many graduates at this point?
 * "of note" means "notable" It can mean many things, but its general meaning is anything noteworthy. West Point had many graduates at that point. The total number of generals in the civil war is not germane to this context. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You're making the assertion that the vast majority of notable general officers in the entire Civil War graduated from the academy. Which source says this specifically? KnightLago (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not making that assertion, Theodore Crackel is. This is a reliable source and a reliable publication.
 * As a further explanation, please realize USMA grads comprised nearly half of all generals (pretty much the same percentage on both sides of the civil war . Given that they were professional soldiers schooled in the profession of arms and army tactics, they comprised over half the generals, it is not unreasonable to see that they would likely be standouts in the Armies of both sides. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Source #1: USMA Bicentennial Website, cited in article, which states "In the end, 89 percent of the graduates living in 1860 served on one side or the other during the Civil War, dominating the leadership of the warring armies. Only one academy graduate, Joseph E. Johnston, Class of 1829, was a Regular Army general before the war, but 294 graduates served as generals for the Union and 151 for the Confederacy." The Simpson reference, which I left at my office, provides the statistic that over every major battle during the Civil War, at least one side was commanded by a USMA graduate. I really don't think that this is a controversial statement.  Its my understanding that this is fairly well known.   Ahodges7  talk 20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I defer to your knowledge of the sources. From someone not very familiar with the academy, this just seemed rather exceptional. Maybe you could add the sources when you get a chance. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is rather exceptional. The Simpson source inclusion should meet the standard, but I'll try to track down an on-line source that can be more easily accessed, as the "every major battle" statistic is commonly quoted in history circles.  Admittedly, I was a history major as an undergrad.   Ahodges7  talk 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The academy enjoyed unprecedented fame in the years immediately following the Civil War due to the role its graduates had played. I think this is kinda clunky, can it be reworded somehow? Does the source say unprecedented fame?
 * Yes it does, "unprecedented" was directly from the Crackel (2002) text.  Ahodges7  talk 20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Spanish American War caused the class of 1899 to graduate early, while the Philippine Insurrection did the same for the class of 1901. This increased demand for officers led Congress to increase the size of the Corps of Cadets to 481 cadets in 1900. I don't think these fit well. You say that the war caused two classes to graduate early, but you don't really equate it to an actual demand. You just say they graduated early due to the wars.
 * Actually, this demand for officers directly resulted in an increase in size of the cadet corps to increase output. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I am misreading this, but IMHO you don't equate the graduations to an increased demand resulting from the conflicts leading to an increase in size. Also, if Congress increased the enrollment size in 1900, how does the 1901 class and the Philippine Insurrection result in an increase? Was the 1901 class the class of 1900 - 1901? How about this: As a result of the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection, the classes 1899 and 1901 respectively, graduated early. These conflicts led Congress to increase the size of the Corps of Cadets to 481 cadets in 1900. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading it. The two are not causally linked. Two classes graduated early to join in conflicts because officers were needed. Because of this increased demand for officers, Congress increased the allowed size of the student body. Just because they graduated early doesn't mean they didn't know this was going to happen in 1900. :*::::"We need more officers!"
 * "The soonest we can get them to you is January"
 * "Then we need to increase the corps size so this doesn't keep happening..."
 * I think you may have misread this and associated the dates too much with the order of things. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you are saying. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Douglas MacArthur became superintendent in 1919, instituting sweeping reforms to the academic process, including introducing a greater emphasis on history and humanities.[36] He made major changes to the field training regimen and the Cadet Honor Committee was formed under his watch in 1922. Is the under his watch part necessary?
 * Yes. He was instrumental in making these changes. To simply state it was created while he was there neglects his influence. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is redundant. You shouldn't emphasize his influence by being repetitious. How about: Under his watch major changes were made to the field training regimen, and in 1922 the Cadet Honor Committee was formed. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't redundant. There are two verbs for two different actions. The one verb does not apply to to both of them in this case. He didn't "make" the CHC, it was formed with his guidance. By moving the phrase to the beginning, it implies the CHC was formed during his tenure without emphasizing his role in its creation. WP:UNDUE — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The class of 1943 was graduated in six months early in January 1943 while the next four class years graduated after only three years. In 1943, summer training was formally moved the new area recently acquired southwest of main post, which would later become Camp Buckner. The first sentence needs to be reworded, also would it be possible to not mention 1943 three times in two sentences?
 * Fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You fixed the 1943 problem, but "was graduated" is not brilliant writing. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't be so insulting. Please realize there may be more than one way to correctly state something.
 * "Was graduated" indicates a forced action on the cadets from the perspective of the faculty
 * To alleviate any concerns, I've removed "was". It is now a passive sentence.
 * If you can be more specific up front, it would make this a little easier.
 * You could also simply remove the three letter word and we wouldn't even have to have this multi-paragraph discussion. Just mentioning an alternative you don't have to abide by, but would be quite useful... — BQZip01 —  talk 06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that was graduated is not correct. It is now and was a passive sentence before you removed was. And what do you mean if I can be more specific up front. Do you know how long it took to review this entire article, make extensive comments, and then to respond. I am giving as much detail as I can. If something is vague you only have to ask. If I was to fix every problem I saw I would not be reviweing the article for FAC, I would be working on the article. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The WWII abbreviation is not explained anywhere. Like World War Two (WWII).
 * Done — BQZip01 —  talk 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * West Point played a prominent role in WWII; four out of five of the war's five-star generals were graduates and nearly 500 graduates died during the war. Could we cut this down to one use of war?
 * Done. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Korean War did not disrupt class graduation schedules, but most of the senior army leadership during the war were academy graduates while 157 graduates died. Doesn't flow well.
 * Done — BQZip01 —  talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the current version: Unlike some other conflicts, the Korean War did not disrupt class graduation schedules. Most of the senior army leadership during the war were academy graduates while 157 graduates perished. Other can be removed. The second sentence still is not brilliant prose. Graduates is used twice within four words. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Garrison H. Davidson became superintendent in 1956 and instituted several reforms that included reforming the admissions process, changing the core curriculum to include electives, and increasing the academic degree standards for academy instructors. Two use of reform with 4 words.
 * Done — BQZip01 —  talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1960s saw the size of the Corps expand 4,400 cadets while the barracks and academic support structure grew proportionally. Something is missing here.
 * Please add something. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about adding "to" after expand. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * done. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The two paragraphs of the modern era have a lot of In 19XX, starts.
 * Fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cadet Leader Development System (CLDS) is used in this form twice.
 * fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite its reputation for resisting change, Really? This is the first time this is mentioned.
 * So what do you want fixed? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a saying critical of the academy that "USMA is 200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress." How would you like something like that worked into the article?  I don't really think it needs to be stated in so many words, given the lengthy historical section.  The idea that USMA was an early adopter of internet and network connectivity should be a fairly obvious contrast to its stark stone walls and wool uniforms from a by-gone era.  I think this sentence is just fine, but if you feel otherwise, please change it or suggest a solution.    Ahodges7  talk 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem here is that you are mentioning its reputation for resistance to change (in those words) but the reputation is not dicussed anywhere in the article. Could this be removed? KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It has a resistance to change. That is stated here and it doesn't need to be expanded. It stands alone as a sentence. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. You can't just throw a sentence out like that and then say the sentence speaks for itself when it doesn't. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Despite its reputation for resisting change" is removed. The sentence is worded entirely differently now and should good to go.   Ahodges7  talk 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * During the Gulf War, the commander of Allied Forces, General Schwarzkopf was a graduate, while the current senior generals in Iraq, Generals Petraeus, and Odierno are graduates. Flow.
 * I see nothing wrong here. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose are not brilliant. I am not sure how to improve this sentence, but it needs to be. This could be cut into two sentences or simply mentioned in the alumni section. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Now "graduates" isn't used twice. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Better. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the September 11 attacks, applications for admission to the academy increased dramatically, security on campus was increased, and the curriculum now includes coursework on terrorism and military drills in civilian environments. Clunky.
 * Seems fine to me. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have following the September 11 attacks, was attacked, and then later in the sentence the curriculum now includes. This should be a couple of sentences. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the significance both of the Revolutionary War fort ruins and of the military academy itself, the majority of the academy area was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1960. This doesn't fit the lead which says the entire campus.
 * The lead says the "entire central campus", not the "entire campus". The reservation is ~16,000 acres, while the "central campus", where the cadet live and attend class is the National Landmark area.  I don't feel the statement is misleading or conflicts.
 * Maybe the confusion rests in what is the central campus. Another one of my points deals with this. Having never been there I have no idea what the central campus is from this article. You mention it is by some buildings, but that really doesn't clear things up. Is the campus divided into areas? Like North, Central, South? KnightLago (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that every area has a "central" area near the "center". It doesn't really matter too much what is there if all you are describing is the basic location within the entity. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Though the military reservation is quite large, the academic area of the campus is entirely accessible to cadets or visitors by foot. Is there a source that describes it as quite large?
 * as cited in the article for the size of the reservation (~16,000 acres): USMA Facilities. This reference also gives the size of "central campus", which it calls the "immediate post" and lists as only ~2,500 acres.  This source is cited in the article and should satisfy your concern without needing to modify the sentence quoted above.   Ahodges7  talk 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the sentence to better explain the difference between the entire reservation and the "central" or "cadet" area.  Ahodges7  talk 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The source does not describe it as quite large. You are describing it as quite large. The changes to explain the central/cadet areas are great. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16,000 acres is "quite large". We do not need to use the exact same verbiage as the text does. This is being a little too picky, IMHO, without being helpful. If there is something you want us to change it to, we'd be happy to do so, provided it is accurate. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to use the exact wording of the text, but you cannot use your own descriptive words. You are boosting the campus by saying it is quite large. If a source describes it as quite large then it would be fine. Without a source it should be removed. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is boosting anything. The campus is quite a distance to walk if you go end-to-end, but the area we are talking about is proportionally small. rephrased. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The quite large wording remains, that is what I have been objecting to all along. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording "quite large" is now replaced by the actual size of the campus: 15974 acre.   Ahodges7  talk 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is better, but that creates another problem. The first sentence of that paragraph states one number for size, and the sentence you added has a different number. I also think having both numbers is redundant. Could we maybe put the correct number in the first sentence and then maybe move the remaining sentence down or to somewhere else in the article that would flow with it? KnightLago (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first reference to the # of acres, which was rounded to the nearest thousand anyway. I believe this should alleviate the flow problem.  If you can think of a way to write the prose more brilliantly, please do so because I think its fine.   Ahodges7  talk 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In 1902, the Boston architectural firm Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson was awarded a major construction contract that set the predominately neogothic architectural style still seen today. Does the source say major?
 * Yes it does. Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson were awarded a $10 million dollar contract (in 1903 $s) to build the main administration building (Taylor Hall), the Cadet Chapel, Hayes Gymnasium, and other smaller structures as part of a single contract that is described as "major" in Palka (2008).   Ahodges7  talk 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the central cadet? Is this the same as cadet central which is used a few sentences later?
 * missing words replaced. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Global War on Terror doesn't need to be linked again.
 * Done. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Originally opened to the public in 1854, the West Point Museum is the oldest and largest military museum in the country. Do you have more than one source for this? The oldest and largest? How big is this thing?
 * The source is acceptable another is not really needed. Yes. Big. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Air Force says their museum is the oldest and largest aviation museum. The Air Force is a part of the military. See here. You may have the oldest part won, but what about the largest? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It says it is the largest military museum. The Air Force museum is an aviation museum not exclusively dedicated to military projects/history. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here the museum says "to view what is considered to be the oldest and largest diversified public collection of miltaria in the Western Hemisphere." So the museum itself says it is considered to be, not that it is. Also, the Air Force is part of the military. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "largest" is removed. I don't think it is inappropriate to consider the aforementioned website or the published source as being suspect.  There are know known military museums in America that are older. The AF museum is no doubt "larger" in terms of square footage.  The terms "largest" was referring to the number of items in its collection, not its physical size.  Do you have an objection to how it is now written?   Ahodges7  talk 18:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This position is roughly equivalent to the president of a civilian university, but due to the military status of the academy, the Superintendent holds more influence over the daily lives of the cadets than would a civilian university president. President can be linked to University president.
 * Added — BQZip01 —  talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since 1812, all Superintendents have themselves been West Point graduates, though this has never been an official prerequisite to hold that position. Themselves can be removed.
 * done — BQZip01 —  talk 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The current Superintendent is Lieutenant General Franklin L. Hagenbeck, Superintendent since 9 June 2006. Two uses of Superintendent.
 * done — BQZip01 —  talk 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The academy is a direct reporting unit. Is this a proper use of this term as Direct Reporting Unit talks about the Air Force.
 * The concept is still the same. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * where they train for current tactical situations that they will soon face as new platoon leaders. What is a current tactical situation.
 * "Current" versus "historical". Tactics of WWII don't directly translate to tactics of modern warfare. This is an example of the differences in training. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done — BQZip01 —  talk 07:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, please work this into the article. Non-military people are not going to know the distinction. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Modern works. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Department of Physical Education (DPE) doesn't seem to be the proper name for an article unless that is the actual name of the department.
 * It actually is the name of the department. Like USMA, it is generally known and almost always referred to by its initials only.   Ahodges7  talk 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't sound correct. The DPE website here doesn't have Department of Physical Education (DPE) as its name. It simply has Department of Physical Education. The article should be moved to remove its initials from its name. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the name of another article... — BQZip01 —  talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What are advanced combatives?
 * Modern Army Combatives which combines jujitsu-style grappling with striking while on the ground or in the clinch (open hand to face, closed fist to body). Originally I have this internally linked for this reason, but a senior copy-edit editor removed the internal link.  Do you think I should put it back into the article to explain what "advanced combatives" means?   Ahodges7  talk 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think putting it back would be best so non-military people will understand. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * done. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * scuba should probably be scuba diving.
 * I agree. It was before another editor shortened it.  I could go either way since scuba is well understood in the english language to mean "scuba diving".   Ahodges7  talk 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Scuba is well understood in America to be scuba diving, but I am not sure for Europe. I would add diving. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SCUBA is an acronym: Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. By definition, it is diving. If they don't know what it is, they can click the link that has now been added — BQZip01 —  talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the meaning of scuba is well known outside America, but the link will fix it. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cadets can also take elective physical activity classes such as scuba, rock climbing, aerobic fitness and many others. Flow. How about something like Cadets can also take elective physical activity classes, including... and then drop and many others.
 * Done. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Moral-ethical development occurs throughout entirety of the cadet experience by living under the honor code, and through the formal leadership programs available at the academy. Move the "the" from after through to after throughout.
 * Fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How is a guest speaker program vigorous?
 * Fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cadets previously enforced an unofficial sanction known as "silencing" by not speaking to cadets accused of violating the honor code, but the practice ended in 1973 after national scrutiny. One of the sources does not attribute a silence to the honor code, but occurring as a result of cadet displeasure at certain officers.
 * Well, there are 3 sources. Which one? — BQZip01 —  talk 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 133 KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * deleted. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot just remove the source when it says something different than what you wrote. The source actually gives first hand accounts of why the practice was done. That raises the question of which sources are correct, the one you removed was right, or the other sources that you left? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I deleted it is because we are talking about cadet vs. cadet not cadet vs. officer. Ergo, the deleted source is talking about something else. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Why mention only one over the other then? Cadets did both, why not mention both? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The complexities of the silencing practice were too extensive to cover in depth in this article, similar to the dialog we've covered on hazing. The vast majority of silencing was as a result of cadets who were honor code violators, but some cadets were silenced for other perceived infractions.  The later is a part of the history that should/will be addressed in the History of United States Military Academy, but does not need to be covered in this article or section when discussing violations of the honor code, hence BQZip deleting the confusing citation should clear this concern.   Ahodges7  talk 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand now. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cadets receive a small annual salary, and all meals in the dining halls are free to the cadets, while internet, phone, and television service is provided free of charge in the barracks rooms,[140] leaving cadets with very few expenses.[5] While usually means that you are going to contrast something, and the is after service should be are. Is there a source for the leaving part?
 * "While" indicates something that is happening in conjunction with something else, not necessarily contrast. Fixed the verb tense issue. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cadets is used twice in this sentence. Who says the cadets are left with very few expenses? Where in 5? How about: In addition to a small annual salary, Cadets receive free meals in dining halls, and internet, phone, and television in their barracks. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should have mentioned the double use the first time. Now it's fixed. The source says they are left with few expenses. This is a summary of what the source says. It doesn't need to be verbatim. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed it the first time. The source, under the Estimated Student Expenses section, says no data available. You are putting your own interpretation into the article here. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be the price tag on such expenses, not the number of expenses. This quantity of expenses is much lower than the average college student who pays for all of these things. Ergo, the phrasing included is correct and accurate. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that says that as I asked in the beginning? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know of a source that uses the exact wording of "leaving", so I have removed this phrase per your concerns. The sentence should stand alone now and have no issues with citation support of the statement.   Ahodges7  talk 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * he student population was 4487 cadets for academic year 2007–08. Missing a comma in the number and a the before academic year wouldn't hurt.
 * fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The student body is 15.1% female. So I don't have to find a calculator, what is the male percentage.
 * That isn't relevant in this context. The point is that there is a sizable percentage of the student population that is female. Additionally, you relly shouldn't need a calculator to figure out 100-15. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 92% of entering students re-matriculated for a second year, the four-year graduation rate was 80% and the six-year rate was 81%. This is just a bunch of info mashed together because it is related.
 * Generally related materials are grouped together into a sentence. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have two sepeare ideas here mashed togehter. One is the re-matriculated rate. The other is graduations. If not two sentences or a rewording how about a semicolon. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Retention and graduation are inherently linked. Added semicolon. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is tenuous as you are talking about two different things. The semicolon works. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Each company lives grouped together in the same barracks area. Remove grouped.
 * fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The academy has the cadets change companies after their freshmen or sophomore years. The source says the cow class, which I believe are juniors.
 * The academy has the cadets change companies after their freshmen or sophomore years. Do they flip a coin to determine when exactly?
 * This responses is to the preceding two comments. The source says "new Cow class", which is the start of their junior years, which is the same as saying "they scramble after their sophomore year". The process has changed several times in the last 10 years.  Traditionally the scramble was after freshman year, then during the 1990s, it was after sophomore year, then for the class of 2002 and 2003 it there was no scramble.  Now the scramble is back.  Why, I don't know, the academy has not published its reasoning, but the source cited does not conflict with the article as written which states that "the method of scrambling has changed several times in recent years", and is cited by both a web and published book source.  As to the "flip a coin" comment, the book source, Murphy (2008) states that the Class of 2002 actually had the opportunity to vote on if they wanted to scramble or not, but that is extraneous and too lengthy to include in the article.   Ahodges7  talk 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to the structured culture of the Corps of Cadets, there is little tradition of Greek fraternal societies at the academy. What does this mean? Is there some or not?
 * It means some, but not much. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How many? Do they have their own houses? How do they fit within military life? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't really relevant. We just stated they have little importance/little influence/little impact. There is no need to carry on into an additional sentence. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant. This is a university. A sentence or two explaining this would be fine. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't any greek life currently, but I believe there might have been some in the past. Accordingly I've removed the sentence. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The cadet fitness center, Arvin Gymnasium, which was recently rebuilt in 2004, houses extensive physical fitness facilities and equipment for cadet use. Does cadet need to be used twice.
 * No, it doesn't. Fixed. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Each class of cadets elects a class president and several administrative positions. How about several administrators. you are talking about a specific position and then several positions.
 * Well a secretary, treasurer, class ring representative, etc. are all "administrative positions" while they are not "administrators" — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This still does not flow well. How about: Each class of cadets elects a numbers of students to fill leadership positions, including class president, secretary, treasurer, and class ring representative. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They also elect a ring and crest committee, which designs the class's crest, the emblem that signifies their class for eternity and is embossed upon their class rings. Wouldn't class' be the correct usage?
 * Again, two schools of thought there. Class is a singular noun and can be used either with an apostrophe or apostrophe+"s". — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DCA is responsible for a wide range of activities that provide improved quality of life for cadets, Source?
 * See the given source
 * I looked, where specifically? Who said quality of life was improved? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a summary of the given source using appropriate word choice. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your summary may be that life is improved, I may say that DCA really doesn't improve life. Nobody cares what our opinions are, they care what the sources say. If there isn't a source that says this, even not in these words but with the same meaning, then it should be reworded or removed. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See cadet testimonial here, found on the DCA website. Combine the testimonial with the material published on the DCA website, and I don't think its inaccurate, or my own interpretation, to state that "DCA is responsible for a wide range of activities that provide improved quality of life for cadets".  Do you still disagree?   Ahodges7  talk 20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Should Army, in the army be capitalized?
 * not necessarily. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some knowledge is historical such as found in the Bugle Notes. Doesn't flow well.
 * Tweaked — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Cullum number paragraph needs more than a single source.
 * Respectfully, no, it doesn't. The source needs to be verifiable and reliable. If you have an issue with the source itself, we can discuss it. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue is that you are relying on a single source from the USMA for an entire paragraph. Are there not multiple reliable sources? KnightLago (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are not required for Wikipedia. If you want to add another, please take your pick: . — BQZip01 —  talk 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * West Point began the collegiate tradition of the class ring, beginning with the class of 1835. How did the tradition begin in 1835 when the next two classes did not choose rings?
 * That doesn't change the start of the tradition. A tradition need not be an annual event. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition of tradition includes "A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage." KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a single defintion of the word. "Tradition" can mean many things:
 * the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
 * something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
 * a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
 * a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
 * a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.
 * Hodge and I are both alumni of schools steeped in tradition. I assure you, this is the appropriate use of the word "tradition". — BQZip01 —  talk 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding, backed up by 4, is a tradition that occurs regularly. This tradition did not begin occuring regularly until the third class after the first class got rings. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you are wilfully ignoring other definitions of the word, specifically #3 "long-established", #4 a "continuing pattern" (which is still happening today, not continuous as in it never stopped). Did the tradition begin after that 2-year hiatus? Uh-oh, one class got cufflinks. So it started after them? Well one class got their rings later than another class...
 * No, it started when the first class did it. You're reading way too far into this. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The source says: "The tradition of class rings at American colleges and universities is believed to have originated at West Point when members of the class of 1835 designed their own rings, which were purchased at private expense and made to individual order. In 1836, no ring was adopted, but in the following year the custom was taken up again, and has been consistently observed ever since." The article now says: "West Point began the collegiate tradition of the class ring, beginning with the class of 1835." The source says West Point is believed to have originated at West Point, not that it did. The source then says the custom was taken up again at a later date. Why not reword this closer to how the source is describing the events? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is accepted in American history (and properly cited in this article) that USMA started the tradition of class rings, and it did so in 1835. See here, here,and here.  I believe that you are being too literal in the interpretation of what a tradition is.  The facts are: 1-USMA was the first college to have class rings, 2-The first class that did so was 1835.  Hence, if you were to say "when did the tradition of class rings at USMA start?" the answer would have to be 1835, regardless if 1836 chose to not have rings.  What if the classes of 1835 through 1850 had rings, but 1851 took one year off? Would the tradition be correctly stated to have started in 1852?  No, the correct start date would be, and is 1835.   Ahodges7  talk 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. KnightLago (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The award is given each year since 1958 by the academy to an outstanding citizen whose service and accomplishments in the national interest exemplify the academy's motto, "Duty, Honor, Country". Change is to has. How about each year to annually.
 * Done — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A monument to Union officer John Sedgwick stands on the outskirts of the plain across the street from Trophy Point. What is the plain?
 * The name (if it even has one) is irrelevant. It is a description of the location. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The plain is the expansive parade field where cadets perform parades reviews. In a previous version of the campus section, I had a paragraph describing the Plain, but I had to cut it out because the article was too long.  I forgot it was gone and assumed the reader would be familiar.  I've tweaked the sentence to make it less ambiguous.


 * Cadet legend states that if a cadet is in danger of failing a class, they are to don their full-dress parade uniform and visit his statue at midnight before the final exam. Sedgwick's bronze statue has spurs that freely rotate, and if the cadet spins them at the stroke of midnight, they will pass the exam and the course. Does the source support both of these sentences? Don't these really say the same thing.
 * Yes, no. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BQZip01 is right. The reference supports both sentences, and they do not say the same thing.  However, I can see how it might be worded more succinctly to avoid redundancy.  I've re-arranged the wording, so midnight is only used once.    Ahodges7  talk 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Army mascot has traditionally been a mule,[172] but the academy's football team was historically called "The Black Knights of the Hudson". Why?
 * Please read the given sources if you are interested in that information. The specifics of every detail aren't essential to convey the broad picture. — BQZip01 —  talk
 * The reason why a university has its mascot is an essential element. Thus this needs to be explained in the article. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A mascot is not an essential element and doesn't need further explanation. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a university. In every other featured university that I know of the mascot is explained as it is an essential element of the school. It does not make sense to not explain why they are called this. It can be done in one or two sentences. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read
 * Texas A&M
 * Duke
 * Michigan State
 * University of Michigan
 * Florida Atlantic University
 * Texas Tech
 * UC Riverside
 * Your standard of "every other featured university" is simply not true. Every single article you mentions has one sentence (or less) on their mascot (do a word search based on "mascot" for verification) except Texas Tech. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My standard was every FA I knew of explained their mascot, from your examples:
 * Texas A&M - Link to article explaining the term.
 * Duke - Link to article explaining the term
 * Michigan State - Link to article explaining term.
 * University of Michigan - Not a good example. Pre-2006.
 * Florida Atlantic University - In the article, I wrote it, I know.
 * Texas Tech - In the article as you mentioned.
 * UC Riverside - In the article and linked.
 * You make a point of saying the mascot of the Army is a mule, but the Academy is the black knight. Why not just explain the origin in a sentence. It is logical question to ask why a university has their mascot. KnightLago (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added an explanation as to "why a mule" and where "black knights" came from.  Ahodges7  talk 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Army's chief sports rival is by far the Naval Academy due to its long-standing football rivalry and the inherent intra-service rivalry with the Navy in general. This does not flow well.
 * fixed — BQZip01 —  talk 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * West Point also is rivals with Air Force, but not as fiercely as with Navy due to Air Force's relatively young age and geographic distance from Army. Flow. Is there a source for not as fiercely?
 * The Army-Navy rivalry is legendary and is one measurement of any rivalry in the U.S. Stuff all over the campuses of both schools is emblazoned with "Go Army/Navy, Beat Navy/Army". To state that the rivalry is "not as fierce" is simply a statement of fact based on the fact that the Army-Navy rivalry is pretty much the pinnacle of rivalries. On top of that, the source is given. I don't have access to that source, but I assume that it came from the given source. I'd check there. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is whether the source actually says not as fierce or if someone just put their own interpretation in. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to use the same words as the article. This is appropriate word choice to summarize the source. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, but I want to know what a source says, not your individual interpretation of the rivalry. My interpretation may be that Air Force is the fiercest rival. But nobody cares what I think, they care what a source has to think. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please pick from the many choices as to which one you think best describes the relationship between the schools. I'll be happy to add it. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know when this is resolved, I will then strike it. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "West Point also is rivals with Air Force, but not as fiercely as with Navy" is now removed. I had a source that spoke to the difference between the Navy and Air Force rivalries, but I cannot put my finger on it at this time.    Ahodges7  talk 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Army football began in 1890 when Navy challenged the cadets to the still relatively unknown game. Source for relatively unknown?
 * fixed to "relatively new sport". — BQZip01 —  talk 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cadets' attendance is mandatory at football games and the Corps stands for the duration of the game. Should there be a the before Cadets'?
 * No. An article is not required to begin the sentence. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Between the 1998 and 2004 seasons, Army's football program was a member of Conference USA, but its has since reverted to its former independent status. Just read this.
 * I read it. What is the problem? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Between the 1998 and 2004 seasons, Army's football program was a member of Conference USA, but its has since reverted to its former independent status.
 * Missed that one. Now fixed. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2008 football season marked Army's seventh consecutive loss to Navy. This just seems to be thrown onto the end of the paragraph. At this point you stopped talking about Navy a few sentences ago.
 * Fixed. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Though football is the best known varsity sport at the academy, West Point has a long history of athletics in other NCAA sports. Source for best known.
 * The TV contracts and substantial emphasis makes this sentence a transition between the previous section and this. A source isn't needed as it is a summary of all of the previous section. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. You are are drawing a conclusion. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is rehashing what has already been stated above and is a transition between the paragraphs. "Army's chief sports rival is by far the Naval Academy due to its long-standing football rivalry..." — BQZip01 —  talk 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as fiercest above, I may say basketball is the best known, but nobody cares what I think. They care about the sources. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, but for the sake of ending this, I've tweaked it. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Long Gray Line should not be buried in the alumni section. I think it should be explained much further up in the article. I forgot about it until I got to the end.
 * I think it is fine where it is and is addressed in the lead. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not addressed in the current lead. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It used to be, now it isn't. The placement isn't important since importance isn't predicated on placement. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The Academy is known for this. It probably deserves to be referred to in the lead as another nickname. Placement is extremely important. Why bury this detail in the alumni section. Hell, why is this mentioned in the alumni section anyway? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't "buried" in the alumni section, it was placed there because that is where it belongs. Those part of "The Long Grey Line" are all graduates, so the alumni section is apropos. Tweaked now to mention it in the lead — BQZip01 —  talk 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Doubleday stuff, in relation to baseball, according to his article is a myth debunked by "almost all sports historians." So you had better find some sources.
 * removed — BQZip01 —  talk 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is another mention of Doubleday and baseball in the Other sports section. KnightLago (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEBOLD? I've got it, but if it is a simple fix, you are welcome to change it yourself. That would improve the article without a discussion for each change. Your call though. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This should have been taken care of before FAC. At this stage you should have everything ready and set for review. I shouldn't have to fact check simple points like this. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it should have been, but now it wasn't. Now it is fixed. Why not cross it out instead of berating us. It is a common myth and if it is common it is going to have several reliable sources that were wrong. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not berrating you. You are suggesting that I go and change everything wrong with the article, and linking BOLD, when I am reviewing the article for FAC. I am not the one who brought this article here, you did. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that you go and change everything, I suggested you delete this. Perhaps other simple typos would also be easier to fix than to write an sentence or two about the error. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An unofficial motto of the academy history department is "Much of the history we teach was made by people we taught." This is just attached to the end. It would be more useful in the intro the the alumni section.
 * Agreed. Its now the opening line of the "Alumni" section.   Ahodges7  talk 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * West Point Association of Graduates (WPAOG or AOG) are the abbreviations needed?
 * They aren't needed, but they are known by the abbreviation almost as much as their full name. I'm in the Air Force, and I've only heard them referred to as the AOG. Adding a common abbreviation adds clarity. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A few things. I think you are using too many images. They seem to be everywhere and break the flow of the article. Has there been no controversy? During the civil war, integration, the 60's, protests, admission of women controversy. How about academic freedom of serving military officers who are professors? What about hazing. I am almost positive I read something about severe hazing in the past, I think it happened to one of the famous graduates. I want to say knee bends over glass shards. How did the government get the land the academy is on? I mentioned it above, but I really think the Long Grey Line needs to be moved up and better explained. Just a few thoughts. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested removing images yet. Which do you feel are extraneous?   Ahodges7  talk 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The cadet life section seems cluttered as does the traditions section. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BQZip has modified images, to include removing some. Do still feel the article is cluttered?   Ahodges7  talk 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, much better. 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you need to add the hazing stuff at the least. The other stuff needs to be looked at too. The Time article below is very informative. After a minute search I found this, this, this, and this. Time mentions a few notable incidents you do not mention at all. And I was right, MacArthur was the famous graduate. I have changed my comment to oppose for the time being. I question whether everything that should be in the article is included. KnightLago (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is "much more" that can be included, especially on the history of the academy to include past problems with hazing, but the issue is simply there is no room to cover everything that you've mentioned. MacArthur was known to have been the subject of intense hazing for several reasons, the least of which involved his high class rank, his famous general officer father, and his mother living at USMA while he was a cadet.  The issue of hazing at the academy could  be an article by itself, however, the article is already 90K.  My next project is to massively expand the History of United States Military Academy, which is admittedly weak at the moment (but its not up for FAC), to include all of the topics that you discussed above, but there simply is not enough space to cover it here in the main article.  I feel that the article serves the purpose of giving a summary of the academy's extensive history, without becoming too long in that category. The article does discuss the civil war, integration of African-Americans, women, social unrest in the 1960s, ect.    Ahodges7  talk 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand your point about the size of the article, hazing still should be mentioned. MacArthur testified before Congress about it. A brief search yields numerous results including cartoons, quotes from notable people, and a book on the subject. In regard to the other issues, my problem is that the history fails to go into any real detail. Sure you mention the subject in a sentence, but there is no substance. You discuss the civil war, but what happened on campus at the time? Was there tension between the students? You mention the first black graduate, but nothing about whether his admittance was openly welcomed or controversial. The same with women, I know VMI had a lot of controversy, did the academy? And you mention the 1960s, but nothing but there was some upheaval. I think you are glossing over a lot of controversial subjects with the excuse that there is not enough room in the article. I think we should favor comprehensivness over size worries. KnightLago (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, again, there simply isn't time to go into the details that you ask here. What would you have me leave out?  The article cannot exceed 100K, right?  All of the above are excellent topics to be expanded upon in the History of United States Military Academy, but we just can't go into that level of depth here.  None of the other University FA articles have that level of depth in their history sections.  Why do you demand it here? I would understand if you were reviewing an article about the history of USMA, but not the overall USMA article. I agree about needing to mention hazing.  I'll work it in to the "post civil war era" as that is acknowledged to be when hazing first began at the academy.   Ahodges7  talk 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion — If you're concerned about space, how about splitting off a "Controversies at the United States Military Academy" subpage and putting the appropriate refer wikilinks in the article? Development of that article would satisfy Knight's concerns (and admittedly my own, though I haven't stated them before), while avoiding the size problem that you've stated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am categorically opposed to the inclusion of any criticism section as this is a canonical violation of NPOV and will withdraw my support if such a section is included. I would echo other editors' responses that this article is being held to an unreasonably high standard with regard to exhaustively documenting various controversies when few if any other university FACs have more than passing mention of their bluer history. Excuse me for indulging in WP:WAX, but the lacrosse scandal has no mention in Duke's history, Michigan has but two sentences devoted to the whole of its noted campus protests, Dartmouth and Georgetown only making the most nebulous references to the intense controversy surround their becoming co-ed in the 1960s and 1970s, and so on. This isn't a perfect article, but to the extent that it is as comprehensive as other UNI FAs and that it is (in my view) superior to several other FAs for not gorging itself on admissions hype and not indulging in the quiet boosterism of documenting its feats while obscuring or ignoring other salient descriptive information, stop holding this article to a different standard. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JKBrooks85, thanks for the suggestion, as I have considered that as well. I agree that hazing is a part of USMA's past, and should be addressed (per my previous post, I will address it in the "post civil war" section), but I disagree that it needs to be covered in the depth that you or KnightLago appear to expect to see.  USMA is  being held to a higher standard than all other FA university articles for its history section.  The history section of this article is already significantly larger, and more in-depth, than those of any other FA-level college/university, see: Dartmouth College (which is much older than USMA), Duke University, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown University (another older school with lots of potential controversy that is not addressed), Michigan State University, Ohio Wesleyan University, University of California, Riverside, University of Michigan, or Texas A&M University.  None of these articles have a separate "Controversies" segment, so why, for the purpose of meeting the FA-standard, should USMA's article?  I realize that as a federal institution, the academy is under a public scrutiny microscope that other universities are not, but it seems unfair to expect a differing standard for this article.  Again, addressing USMA's past with hazing is going into the article soon, but I don't feel the need to add a separate "controversies" sub-article for the purpose of meeting the FA-standard.  The History of United States Military Academy will cover all major controversies in the school's past eventually, but that article is not up for FAC.   Ahodges7  talk 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think hazing deserves a brief mention as it is something closely related to the culture of the Academy itself. The other issues Lago brings up are wholly irrelevant to an article of such a broad range. No other featured university articles delve into those things. None detail the reception of the first black students, most don't even mention them at all. One of those articles on a college in the deep south, Texas A&M, says only: "the college was officially integrated as A&M welcomed its first African American student" (emphasis added). Re the 1960s: I would even suggest cropping that sentence from the article ("West Point was not immune to upheaval") as it seems misleading. Unless I'm missing something, there wasn't any upheaval at West Point itself (that would be quite counterintuitive anyhow, among the voluntary body of cadets). Rather, it is about Vietnam-era public perception of USMA as an extension of the US military. You wouldn't talk about how the citizenry was critical of the military in the article on the 1st Cavalry Division for the same reason: it is irrelevant and outside its scope. Strikehold (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rolled out a new paragraph that describes the origin, pinnacle, and decline of the practice of hazing at the academy and have provided multiple citations. Please tweak and adjust per MoS as needed.  This should hopefully address the need appropriately and succinctly discuss the history of hazing at USMA.   Ahodges7  talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never suggested a criticism section and do NOT think one should be added to the article. I also have not singled out this article for any special attention. If you doubt this please go back and check other FACs for universities. I am satisifed with the addition of the hazing section and some of the other tweaks done to be more clear about some of the issues I mentioned above. If you are looking to cut this article down a bit the traditions section could be made into a single paragraph with a link to the main article. In regard to images, it looks like the offending images have been removed. However, they should not be readded if this passes its FAC. This comment regarding images by Madcoverboy, one of this article's nominators, is troubling. That is all I have for now. I have struck and commented. Once the above issues are taken care of I will change my oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't insinuate a fire because you think you see something that looks like smoke. It could just be condensation. What Mad said was "The article will likely be fine without them for FAC, you can get whatever permissions whenever that happens and put them right back in." There is no malice here, but removal of said images is easier right now than trying to fix something in a short space of time. Once we have time to devote to searching for the permissions for an image, we can go back, make the appropriate corrections, and then place the images back in, so, yes, the images can come back in eventually if they are correctly used and annotated as to their source/permissions. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't read the comment like you do. Nobody is going to object if the images are added back with proper licenses. To say otherwise does not make sense. He says "While I'm not advocating you do this, if and when USMA makes FA, I don't believe there would be any opposition among day-to-day contributors if those images re-appeared at a later date." He is saying while you shouldn't does this (but you could) none of the regular editors to the article are going to mind the readdition of the images without proper licenses once the heat from FAC has died down. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF: Just assume that what I said is what he's advocating. I'll back you up on this, ok? — BQZip01 —  talk 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I know you will keep an eye on it. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, don't parse my ramblings too closely much less let my off-the-cuff comment torpedo this nom. I was merely observing that once the heat of the FAC dies down, images with similar licensing problems always have a way of finding their way back into the article. I can point to examples in many of the older UNI FAs which fail to meet the stringent standards set here: the images find their way in, the diff fades into history, and the image becomes part of the unalterable tapestry of an FA. I was merely observing that there is little day-to-day viligence among the article's regular editors to enforce these policies and I expect USMA to be no different in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really suggest you drop this, but we can get into it if you want. Improperly licensed images are simply not allowed in articles, especially featured articles. Please point to the examples so I can go remove the images. Improperly licensed images are enough reason to fail a FAR or FAC. KnightLago (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dropping as a tangential topic, but just letting other interested editors know that I responded on your talk page with examples. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets all the criteria. It is exhaustive, well-sourced, images support the text well. I have a few minor suggestions and comments below, but none serious enough to adversely effect any FA criteria. Strikehold (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments from


 * Comments:
 * "Goethals would gain notoriety as the chief engineer of the Panama Canal..."
 * Is "notoriety" the correct term here? It generally has a negative connotation, and that doesn't seem to be the case here...
 * Hmm, after careful research, it seems that it is generally used with a negative connotation, but it can also be used to indicate fame or celebrity, but that's primarily in Britain. Given the fact that we fought a war to be rid of the King/Queen's English (I'M KIDDING!), I'm gonna say we probably need to change it. Comin' up! — BQZip01 —  talk 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to edit this myself, but I was confused a bit by the second sentence: "With war raging in Europe, Congress increased the authorized strength to 1,332 cadets in 1916.[33] The outbreak of World War I caused a sharp increase in the demand for army officers, and the academy accelerated the graduation for all three of the upper classes, so that by the war's end in 1918, only the freshman cadets remained (those who had entered in the summer of 1918)."
 * The opening clauses of the two sentences seem redundant. Was it World War I that caused a demand for officers or was it America's entry into WWI? If it was WWI, I would change "war raged in Europe" to explicitly state WWI and cut the second reference to it. If it was America's entry, I'd make that clear. I also suggest breaking up the second sentence as it seems a little long and hard to follow.
 * Kinda hard to pick and choose on that one. The first sentence explains why they ramped up the volume of cadets. The second explains the accelerated throughput of the cadets. I think it's fine, but I'll see what I can do to tweak it a bit. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "West Point was not immune to the social upheaval of American society during the Vietnam War."
 * Like I mentioned above, this statement is hard to understand out of context. I don't think (and didn't see in the cited refs) this is referring to any unrest among the cadet body, but is instead referring to the perception of West Point. I would recommend either expanding it slightly (maybe just adding a clause to the sentence) to put in context or excising it.
 * I concur this is a reference to political/social strife, and not to any violent upheval in the student body. While the cadets were largely immune from some of the protests and such, the implementation of outside policy/ideas did have effects. I'll see what I can do to tweak this too.
 * Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the first woman sentence seems out of place there. I know the author put it in chronological order, but it doesn't, to me, seem to have a natural flow. The last sentence about difficulty in keeping up with the demand for officers, I think, is probably the most critical and should be moved up. I would recommend breaking the last few sentences related to Vietnam into its own paragraph.
 * Wilco. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "after Congress authorized the admission of women to all of the federal service academies in 1975"
 * This didn't apply to USMA though, right? You may want to consider cutting it. To me, (assuming my presumption is correct) it doesn't seem that relevant to the subject.
 * No, it most certainly did. Hodges correct me if I'm wrong. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I had a second look at the text, and now see I mistakenly thought the first female faculty member in 1968 was the first female cadet. Sorry, disregard.
 * I would suggest adding a paragraph break after the internet part and before the Gulf War part, as the second half of the paragraph all fits together.
 * Point taken. Tweaks comin' up! — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Though the military reservation is quite large, the academic area of the campus..."
 * Would it be possible here to simply say "campus itself" instead of "academic area of the campus" for brevity's sake? I wouldn't think the whole reservation would be considered the campus. Might just be me...
 * It's just you. I'M KIDDING, I'M KIDDING! Perhaps an explanation is in order. The whole reservation is USMA turf. The area the cadets live in is a small part of that and the academic area is also a small section. BUT that kind of makes sense. How much space do you need for 4000 students to study in a classroom? Throw in a few extra research buildings and the academic areas need not be any larger than a medium-sized high school (realize I'm from Texas and that's medium to me...you guys from Montana might disagree...). Now, throw in offices for faculty, offices for administration, living quarters for everyone, space to train 4000 cadets on, oh let's say, riflry, etc. The massive expansive of the campus is large and we're talking only about a small, albeit important, section of it. To rephrase it in the manner you are suggesting would be misleading/inaccurate. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I follow you, and I think we are basically saying the same thing. I was just saying that to me "academic area" and "campus" seem to be synonymous. That is, I was suggesting a re-phrasing along the lines of: "Though the military reservation is quite large, the campus itself..." Just in an effort to make the sentence more concise. Then again, it might add confusion as to what the difference is exactly. I was just throwing it out there for consideration. Either way, in the grand scheme of the article it's not that important of a detail.
 * In notable alumni: I would remove the Heisman winners (as it is already mentioned in the Army football section). I would move the Coach K sentence down to alumni. My thought is: the Heisman winners did it as part of the Army football team, whereas Mike Krzdflrdkbx7ski became famous after USMA (i.e. as alumni rather than cadets). Just my thoughts.
 * It seems fine to me on the Heisman guys, and Mike seems fine and in-place where he is. This section is more about those who are famous who have not already been mentioned. Otherwise duplicating everything would be counter-productive. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't recommending duplication; quite the opposite (as per recommending scaling back to one mention of Heisman winners). I was suggesting cutting and pasting the Krzyzewski mention from "other sports" down to "alumni", but I can see it either way. Especially since he coached a stint at USMA, and it does flow well from the Bobby Knight part. Disregard.
 * That's all I've got... Excellent job to all the contributors. Strikehold (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I meant to state that if there's enough interest in doing so, there might be enough information available for a sub-page about controversies. Not just hazing, of course — things like the 1960s protests, integrating the school, the cheating scandal a while back, and so on. That's a different article and a different subject, though, and I think this article is good enough to be featured. It's a complete, even-handed coverage of the subject, with comprehensive citations and images. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove all of the hide templates that have been added. It is unclear if this article has source and image clearance, and this FAC will likely need a restart; removing the templates may help.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth did take care of the sources in that mess of comments. Image issues are ongoing; there seems to be some ... "disagreements" in that area. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dabomb! (anyone have time to remove all those templates ... I started, but there are too many and it's time consuming.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh...ok. Why on earth would it need a restart? The only things hidden are those items that have been struck (by the uploader) and their discussion. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I see nothing about hide boxes to condense issues that have already been addressed and more clearly highlight the remaining issues. Again, please realize the concerns were struck by the person that wrote them, not the person who addressed them. Keeping it minimized merely highlights any remaining problems. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot...looks even worse now. BQzip, the caps slow load time and we also have to worry about template limits. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only one "unresolved image", File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg, and the objection to it is incorrect. That photo is tagged correctly and PD.  All other "unresolved" images have been removed: File:West Point Fortifications.jpg, File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg, and File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg are all removed from the article, but the lengthy debate about them has gone "un-struck".  They need to be placed in the "resolved".  As such, there are no "unresolved" images remaining.  Additionally, despite the lengthy number of comments, the support oppose is 5 Supports vs. 1 Oppose, if the other Oppose, on account of image usage, is considered resolved.  The 1 Oppose, from KnightLago, who left a lengthy list of concerns, has had all concerns addressed, including his main sticking point - an inclusion of the subject of hazing in the history section.  KnightLago has yet to return and strike his unresolved concerns.  Long story short, there is almost unanimous support for this article, despite the lengthy dialog.   Ahodges7  talk 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What Hodges said...
 * I don't think we're in danger on this page, but whatever you think to do about the hidden comments, feel free to make them more clear however you deem necessary. I'm not fighting a battle over this minuscule point.
 * As for the images, they've all been addressed. Of the remaining that have not been struck, 3 have been removed from the article completely and the last is clearly a PD image. The user that wrote them down has chosen not to return to strike them. Sourcing should be fine and I see no outstanding problems in that area. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone pinged KnightLago to revisit? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I did that as you were typing :) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, now three times...sort of (He was also following along on Saturday when we were addressing things). — BQZip01 —  talk 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I have not gotten back here sooner, but what is the rush? I left extensive comments on Saturday, today is Monday. I spent most of the day Saturday reviewing the article, commenting, and then replying to nominator comments. Since then I have gotten three different instructions to hurry back. When did this process turn into such a rush? When did haste rise above quality. I have not reviewed an article in a bit, and hope things here haven't changed and the situation with this article for some reason is unique. KnightLago (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I am going through the article (slowly) and fixing the technical issues (MOS and little prose things). If you see something that you think is wrong, please post here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Problems and suggestions


 * 1. The references are not in the same style. Look at the dates.  Year first, year lasts, tomato, to-mah-to, potato, pa-tah-to, potatoe....  The dates are not the only problem but the biggest one.
 * 2. I was looking for a sentence or two on hazing. No mention.  Lack of mention may spark curiosity.
 * 3. Any source or information on the foreigners? What countries?
 * 4. Does pregnancy result in disciplinary action?
 * 5. What do the graduates do? How many have a career and how many leave after or before their commitment.
 * 6. Someone said that John McCain did not have a major as the Naval Academy didn't have majors. Was this true of West Point?  When did it change?
 * 7. What is a "small annual salary" that cadets receive?
 * 8. Graduate degrees? Under academics, are there different departments?
 * 9. Any infamous graduates?
 * 10. Any controversies? How about Forrest Whittaker or similar name, a black cadet in the 1880's that was expelled and later cleared by Bill Clinton over 100 years later.
 * 11. Is there a photo of the main building, whatever that is?
 * Good luck. Ipromise (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ipromise, not to be an ass, but I suggest you give the article a closer read, as most of your questions are answered there. I'm not a contributor to this article, but I read it, and hazing has its own paragraph, and the word is mentioned six times (do a word search...). It also answers your question on degrees: general engineering degrees were granted until 1985 when cadets starting choosing their own majors. Regarding your question 10: Henry Flipper is mentioned in the article as the first black USMA graduate, and if you read his article you will have your questions answered (which aren't really relevant to West Point itself). Main building? It's a college campus/military post, it has scores of buildings... Strikehold (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ipromise
 * All addressed. Most of these seem to have been added recently and I think they were simply order issues: fixed, though
 * Whole paragraph already there. Don't know what to tell you otherwise.
 * Already addressed in "admission". The specific countriies vary from year to year and mentioning each by name would be space-prohibitive
 * I personally don't know, but I would assume their cadet life would be suspended/ended to protect the child. This kind of minutia isn't necessary in such a broad overview.
 * They become officers in the Army. Career stats can be found in the Army article. They cannot leave before their committment.
 * 1985. See "Modern Era"
 * Small. Varies from year-to-year and from class to class. When I was in ROTC it varied from $100 to $700/semester, but we had more extraneous expense than USMA cadets.
 * No Graduate degrees. Yes there are different departments, but that list is pretty extensive and is beyond the scope of this (or any other University) article.
 * I think there were plenty of Confederate Generals (some listed).
 * Sorry, but you'll have to provide a better reference than that ("somthing like ..." doesn't really help). I couldn't find anything online in a quick search. "I heard somewhere..." information isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.
 * There isn't a main building...as there aren't for most/many Universities.
 * If there is anything else you have, please feel free to add your concerns. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I think that this meets the FA criteria. --rogerd (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further image review as follows (based on Awadewit's unresolved issues):
 * File:West Point Fortifications.jpg was replaced by File:1780 Map of West Point Defenses.jpg, which is PD with verifiable information.
 * File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg was removed.
 * File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg was replaced by File:West Point Rugby Player.jpg, which is verifiably taken by a federal employee.
 * File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg was replaced by File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg, which is verifiably taken by a federal employee.
 * File:WP Ring 2.jpg &mdash; I have uploaded a smaller-sized image and requested to delete the large-sized image from the history.
 * The "free" images, which concerned Awadewit, have been replaced by others that have verifiable information to back up their "free" status; hence, the first four should be considered resolved. The reduced ring image would have resolved Awadewit's immediate concern about the size (resolution).  If it is reverted to the large size, then the issue would remain unresolved.  Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't presume to state which issues were and were not resolved from his opinion. I never moved them, but others did.
 * It is a bit misleading to imply that certain images cannot be verifiably ascertained to be PD. They are and, just because you cannot use the web to find out, doesn't make them non-PD.
 * It is also misleading to say they are "unresolved". The fact of the matter is that most of these images have been replaced and aren't even a factor in this discussion. It would be like saying there's a problem with the Texas A&M page so this one shouldn't be promoted. In fact, the images aren't even there, so any objection based on these issues should be discounted.
 * As for the ring sizing issue, I wouldn't presume to know what Awadewit thinks or doesn't think. That is your opinion, not his. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.