United States Military Academy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A graduate or a former student of a school is considered an alumnus by most definitions listed in dictionaries. Poe is an alumnus by definition. Cuprum17 (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than dedicating thousands of words to football rivalries, a high school-level topic, it would be much more appropriate for an encycl. art. to focus on the reasons why there are separate Navy and Air Force academies. Didactic reasons, or just the inertia of tradition? Maybe strategic or security reasons? Proximity to major bases, wider geography, like navy in port cities? Other countries have one military academy only, with various branches of course, and it serves them quite well, too. Arminden (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to remove Presidential and Vice Presidential nomination sources from the lede?
@GuardianH: can you please give a better explanation behind your revert? There's no doubt about the accuracy or authenticity of the claim that Presidential and Vice Presidential nominations exist; undue weight is not really an appropriate argument to make as there's no POV here to be undue. All US Service Academy nominations are rare in the first place, and Presidential or Vice Presidential nominations are treated no differently than Congressional nominations, so why they would be excluded from even a brief mention in the lede while Congress remains is not a logical argument to me. That's not what the purpose of undue weight is -- the purpose of undue weight is to not give undue weight to fringe POVs, which is not something that's applicable here -- this is a statement of fact, not a viewpoint on which there is differentiation. Additionally, it's not clear why we'd remove the sentence that's actually supported by the provided reference (Apply for a nomination from an authorized nominating authority (e.g., U.S. Representative, Senator, President, Vice President). while leaving the "usually Congress" part which is found nowhere on that page. Would you mind self-reverting (so we can at least get the referenced claim back in) and discussing? Thanks. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!20:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight involves proper giving coverage of material in accordance with the significance of their source coverage. As mentioned previously, nomination from a congressperson is required. Nomination from the president or vice-president is, of course, not required and rare — this is a fact that belongs in the body but not the lede. Sources don't demonstrate that nomination by the president or vice-president is covered significantly such that we need to mention it in the lede (the current source is just the university's admission's office website, which clearly is not significant coverage). Not every statement of fact is guaranteed for inclusion per our policy at WP:VNOT. GuardianH21:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a quick google search shows source coverage typically mentions both the congressional and presidential/vice presidential nomination sources in the same breath, even from congressional sources. Example: Senator Schatz nominations page, Sen. Wicker, Rep. Moskowitz, etc. I don't think you've effectively established your position that "sources don't demonstrate that nomination by the president or vice-president is covered significantly" -- from what I can tell, they appear to be equally mentioned among sources, and merely distinguished by the different process for receiving the nomination. Again, all service academy nominations are rare, but the argument that because there are fewer presidential/BP nominations as an absolute number somehow means that mentioning them in the lede constitutes undue weight doesn't make any sense to me. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!21:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the laws have changed since I was admitted to the Naval Academy a few decades ago, a nomination is required, not a nomination from a congressperson (except for children of Medal of Honor recipients). There are others, like the president and vice president, who can also make nominations.
I do agree that congressional nominations are the most well known. I think that congresspeople, as a group, can nominate many more people than the others who can make nominations (e.g., president, vice president, service secretary); the West Point website is not very helpful in making this explicit but, as usual, the Naval Academy is much better in this respect.
With all of that said, I am completely okay with the lede of this article only mentioning congressional nominations as the typical nominating source as long as the language does not imply that those are the only source (which the current language does not do). The lede is intended to summarize the most important details of the article and should not go into significant detail about any aspect of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped out during Plebe summer, but I can echo that a congressional nomination was not required when I applied either in 2001 (though to be fair, my source was congressional).⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!21:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swatjester ElKevbo is, as usual, correct. It's worth noting that the few sources you've chosen are not representative of most sources at all, which of course usually concern only congressional nominations, so the rare phenomenon that a president or vice-president nominates a candidate is not something that needs to be front-and-center in the lede. GuardianH16:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know he's correct. He's making the same point as I was, that your statement that congressional nominations were required is wrong. The argument that congressional nominations pages are "not representative of most sources at all" also does not hold water based on my research, given that congressional nomination sources seem to be the largest plurality of results, if not a complete majority. I've yet to find any that fail to make reference to non-congressional sources. Every single congressional source I've seen thus far mentions presidential and vice-presidential methods. And you've not actually addressed my point that what you're describing is not a "rare phenomenon" -- it happens annually for dozens of applicants, exactly like how congressional nominations happen annually for a slightly greater number of applicants. What you're describing is not rarity, it's the numerical dispersion of their being 535 members of Congress, each of whom may have no more than five people attending each service academy at any given time (so 2675). Most members of Congress allocate at least one open vacancy each year. For each vacancy, ten nominations may be submitted to the respective service academy admissions office. The Vice President has the same set of restrictions, only without geographical limitation. There are 100 vacancies for Presidential nominations in each service academy class, unless something changed. This is not a rare or obscure event. Thousands of people apply annually for the presidential and vice presidential nominations. Quite literally hundreds are admitted. I'm sorry but I don't find any of these arguments based on rarity nor significance of coverage either accurate or convincing. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!16:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination from the vice-president or the president is indeed rare. The question is whether to include in the lede whether the vice-president or the president should be included. It's very well established that nomination from a member of congress is a common way of being nominated to West Point, thus it is included in the lede. But the vice-president can only nominate a maximum of 5 candidates at any of the service academies at any one time (with the exception of 2 academies), per the White House. Nomination from the president is even rarer. Nomination from the U.S. president isn't even mentioned in West Point's admissions directory.
Like I said, nomination from the vice-president or the U.S. president warrants a mention in the body but not in the lede. That's exactly what MOS:LEAD calls for — a summary of the most significant elements of the body. Because many are nominated by a congressperson, that warrants a mention in the lede. But because extremely few are nominated by the president or vice-president, that isn't something we need to mention in the lede. So I concur with ElKevbo with the lede only mentioning congressional nominations as the typical nominating sourceas long as the language does not imply that those are the only source. GuardianH18:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination from *any* source is rare. That's the point -- you haven't established why policy would support an arbitrary boundary that makes Presidential nominations unacceptable while Congressional nominations are. If we're comparing like-to-like, then Presidential nominations are significantly more numerous than Congress -- a single representative is authorized to make far fewer nominations than the President is. The fact that there are hundreds of Congressional representatives is irrelevant to the fact that their nominations are treated identically to Presidential or VP nominations. I really would appreciate it if you'd stick to a consistent reasoning for your objections -- having shifted from "it's already covered in the preceding sentence" (it wasn't) to "It's undue weight" (it wasn't) to "It's not significant enough for the lede". It feels like the goalposts here are constantly shifting, and that I'm arguing with someone who is unwilling to listen, doesn't seem familiar with the institution in question, but has predetermined their desired outcome. For that reason, I'm out of this discussion. Disappointing, to say the least. I expected better. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!21:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The redirect Term End Exam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 25 § Term End Exam until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)