This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States senior military college article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have no problem with their being listed in alphabetical order, but I see it has been revised twice now. It is not that big of a deal; in fact, the U.S. law does not even list them in alphabetical order when it cites them.
Todd has made several revert's to thi's article, in spite of having it pointed out by several editor's that hi's overuse of apostophe's is both confu'sing, and gramattically incorrect. The use of an apostrophe, like all punctuation, is functional, and governed by quite clear rules. for example, in answer the the question "What can you see mate?" the answer "I can see the boys cock" can have three quite distint meanings.
The humble apostophe serves to identify which of these three possible meanings the writer is trying to convey. It has a purpose:it serves to clarify the meaning, and remove any possible confusion. it is, if you like, an instant disambiguation page
SMC's used in this article totaly reverse this accepted use of an apostrophe, leading to possible confusion. how would you refer to the college's grounds? as SMC'S still? or even, heaven help us, how about the pupils of several colleges? would they be SMC's' students?
We now have a new rule, it seems: " Apostrophe s is used to refer to the possessive and avoid confusion with the plural(except on certain parts of Wikipedia where it means the exact opposite)" does this realy make any sense? What purpose exactly does the apostrophe in the word SMC's (when used as a plural) have? I'm assuming that no one would make such effort to reinstate it it it was purely arbitrary (I've got a " ' " key on my PC, so will damn well use it), which leaves either cosmetic (perhaps it makes the word look prettier), or functional. If functional, then what information does it convey? would the meaning of the phrase be altered (or unclear) if it was not there, as clearly happens in the above examples? or would the meaning, in fact, be more clear without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilbobee ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
whoops - sorry, thanks Bilbo B 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a request for mediation here. As of this posting, the article looks dormant, and I have had only one response to the request to mediate. Happy to mediate if people still feel it's needed, but I'm going to remove the request some time next week unless someone objects. Cheers. IronDuke 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Two comments below moved by IronDuke from mediation page to keep discussion in one place
As Todd states "unless there is some substantial reason for the change. . . . defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
The article refers to "Cadets of the Senior Military Colleges" in one place, so it is quite feasable that another editor may wish to make a similar reference and use the perfectly acceptable term "SMCs' Cadets" to avoid tedious repetion. This term clearly only works if "SMCs" is used as the plural- surely no one will write SMC's' and leaving the first apostrophe out in this instance would be inconsistant with SMC's as plural.
Using the apostrophe where Todd has limits future editors' choices without adding anything to readability or understanding of this article. Bilbo B 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Not every rule of grammar makes sense. That is no argument. Let's look at initialisms and abbreviations, which use periods. If one occurs at the end of a sentence, you do not repeat the period (e.g., "I want to wake up at 6:00 a.m." versus "I want to wake up at 6:00a.m..") This is a rule that has evolved. Next, let's look at quotations. By tradition, and subsequently formalized writing style, all periods and commas are inserted into a quote if it is at the end of a sentence; e.g., "John said: 'I hate you,' so I did not call him back." The comma goes in the quote, not out like many try to do. By this same rule, all colons and semi-colons go on the outside of the quote, whether they are a part of the original or not. Exclamation points and question marks are the most interesting of the rule. If they are a part of the original quote, they go on the inside; if they are not, they go on the outside; and if they are both, they go on the outside.
Examples: He asked, "Where is John?" Who said, "My name is John"? Who asked, "Where is John"?
So let's not use the argument that one rule makes more sense than another. Otherwise we can get into debates about many grammatical rules (such as underlining versus italicization, both of which mean the exact same thing and are acceptable. Todd Gallagher 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not my standard; this is a standard. Now, I guess it would be accomplished by using the possessive "of." However, the same question can be asked of don't, thinkin ', or it's. How would you make a plurality of these words? Using your argument, which is what you are trying to set up, you would say: "In the English language, don't 's use as a conjunction is accepted." In this case, you would avoid the use of the possessive case or it would cause confusion. Are you going to argue against the apostrophe in these words merely because they would have an awkward possessive case? Todd Gallagher 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since you obviously can't deduce what I am saying above, let me simplify it for you. You would drop the apostrophe representing plurality. As with the period used in initialisms and abbreviations, you omit the period at the end of the sentence and the one period represents both the initialism and the end of the sentence. For instance, the phrase "do 's and don't s" omits the last apostrophe for the exact same reason. So let me reiterate so you don't need to retype your question over and over: Singular: SMC / Plural: SMC's / Singular Possessive: SMC's / Plural Possessive: SMC's. Todd Gallagher 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may interject my two cents here, the purpose of an apostrophe is to replace missing characters or, in conjunction with an "s" indicate possession. When combining the two functions, the correct usage is quickly muddled. I would like to pose the question, what do each of the forms of the abbreviation stand for (P.S. I know the grammar on this sentence is horrible, but I don't feel like changing it)? I think this will more clearly show how the apostrophe should be used. 1. Singular: "Senior Military College" becomes SMC 2. Plural: "Senior Military Colleges" becomes SMC's 3. Singular Possessive: "Senior Military College's" becomes SMC's 4. Plural Possessive: "Senior Military College's" becomes SMC's. It is hard to debate 1 and 3. They seem to have no other usage that would make sense. 2 and 4 are where the big problems lie. I propose that 2 should be SMCs and 4 should be SMCs' for the following reasons. Using and apostrophe to indicate mising characters does not make sense because it is not used for the rest of the abbreviation/acronym (S'M'C's). On top of that, you must be able to distinguish between the 3 usages in 2-4. How are you supposed to determine the indicated usage if all of them are the same? I'll admit the apostrophe looks awkward at the end of a word, but it is still correct.(No user name, Henley) 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a little liberty and put up what I hope is a compromise version. Obviously, I won't object if someone reverts, but I hope instead we can discuss it first. IronDuke 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If 75.70.247.207 is so insistent upon making such changes, please cite your sources. To quote the line below, "...content must be attributable to a reliable source..." BQZip01 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding the VMI clarification regarding baccalaureate ONLY is unneeded. What does federal law say about SMC's? It says that they must offer a baccalaureate degree. Adding the VMI clarification doesn't meet the "so what?" test except to try and make VMI look more important.-- Vidkun 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hope everyone likes it! BQZip01 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
One issue I have with your recent changes, adding citation needed tags. It's counter to what is said at summary style - Citations and external links There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole. -- Vidkun 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's not delete relevant information regarding the history of these schools. There is no legitimate reason I can see that says we can't have this info presented here. — BQZip01 — talk 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Summary style includes a basic summary of information. While the history of each school and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, they also provide perspective to SMCs in general. What is the history of the 6 colleges? What makes each distinctive? Are there any people related to the school that have done amazing things? All of this provides an insight into SMCs as a whole. A single paragraph isn't going to hurt anything. If we keep it that short, it easily falls within the summary style. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The citation provided isn't a third party source, so I have to question it, just like I would question a source saying XYZ has the biggest ring, when the source is from the school itself. Can we get a date for when the first women were admitted to the various cadet corps? I see from one sheet maintained by the college that it was 1973, with the first female cadet graduating in 1976 (did she enter the program as a sophomore?) but is there an independent source for that? I think it likely that there is, but I'd like to see it.-- Vidkun ( talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see these lists on here about which schools only have cadets or which schools are all military. None of the SMC's are all military anymore. Two of the SMC's are still all military as far as resident students (VMI and The Citadel), but both VMI and The Citadel allow noncadets to take classes, whether as commuter students, evening students, or transient students. Someone posted on here that VMI was the only school to have only cadets. That is not entirely true. VMI only graduates cadets, but they allow noncadets to enroll in classes on campus as well such as transient students from Washington and Lee University. Todd Gallagher ( talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
All VMI students are cadets. Unlike ANY other Senior Military College, there are no day or "night" degrees or graduate degree programs offered at VMI for civilian students. All VMI students must be cadets... period. VMI's Registrar will confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.246.52 ( talk) 02:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed VWIL from the listing, as they aren't a SMC: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00002111---a000-.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.75.27 ( talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to explain my edits to the VMI section of the article that references Forbes and US News rankings. The original text stated that "According to several top Collegiate ranking systems, VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" and cited Forbes and US News. It is accurate that Forbes ranked VMI the highest of the SMCs in its list of top schools. Forbes, however explicitly excludes reputation (more or less synonymous with prestige) as a criteria. That is why I changed the text to say that Forbes ranked VMI "highest". I am attempting to make it clear VMI ranked highest, but wanted to avoid any confusion on the criteria Forbes used.
With regard to US News, its ranking of VMI does not support (or, for that matter, refute) an assertion that "VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" US News' rankings have VMI, The Citadel, Virginia Tech, and Norwich in different categories. This separation makes it impossible to determine where US News comparatively ranks the SMCs.
It might make sense to move the ranking portion to its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) If you want to make a ranking section, that's a fine idea, but it needs to done in a neutral manner. I concur that the claims are spurious/erroneous/misleading. synthesis isn't allowed on WP. Buffs ( talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The citation needed tag keeps getting deleted. Until there is a reliable third party source which states that VMI is the only one to have graduated a five star, the inclusion of that statement is original research, because it is synthesis - you have looked at the list of five star generals, seen only one who went to a senior military college, and make the statement. It's a true statement, I'll grant that; but it's still original research that cannot be included - it has to be backed up by a reliable source which makes that statement - we can't even use reliable sources listing the five stars, and where they graduated from, to include that statement, as it is derivative information which is not (in the example given) explicitly stated in the sources.-- Vidkun ( talk) 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Buffs, What is the case for "senior military college" as a proper noun? Didn't want to revert without seeing if I'm missing anything Ocalafla ( talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The page claims that "Cadets at an SMC are authorized to take the ROTC program all four years, but taking a commission upon graduation remains optional, unlike other colleges where ROTC cadets are required to sign a contract to take commission before entering their final two years."
The U.S. code describing support for SMCs, ( linked here, does not mention anything of the sort.
What is the source for this claim?
2601:5C2:103:FAA0:34A3:D183:9045:C542 ( talk) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting indef ECP due to long-term, persistent but sporadic sockpuppetry by two indef-blocked users
Buffs ( talk) 14:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States senior military college article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have no problem with their being listed in alphabetical order, but I see it has been revised twice now. It is not that big of a deal; in fact, the U.S. law does not even list them in alphabetical order when it cites them.
Todd has made several revert's to thi's article, in spite of having it pointed out by several editor's that hi's overuse of apostophe's is both confu'sing, and gramattically incorrect. The use of an apostrophe, like all punctuation, is functional, and governed by quite clear rules. for example, in answer the the question "What can you see mate?" the answer "I can see the boys cock" can have three quite distint meanings.
The humble apostophe serves to identify which of these three possible meanings the writer is trying to convey. It has a purpose:it serves to clarify the meaning, and remove any possible confusion. it is, if you like, an instant disambiguation page
SMC's used in this article totaly reverse this accepted use of an apostrophe, leading to possible confusion. how would you refer to the college's grounds? as SMC'S still? or even, heaven help us, how about the pupils of several colleges? would they be SMC's' students?
We now have a new rule, it seems: " Apostrophe s is used to refer to the possessive and avoid confusion with the plural(except on certain parts of Wikipedia where it means the exact opposite)" does this realy make any sense? What purpose exactly does the apostrophe in the word SMC's (when used as a plural) have? I'm assuming that no one would make such effort to reinstate it it it was purely arbitrary (I've got a " ' " key on my PC, so will damn well use it), which leaves either cosmetic (perhaps it makes the word look prettier), or functional. If functional, then what information does it convey? would the meaning of the phrase be altered (or unclear) if it was not there, as clearly happens in the above examples? or would the meaning, in fact, be more clear without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilbobee ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
whoops - sorry, thanks Bilbo B 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a request for mediation here. As of this posting, the article looks dormant, and I have had only one response to the request to mediate. Happy to mediate if people still feel it's needed, but I'm going to remove the request some time next week unless someone objects. Cheers. IronDuke 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Two comments below moved by IronDuke from mediation page to keep discussion in one place
As Todd states "unless there is some substantial reason for the change. . . . defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
The article refers to "Cadets of the Senior Military Colleges" in one place, so it is quite feasable that another editor may wish to make a similar reference and use the perfectly acceptable term "SMCs' Cadets" to avoid tedious repetion. This term clearly only works if "SMCs" is used as the plural- surely no one will write SMC's' and leaving the first apostrophe out in this instance would be inconsistant with SMC's as plural.
Using the apostrophe where Todd has limits future editors' choices without adding anything to readability or understanding of this article. Bilbo B 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Not every rule of grammar makes sense. That is no argument. Let's look at initialisms and abbreviations, which use periods. If one occurs at the end of a sentence, you do not repeat the period (e.g., "I want to wake up at 6:00 a.m." versus "I want to wake up at 6:00a.m..") This is a rule that has evolved. Next, let's look at quotations. By tradition, and subsequently formalized writing style, all periods and commas are inserted into a quote if it is at the end of a sentence; e.g., "John said: 'I hate you,' so I did not call him back." The comma goes in the quote, not out like many try to do. By this same rule, all colons and semi-colons go on the outside of the quote, whether they are a part of the original or not. Exclamation points and question marks are the most interesting of the rule. If they are a part of the original quote, they go on the inside; if they are not, they go on the outside; and if they are both, they go on the outside.
Examples: He asked, "Where is John?" Who said, "My name is John"? Who asked, "Where is John"?
So let's not use the argument that one rule makes more sense than another. Otherwise we can get into debates about many grammatical rules (such as underlining versus italicization, both of which mean the exact same thing and are acceptable. Todd Gallagher 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not my standard; this is a standard. Now, I guess it would be accomplished by using the possessive "of." However, the same question can be asked of don't, thinkin ', or it's. How would you make a plurality of these words? Using your argument, which is what you are trying to set up, you would say: "In the English language, don't 's use as a conjunction is accepted." In this case, you would avoid the use of the possessive case or it would cause confusion. Are you going to argue against the apostrophe in these words merely because they would have an awkward possessive case? Todd Gallagher 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since you obviously can't deduce what I am saying above, let me simplify it for you. You would drop the apostrophe representing plurality. As with the period used in initialisms and abbreviations, you omit the period at the end of the sentence and the one period represents both the initialism and the end of the sentence. For instance, the phrase "do 's and don't s" omits the last apostrophe for the exact same reason. So let me reiterate so you don't need to retype your question over and over: Singular: SMC / Plural: SMC's / Singular Possessive: SMC's / Plural Possessive: SMC's. Todd Gallagher 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may interject my two cents here, the purpose of an apostrophe is to replace missing characters or, in conjunction with an "s" indicate possession. When combining the two functions, the correct usage is quickly muddled. I would like to pose the question, what do each of the forms of the abbreviation stand for (P.S. I know the grammar on this sentence is horrible, but I don't feel like changing it)? I think this will more clearly show how the apostrophe should be used. 1. Singular: "Senior Military College" becomes SMC 2. Plural: "Senior Military Colleges" becomes SMC's 3. Singular Possessive: "Senior Military College's" becomes SMC's 4. Plural Possessive: "Senior Military College's" becomes SMC's. It is hard to debate 1 and 3. They seem to have no other usage that would make sense. 2 and 4 are where the big problems lie. I propose that 2 should be SMCs and 4 should be SMCs' for the following reasons. Using and apostrophe to indicate mising characters does not make sense because it is not used for the rest of the abbreviation/acronym (S'M'C's). On top of that, you must be able to distinguish between the 3 usages in 2-4. How are you supposed to determine the indicated usage if all of them are the same? I'll admit the apostrophe looks awkward at the end of a word, but it is still correct.(No user name, Henley) 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a little liberty and put up what I hope is a compromise version. Obviously, I won't object if someone reverts, but I hope instead we can discuss it first. IronDuke 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If 75.70.247.207 is so insistent upon making such changes, please cite your sources. To quote the line below, "...content must be attributable to a reliable source..." BQZip01 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding the VMI clarification regarding baccalaureate ONLY is unneeded. What does federal law say about SMC's? It says that they must offer a baccalaureate degree. Adding the VMI clarification doesn't meet the "so what?" test except to try and make VMI look more important.-- Vidkun 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hope everyone likes it! BQZip01 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
One issue I have with your recent changes, adding citation needed tags. It's counter to what is said at summary style - Citations and external links There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole. -- Vidkun 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's not delete relevant information regarding the history of these schools. There is no legitimate reason I can see that says we can't have this info presented here. — BQZip01 — talk 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Summary style includes a basic summary of information. While the history of each school and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, they also provide perspective to SMCs in general. What is the history of the 6 colleges? What makes each distinctive? Are there any people related to the school that have done amazing things? All of this provides an insight into SMCs as a whole. A single paragraph isn't going to hurt anything. If we keep it that short, it easily falls within the summary style. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The citation provided isn't a third party source, so I have to question it, just like I would question a source saying XYZ has the biggest ring, when the source is from the school itself. Can we get a date for when the first women were admitted to the various cadet corps? I see from one sheet maintained by the college that it was 1973, with the first female cadet graduating in 1976 (did she enter the program as a sophomore?) but is there an independent source for that? I think it likely that there is, but I'd like to see it.-- Vidkun ( talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see these lists on here about which schools only have cadets or which schools are all military. None of the SMC's are all military anymore. Two of the SMC's are still all military as far as resident students (VMI and The Citadel), but both VMI and The Citadel allow noncadets to take classes, whether as commuter students, evening students, or transient students. Someone posted on here that VMI was the only school to have only cadets. That is not entirely true. VMI only graduates cadets, but they allow noncadets to enroll in classes on campus as well such as transient students from Washington and Lee University. Todd Gallagher ( talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
All VMI students are cadets. Unlike ANY other Senior Military College, there are no day or "night" degrees or graduate degree programs offered at VMI for civilian students. All VMI students must be cadets... period. VMI's Registrar will confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.246.52 ( talk) 02:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed VWIL from the listing, as they aren't a SMC: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00002111---a000-.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.75.27 ( talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to explain my edits to the VMI section of the article that references Forbes and US News rankings. The original text stated that "According to several top Collegiate ranking systems, VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" and cited Forbes and US News. It is accurate that Forbes ranked VMI the highest of the SMCs in its list of top schools. Forbes, however explicitly excludes reputation (more or less synonymous with prestige) as a criteria. That is why I changed the text to say that Forbes ranked VMI "highest". I am attempting to make it clear VMI ranked highest, but wanted to avoid any confusion on the criteria Forbes used.
With regard to US News, its ranking of VMI does not support (or, for that matter, refute) an assertion that "VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" US News' rankings have VMI, The Citadel, Virginia Tech, and Norwich in different categories. This separation makes it impossible to determine where US News comparatively ranks the SMCs.
It might make sense to move the ranking portion to its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) If you want to make a ranking section, that's a fine idea, but it needs to done in a neutral manner. I concur that the claims are spurious/erroneous/misleading. synthesis isn't allowed on WP. Buffs ( talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The citation needed tag keeps getting deleted. Until there is a reliable third party source which states that VMI is the only one to have graduated a five star, the inclusion of that statement is original research, because it is synthesis - you have looked at the list of five star generals, seen only one who went to a senior military college, and make the statement. It's a true statement, I'll grant that; but it's still original research that cannot be included - it has to be backed up by a reliable source which makes that statement - we can't even use reliable sources listing the five stars, and where they graduated from, to include that statement, as it is derivative information which is not (in the example given) explicitly stated in the sources.-- Vidkun ( talk) 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Buffs, What is the case for "senior military college" as a proper noun? Didn't want to revert without seeing if I'm missing anything Ocalafla ( talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The page claims that "Cadets at an SMC are authorized to take the ROTC program all four years, but taking a commission upon graduation remains optional, unlike other colleges where ROTC cadets are required to sign a contract to take commission before entering their final two years."
The U.S. code describing support for SMCs, ( linked here, does not mention anything of the sort.
What is the source for this claim?
2601:5C2:103:FAA0:34A3:D183:9045:C542 ( talk) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting indef ECP due to long-term, persistent but sporadic sockpuppetry by two indef-blocked users
Buffs ( talk) 14:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)