Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

Archive 1 February 2006—June 2006 Pre-FA Submission Archive 2 June 2007—September 2007 FA recognition to Main Page showing Archive 3 September 2007 Discussion over computer claims & NPOV Archive 4 September 2007 Continuation of discussion on various sourcing and NPOV questions

How did this get started and what does it imply going forward?

My own personal opinion is that the whole issue with the "computer simulation claim" got started mainly because of the lead. When this article became featured, the lead included the following statement "The complex straight-line maneuvers, performed exclusively to traditional marches, are so complicated and precise that computer programs say they cannot be performed."[1] This was then used in the Main Page blurb, where there is not enough of the article to keep this claim in context.

That is a difficult statement for some people to swallow. This problem was exacerbated by the decision to include no references in the lead, which meant people would have to work to verify the information. If they took the time to look at the references, they find (a) one of the sources is not convenient for them because it is not on-line. (b) another one doesn't say this word-for-word.

I believe the solution is for the body of this article to use a word-for-word quote attributed to an on-line source. I think we should also take it out of the lead. We don't need this in the lead and it causes too much trouble there because it is too hard to paraphrase this without getting into trouble. If we had done this in the first place, I doubt we would have ever had this disagreement. Johntex\^talk 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment and proposed solution. I'm anxious to hear other's reactions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. -- Upholder 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement should not be in the lead. I also agree with using the quote provided it has not been written or published by an A&M employee, student or affiliate. The references used thus far do not meet these criteria.Thedukeofno 17:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an unreasonably high bar that is not required to satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. This is the crux of the issue and the reason that I believe mediation and/or arbitration will be needed to move the article forward. -- Upholder 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking that we eliminate all information from anyone even remotely affiliated with A&M is bordering on the ridiculous. By that standard, no one who lives in the state of Texas should be allowed to be quoted on a claim about Texas; or anyone living in the US would not be a reliable source for an article about George Bush. Please see the independent people at the Village Pump's opinion -- it's okay to use these sources. Karanacs 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your inflated analogies. As Arzel pointed out above:

It doesn't matter who published the book, it matters who wrote the book. Dr. Powell wrote the book, while president of the Aggies Band Association, and while he was an employee of Texas A&M. Dr. Powell also contributed to the Batt. Dr. Powell was also directed to create promotional video for the Aggies marching band through the Former Student Association (From the board of regents meetings 1995). There seem to be two different worded versions of the title, so it is not clear if they are one in the same, but I would be extremely suprised if they were not also closely related. The Former Student Association, has as one of its core priniciples to "Promote the interests and welfare of Texas A&M University.

All this does not a neutral, independent source make. Thedukeofno 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• To, Thedukeofno, I think you are being unreasonble in saying "...provided it has not been written or published by an A&M employee, student or affiliate." The Battalion source complies with WP:V and WP:RS. It is a reputable source for this claim. We can state directly in the text who is making the claim. If any other reader feels as you do, then they are welcome to take the source into consideration as they read the statement. It would look like this:

According to an article in The Battalion, "some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that some drill-charting software says that the drills are impossible because they require multiple people to be in the same place at the same time."[2]

Johntex\^talk 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John, WP:SPS states that self-published sources are to be used "with caution". They can't be treated (necessarily) as independent sources. Thedukeofno 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And you are misinterpreting what that means.

1. Placing the name of the publication directly into the text IS treating the source with caution. The reader can evaluate the source without even having to check a footnote.
2. It is not a "self published" source in any case. The band is not in control of the newspaper. To be a "self published source", it would have to be published directly by the band.

Johntex\^talk 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that no bandmembers write for the Batt? Otherwise, we'll just have to disagree. Thedukeofno 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

1. It is irrelevant whether band members write for The Battalion or not. They are still 2 different institutions. Something published by one is not "self published" by the other.
2. It is my obligation to "verify" whether any band members work for the paper. If you are suggesting that band members work for the paper, then YOU are the one who needs to "verify" that. You can't just make wild suggestions and then expect other people to prove you wrong. Either put some proof behind your allegations, or don't make them.
3. As to "disagree", this is not really a matter of opinion here, it is a matter of you being mistaken about policy.

Johntex\^talk 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to say that the University newspaper and the University band are not part of the institution known as A&M. ThreeE 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A statement is not disingenuous when it happens to be true. The Battalion has their own editorial board. They are not under the control of the band. Any assertion that they are the same organization is ludicrous. Johntex\^talk 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to be on the batt's staff, you must be enrolled at a&m. In order to be in the band you must be enrolled in a&m. The batt's offices are in the on campus student center. Tell me again why this isn't a linkage? ThreeE 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people who work for the Houston Chronicle live in Houston, Texas. That proves nothing. The Battalion and the band are separate organizations. You can make all the speculations you want about whether they share any members, but the paper is not under the control of the band organizationally, that is a simple and obvious fact. Johntex\^talk 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I probably won't change Thedukeofno's mind he he probably won't change mine. Upholder and BQZip01 support this approach. Let's see what others say. Johntex\^talk 20:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment for Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

There is a disagreement over the appropriateness of the following statements within the article Fightin' Texas Aggie Band.

In the lead, "The band's complex straight-line marching maneuvers are performed exclusively to traditional marches. As of 2005, some of these maneuvers could not be simulated by commercially available computer marching drill programs.[1][6][7]"

In the body of the article, "According to an article in The Battalion, "some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that some drill-charting software says that the drills are impossible because they require multiple people to be in the same place at the same time."[6] This is also discussed in a video by The Association of Former Students of Texas A&M University.[7]"

The dispute centers on both the wording and the reliability of the sources. The sources are a) an article in The Battalion, which is the Texas A&M student newspaper, b) a book published by the Texas A&M University Press and written by a former director of the Aggie Band Association (an alumni association for former band members, I believe), and c) a video published by the Texas A&M Association of Former Students. Although The Battalion and the University Press exercise their own editorial control, they do receive some funds from Texas A&M University, so we cannot agree on whether the sources are appropriate for these statements or if they are too biased. Karanacs 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

strikethrough and boldface done for clarification by — BQZip01 — ^talk

Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, my comment is that the text in the body of the article is perfect as is. I am OK with the mention in the lead, but my slight preference is to pull it out of the lead. Johntex\^talk 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is not the only POV issue in the article. See above. ThreeE 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

concur with ThreeE...say it isn't so...but if this issue is resolved, it solves some other problems too (not all...but some) — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Battalion only receives funding as a student organization. It is a set amount that ALL student organizations get and is pooled from funds received during student enrollment (specifically a charge to ALL students for the "student activity fund), not the general operating budget of the University...no, ThreeE, I can't prove that right now, but, if you need it, I can see what I can find. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be completely rewritten to focus on the development of the "Criss-Cross" in 1947. It is much more interesting, and impressive to know that he developed it entirely by hand. Plus we can avoid the controversal claim regarding computer simulation. It would also allow a partial insertion into the lead stating how they are know for their famous "Criss-Cross" march without making contridictory statements. Arzel 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I grew up in Texas and I have watched the Aggie band perform at least a dozen times. I had never even heard of Adams or the term "criss-cross maneuver" until I read this article. The computer simulation claim, on the other hand, I have heard many times. Johntex\^talk 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• For purposes of clarification (no, ThreeE, I can't back this up with a citation, but it lends some clarity to the discussion), the criss cross involves the band splitting into two halves, marching down the field near the sidelines of the field, performing a wheel turn (the marchers on the inside of the turn shorten their steps while those on the outside lengthen their steps; commonly used by most bands when turning corners in a parade, and then doing a minstrel (or menstrual depending on your preferred usage) through the center of the field (both halves pass through each other at a 90 degree angle to each other and 45 degrees from the sidelines). They then perform another wheel turn as they approach the opposite sideline and re-form into the block band. The variation Johntex is probably used to seeing is the four-way cross through. This is essentially the same concept except every other file is marching in the opposite direction (they come from all 4 corners of the field instead of just 2). Additionally, the 4-way includes a drum major standing just off of the 50 yard line throughout the maneuver. Video of the four-way cross through can be found here. A video of the criss cross and many variations can be found here — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks BQ, that helps clear things up some. What you are describing as the "four-way cross through" does sound like something I am used to seeing.

I'm still having trouble with what I take to be Arzel's suggestion that we focus on the fact that the band is "known for" this or any other "famous" maneuver. I think the band is "known for" its whole style of marching: the 6-5 step, the music selections, the crossing between each others feet, the iconic announcement "Now forming at the North end of Kyle field...", for being part of the corps and all the strange/marvelous traditions that entails, the fact that opposing fans make fun of them for "only marching in straight lines", etc. And yes, I think they are known for making this claim about computer simulation. That resonates more for me than any particular marching maneuver. Johntex\^talk 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, we have been over this sooo many times. No one has ever had a problem with the article mentioning the claims of the band -- as long as they are clearly presented as such. The problem is, that when this article was a featured article, it presented the band's claims as facts. I believe it said something like it was impossible to simulate what the band does. Unfortunately, it still does present the claims as facts -- and backs them up with self-referencing citations. ThreeE 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in these are from band sources and therefore they are not self referenced...[forcefully pulls hands away from keyboard]...your points are ABSOLUTELY crystal clear. That is what this RfC is for. You do not need to type them at every possible instance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We should present some lines from the sources in question as claims, but we can also present others as facts. All of the sources provide verifiable information, and most of us are in agreement that they're reliable. But that doesn't mean they're neutral. So the solution is a common-sense, line-by-line look at all of the citations in the article.

The source says the Aggie Band was founded in 1894. What is there to dispute in regard to that? The date comes from a verifiable source, and common sense should tell us to let it be. But the source also says that some maneuvers can't be simulated by some drill-charting software. Yeah, that's verifiable. But common sense tells us that it's a bit of a specious claim, as qualifiers like the word "some" make the line a bit vague and lacking in meaning.

What do we do here? It's clearly a notable claim in this context -- referenced three times (again, I'm not saying they were neutrally referenced) -- so let's keep it, but also with a more obvious qualification of that claim, per Johntex. I think it's obvious to pretty much any reader that the claim isn't entirely accurate, so let's just present it as a notable claim. We keep it as something worth mentioning, per BQZip01, but we also qualify it as just a claim, per ThreeE. -- RG² 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with phrasing is that "known for" presents its own problems. Who knows it? not everyone. The assertion falls under weasel words and I don't think it can be backed up. Johntex, you know it and I know it, but that doesn't make it "known" to everyone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, BQ, I somewhat agree with you. I think there are some cases where common sense allows such a sentence structure. I this case it really isn't needed here because we can use an exact quote that says what we want to say. I hope anyone new to the article will look up above to the section titled How did this get started and what does it imply going forward?. We have several people in agreement there and I think that wording is going to be the best consensus we can reach. Johntex\^talk 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further information

I spoke to Jean Stanley today regarding the drills. Apparently, no available marching software can duplicate the maneuvers of the Aggie Band. They now are all completely drawn by hand. I realize this is original research, BUT it does prove (not in Wikipedia, but by interviewing standards) the basic assertion that no marching software available at of 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC) works for the maneuvers of the Aggie Band. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Jean Stanley? Assuming this is someone of authority in the band, this would make the statement simply start with "According to Jean Stanley." Which, by the way, I'm fine with -- or, "According to the band," would be fine too. ThreeE 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean is the secretary/event coordinator for the band. Again, the problem is that no usable source states that the band makes that claim. How about "The Battalion" or the author of the article in the Batt? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the Battalion quote someone? ThreeE 04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No they don't (we've gone over this). They don't HAVE to quote someone. They (the author and the newspaper) made the claim. Why is it that you are willing to accept my word despite original research, but aren't willing to accept the Battalion's? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Accusations

You made accusations/assertions about me and the article that are false/misleading; I responded accordingly. Your post asking me to keep comments relative to content...a pot and kettle come to mind. I never said anything about you, but only about your posts and trends within those posts. The only thing I have done was to follow the recommended procedures in Wikipedia in the dispute resolution process. If you view that as complaining to a "parent" over and over, then I guess it is one more disagreement we have regarding Wikipedia policy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I said the article's content was self-referenced. It perpetuates urban myths about the band. I welcome third-party evidence that this is not the case. ThreeE 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - if neither BQ nor ThreeE object, I am going to archive this sub-section. I don't think this section gets us anywhere. Johntex\^talk 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good by me — BQZip01 — ^talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New Article / Articles Needed

• I have been reading the notes, and it seems like perhaps this article should be more than one article. One article - this one - should be about the physical band itself - its members - notable members or conductors - its instruments any notability / exceptions about instruments - its years. One article should be devoted to marches - the activities of the marching band /( bands in general )- notability of marches notability of marches as unique to bands - types of marches / drills - songs of marches - what rhythm, beat, cadence is needed for what type of drill / march - length of marches - style of movements . From the sounds of the article and the talk page - there is more than enough information just about the action of marching and drills for a whole article. Perhaps yet another article could be about University Team spirit and inter-university sport and inter-university activities. Perhaps then this article can be a feature article in its own right, and a new article exploring the intricacies of marching / stepping / turning etc can develop into a feature article of its own, now that it has a wonderful start on this talk page with folks exploring the conceptual notion whether drills can fully be done via computer or if the parameters of the march are not fully explored by existing computer programs. Perhaps even yet still, there is a market out there for a computer programmer to fine tune existing computer programs for university bands, and their marches, for a fresh enterpreneur. I am not sure if this also would make yet another wiki article to create - it is also a unique concept for exploration, with information here as well. I am not sure what is available on the market and how wikipedia presents software - I know there are various games online already. There are so many aspects discussed here on one tiny article - let them all have their own proper wiki space, instead of just here... SriMesh | talk 01:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree immensely. The history of the band and how it got to where it is today is crucial to understanding the band and its illustrious past. While parts of this CAN be passed along to other articles, some of it IS covered in Marching Bands, Texas A&M University, and Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The areas and history are very important, but elaboration could be extended... my aim was more like the wording of this peer review checker...

*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]

SriMesh | talk 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on computer simulation statement

Sometimes it happens that we don't reach perfect agreement on something. Unfortuantely, I think that will be the case here with regards to exactly how to treat the computer simulation aspect of the article. One suggestion appears above in the section titeld How did this get started and what does it imply going forward?.

In that section, Johntex, BQZip01, and Upholder all agreed to use in the body of the article a direct quote from The Battalion and attribute it to The Battalion. Karanacs seems to be OK with it as well. Supports the quote here. That same section discusses removing it from the lead of the article. Thedukeofno and ThreeE objected to the quote from The Battalion, but no counter-proposal has gained much support. I think this 5-2 opinion is the best consensus we are likely to reach. Sometimes we can't please everyone. That is unfortunate but true.

I think this is the best consensus that is likely to appear. Therefore, I believe we should call this consensus and consider the matter closed for now. I am including The Battalion quote in the body of the article and removing mention of computer simulations from the lead of the article. This is a wiki, so we can always change it again later IF there is new information or some other reason foudn to change it.

Furthermore, there does not seem to be widespread support here for continuing to keep the "neutrality tag" on the article. The computer simulation part seems to have been the major objection, but not the only objection. For instance, there are issues raised about the Rice Marching Owl Band story. However, there has been no discussion of these sections for quite some time. In fact, there has been no discussion of any perceived problems for at least 3 days.

Therefore, I am removing the "neutrality" tag from the article. Whatever the objections remaining, they can and should continue to be discussed here. I am going to wait a couple of days and then I will archive sections above that have received no recent comment. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with changes...even though it isn't ideal. I think it's the best we can do under this situation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has made progress, but the computer simulation issue was not the only POV issue. Accordingly, I have added POV section tags to the remaining areas. Please, do not delete without discussion here. Your deletion of the overall POV tag was a bit unilateral. ThreeE 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what do you want to be done with those sections? 5-2 is not unilateral. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the current concensus regarding the wording for the computer simulation. Arzel 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't 5-2, there has been at least 4 in support of the tag. There is talk on this page regard the two marked paragraphs. I will repost it here if you like... ThreeE 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to actually make progress on this issue, instead of tagging the entire article, please tag individual sections. After you have tagged individual sections, please make an entry here on the talk page that explains in detail specifically the issue(s) you have with each section. Suggested changes would also be preferred. Tagging the entire article and not being constructive about what exactly needs to be changed in your opinion is simply not helpful. I am thus removing the tag at the top of the article. I see you have just added section tags.. please now follow thru and comment in detail about those sections. -- Upholder 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

More later, but in brief: 1) the Trinity Band quote and 2) the Arkansas band quote. All covered above, and I will provide more later if necessary when I have more time. Both are unattributed, unbalanced, and in the case of Trinity quote, dubious as it isn't clear that Trinity ever played a&m according to people from Trinity. Finally, all of this was outlined when the full POV tag was put on the page, so there hasn't been any lack of documentation on the talk page. It is the removal of the POV tag that wasn't documented. I'm ok with that removal, but don't lay that requirement on twice for unresolved issues. ThreeE 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They've played 21 times according to Texas A&M records.[3] The onus is on you to describe in detail the problems because we cannot take any corrective actions without having a clear picture of your objections to the article. If you cannot or will not be detailed, the tags cannot remain. -- Upholder 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Again, both are attributed (to the book and those interviewed in it). The Arkansas band quote WAS addressed. It was an eyewitness's statement. What do you want exactly? Additionally, you already agreed with the quote about the Trinity band being fine, so bringing it up now seems a bit disingenuous. As for A&M and Trinity, they played 21 games from 1902 to 1961, not zero as you alleged. Where did you get the idea that A&M and Trinity never played? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I didn't say they didn't play. Look at Talk:Trinity University (Texas). The information you have linked is new, and takes care of that issue. The quote is still unattributed. It makes a fairly negative claim about another band director (un-named) and cites a self-referencing source. I know, you don't think it is self-referencing, but many others do. ThreeE 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"many others" being User:Thedukeofno.. I don't see anyone else disputing that the source in question qualifies under WP:RS. -- Upholder 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

from WP:Attribution:

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident and the White House's official text of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."

With no specialist knowledge, anyone can read the book and verify that this claim was indeed made. Additionally, i's not like you need a science/math degree to understand it.

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible."

These are quoted and attributed to the book in question. You have stated they are nothing but myths, but the onus is upon you to prove how so.

"A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."

If you are claiming the book is questionable, it can still be included because it is about the Aggie Band.

"A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable."

By this definition, the book is NOT self-published.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Brevity. The claim is presented as a fact. So let's verify the fact -- but we can't! We don't even know who made the quote. An eyewitness would be fine as you suggest. So who is the eyewitness? Secondary sources are fine as you suggest. So who is the secondary source? The onus is not on me to disprove the fact, the onus is on you to prove the fact -- or clearly present it as a claim. It is not my job to disprove, it is your job to prove. If the veracity of the claim is in doubt -- especially an exceptional claim -- it should be left out of the article. Finally, Texas A&M Press. Texas A&M Band. ThreeE 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1 is a secondary source and it Verifies the claim. Since the source is acceptable by wikipedia standards, that is all that is required to "prove" the claim unless you have Reliable Sources that show otherwise. This ground has been covered in excruciating detail over the last two and a half weeks. -- Upholder 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Upholder. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Upholder and BQZip01 on the major point here. One reputable source is generally sufficient to prove a fact unless there is a separate reputable source that disputes that claim. Our policy is Wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth. We ascribe statements to specific published sources. The reader can then go read those sources and take issue with them if they so choose. Johntex\^talk 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An simple question for you John: what exactly does reference 1 verify? ThreeE 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It contains the cited quote/information. That simple. Of course, JT is perfectly welcome to give his own response. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not. A self-referenced source, without the courage to actually attribute the ridiculous quote to an identifiable person, added by a member of the subject organization, says that the band does everything perfectly, without any balancing POV. I'm forced to agree with Djgranados' assessment below. ThreeE 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article, and bqzips responses in particular throughout discussions have helped show me everything that is wrong with wikipedia. For that, I thank you. Djgranados 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, this is not everything: Criticism of Wikipedia Wikipedia isn't perfect. But what is? the book The Long Tail by Chris Anderson does point out that wikipedia still has many advantages over standard published media. It is broader than most encyclopedia, and generally more current. there is a lot of **** on wikipedia, but there is also a lot of good. wikipedia is a good way to explore subjects. it is an entry way, great for exploration. Oldag07 04:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been a couple of weeks since I commented, but I have to agree with Three regarding the Trinity allegation. Reference 1, and I have pointed out earlier, was authored by a Texas A&M employee who also happened to be the president of the Aggies Band Association. The quote included is somewhat deragatory towards Trinity, and is from a source within Texas A&M, which to me screams opinion of Texas A&M and not specifically a fact. Those two sentences should be removed as they imply a fact which is not attributed to a thrid party source, ie. how do we know that the band "gave up"? We only know that according to Texas A&M they gave up. Arzel 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Update, should have read down further. Third party source confirms and should be used instead. Arzel 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

San Antonio Light Citation

BQ has revealed that reference #1 says this about the Trinity Band incident:

"According to an article in the San Antonio Light of September 17, 1960, the Aggie Band's reputation reached the point in 1960 that at least one band gave up without a fight. When the Texas Aggie football team went to San Antonio to play the Trinity Tigers, the Trinity band decided to sit that one out and let the Aggie Band have the whole halftime. This time, the football team won, too. It was the football team's only win of the year."

So why don't you just cite the San Antonio Light?!? I'd be perfectly ok with that! ThreeE 02:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Update, agree with ThreeE. Arzel 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This of course assumes you can confirm that the San Antonio Light actually did say this -- and if you can't then the statement definitely needs to be removed since it is the true source. ThreeE 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The current citation is still valid, I have replaced it in the article. If you want to add an additional citation, by all means, feel free to do so. -- Upholder 06:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> This is REALLY getting tiring. I cannot source the San Antonio Light because I don't have it. The phrase and citation is fine and is IAW WP policy/guidelines. That you personally don't like the source, does not mean it is "unsourced". Even if it WERE a self-published source, it doesn't mean it can't be included and it certainly doesn't mean it is "unsourced." I do not need to confirm each and every aspect of a well-researched book. Those are your personal standards, not Wikipedia's. Furthermore, what you suggest for a "correction" is in direct opposition to what Wikipedia requires IAW WP:CITE: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite." — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus your comments on the content -- not on me. We disagree on the self-referencing nature of the reference. My opinion is neither more nor less important than yours. I (and others) don't believe your rationale is any more in line with WP:V (esp. WP:V#Sources), WP:CITE, or any other WP policy than mine -- so just stop with the wikilawyering. If you don't have the San Antonio Light citation, then you are left with reference 1, which is, in my opinion and others, not verifiable with a third party reference. It should therefore be removed. ThreeE 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why I requested mediation and why I was opposed to removing any text in the first place. Since we cannot seem to come to an agreement here, would mediation be acceptable? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus your comments on what you actually know, not what you speculate (i.e. "this stuff is made up"). Quoting policy and guidelines that you want to ignore is far from wikilawyering. What you want done is explicitly stated as something that can't be done; all I am trying to show is that I cannot do what you want IAW WP policy & guidelines. Three admins and five other users have said that your standards for inclusion are wrong IAW WP:V and WP:RS. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'Light' can't be cited because it went out of business in 1993 and didn't maintain online archives, as far as I know. Check 'History' in San Antonio Express-News. --Pbmax 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation

My deletion of the word intimidation with regard to the Trinity Band has been reverted multiple times now. This word is not in the self-referenced or original source and it is highly POV. All the "source" says is that the band didn't play -- we have no indication whatsoever that the band was intimidated. ThreeE 14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a full copy of reference 1? How can you assert that the source does not make that same basic claim if all you have seen is the paragraph that BQZip sent you? -- Upholder 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All true. If BQ says that reference 1 uses the term "intimidated" in reference to the Trinity Band then I will revert my edit personally (although it is still self-referenced). I believe he has stated that it doesn't say that. ThreeE 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I stated that "intimidated" was not explicitly stated, yes. However, the paragraph in which it is contained is talking about the effects that the Aggie Band had on other bands. One director "dreads" performing with the Aggie Band. Another director stated, "I'm glad that it was [their] musicians who were playing against you and not [ours]." The band was, and is, intimidating in its own regard. It is not a quote and therefore does not need to be the exact same words, but its source is cited, whether stated explicitly or implicitly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"The band was so ______," what word would you choose? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Trinity Band didn't play. Perhaps they were intimidated. Perhaps they were sick. Perhaps they enjoyed watching the aggies. The only thing we know for sure is that they didn't play. Why not just say that? ThreeE 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with self-referencing. Even if you accept reference 1 as providing verifiability, you are still left with the fact that it doesn't say the band was "intimidated." ThreeE 17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Would a complete quote suffice? "[T]he Aggie Band's reputation had reached the point in 1960 that at least one band gave up without a fight." — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As for why not just say they didn't play, it doesn't show WHY they didn't play. They "gave up" which implies acceptance of defeat. I would be happy with another word choice if you have one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)`

Although I don't see an issue with using the description "intimidating," I also don't think the article loses anything by removing the reference. With the quote saying "gave up without a fight," I think the average reader can infer that the Aggie band was intimidating. Karanacs 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reverts, again... Even the self-referenced source, edited by the band director, added to this article by a band member, by admission by that same editor, does not say "intimidated" in any way. I'm sorry, but this one is straight-forward... ThreeE 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All of you need to settle down. This article is fine -- except for obvious things like this. Ags need to lighten up, Three needs to calm down too. 70.242.25.63 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Even the self-referenced source (you have been told by a third party, three admins, and a majority of the editors of this article that it isn't self-referenced), edited by the band director (where do you get the idea that a band director edited this?), added to this article by a band member (so, if Wordbuilder adds it, it's fine? But if I add it it can't be trusted? That flies in the face of WP:AGF), by admission by that same editor, does not say "intimidated" in any way (I never made any such assertion. I said it didn't say it explicitly, but that is not a requirement for paraphrasing. I also asked for a different adjective, but you have, again, not offered any suggestion other than 'well, I can't easily verify it, so it has to go.')." — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be screwing with my edits if you want my supprot. 70.242.25.63 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a step back, everyone. The current version of the article, with the quote of "gave up without a fight" seems to me to deliver the message that the band was intimidated. Because it seems like such an obvious inference, is it really necessary to include the text "intimidating" in the article? That would stop the revert war we appear to be having right now and would still, in my opinion, make it perfectly clear that the band was formidable. BQ and Wordbuilder, do you have any objections to the state of the sentence as is beyond the fact that you feel there is nothing wrong in using the word? Karanacs 02:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the article present the quote as the "reference" presents it? How do bands "fight" anyway? What does it mean to "give up?" ThreeE 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"fight" need not be taken literally; it can mean anything from "a brawl" to "an effort", but in the given context, I think it means they didn't put forth any effort. "give up" means they actively chose not to perform. This kind of nitpicking is well beyond the scope of WP:V. As Karanacs suggested, would "formidable" be acceptable? This would take the onus off of the school and simply make a statement about the band. Please respond to the resolution section below. Are you saying that this sentence would be fine it if were just quoted directly? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"In 1960, 'one band gave up without a fight'" Is a much better sentence. The quote preceding this sentence gives context, as does the sentence after. Sounds much more encyclopedic.Djgranados 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

How about this? We both request arbitration as to whether or not the source self-referenced. If it is, then I will personally delete anything that is contentious. If it is acceptable, then you agree to stop calling it self-referenced and any assorted requests. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. How long will this go on? It has been more than obvious for quite awhile now that not everyone is going to be happy with the article. How do we get to the point where there is a final decision and the article and talk page aren't in constant turmoil. →Wordbuilder 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I intend to send this to an RfA as we are getting nowhere: The RfC produced no usable feedback, the third party opinion is being ignored, inputs by three admins/the majority of editors are also being ignored, and a request for mediation was denied. Nothing short of a binding directive seems to be effective here. Seeing as I am in the process of moving, this RfA may not start until sometime next week. Feedback on the upcoming RfA appreciated.

ThreeE, I will NOT directly bring up our little spat as I feel we have both learned from it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image renamed

The image at right has been renamed and is now available for use. Johntex\^talk 15:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Who vs. which

"who" is perfectly acceptable. Please show me one source that says otherwise. What do they say about assigning gender ("she") to an animal? Character traits? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A mascot uses which. See also [4].

"She" is fine, although I think "which" flows better. ThreeE 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Who" flows much better than "which", since it is the more accurate term. From your source: "Who refers to people. That and which refer to groups or things." Reveille does not fit in any of those descriptions (she is not an object or a group) and "who" is perfectly appropriate and specifically mentioned in my source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A mascot is a thing. American Heritage Dictionary:

1. What or which person or persons: Who left?
2. Used as a relative pronoun to introduce a clause when the antecedent is a person or persons or one to whom personality is attributed: the visitor who came yesterday; our child, who is gifted; informed sources who denied the story.
3. The person or persons that; whoever: Who believes that will believe anything.

Note: person.

ThreeE 15:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mascots are personifications. IMHO, 'who' is fine and this is well beyond nit-picking. -- Upholder 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

concur, see RfA notice above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, a "mascot" certainly is a "thing", but by the same definition, so is a "person". This is quickly becoming disruptive editing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Changing "who" to "which!" Enormously disruptive! Perhaps you want to have me banned? ThreeE 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following this "discussion" for the past month has seen how disruptive your edits have become. This last one, to me, is the straw that broke the camel's back. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

bqzips constant refusal to allow editing of the article, inabilityto assume good faith , wp:3rr violations, and edit war fanaticism are far more disruptive. Djgranados 03:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks have no place in wikipedia. My comments focused strictly on his edits, not his character. As for your example, you creatively took it WAY out of context and did not bother to read the entire discussion. I have assumed good faith. I simply disagree with this particular user (and a few others I suppose). I have never not allowed editing of the article and have done my best to follow the dispute resolution process; ThreeE apparently views this as "going from parent to parent". My block for 3RR was by a new admin (his first block) and no warning was given, contrary to the stated guidelines, and I was intending to stop vandalism to said page, a specifically stated exception. By the time it was remedied by another admin, the block was nearly expired. I have never been blocked before or since. The viewpoints held by some on this page run contrary to Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and (some) common sense. I have offered compromises that were shot down by ThreeE, the majority of editors agree with me in general as do three admins and a neutrally requested third party (I view that as a consensus, though not unanimous). If you have a better way to settle this dispute, I have requested such input in the past, but with no results. I am all ears. A dispute over content within the guidelines of Wikipedia is not an edit war. Calling me a fanatic is WAY over the line and I take that as a personal attack. Please back off the attacks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable as is. How many dictionary references do you want? Is three enough?

definition 3

definition 4

definition 4 — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. I reworded the sentence to remove the need for who/what/which/that. On to the next argument.... Karanacs 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I was going to do the same, but couldn't come up with a good way to word it. Arzel 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Good rewrite! (comment also noted on K's talk page). — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag

1. "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." is not WP policy or a guideline
2. This section has two additional sources not just the one, so it isn't "Alone"

— BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this section has only a single source that is from the university. 216.85.6.131 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The University exercises no control over Mr. Powell. While he is a former Regent (supervisory to the President of the University) and Aggie Band member, he is not under any control of the University as a private citizen. The Battalion has an independent staff and reviewing board (the University exercises no editorial control). This has been discussed before in Archives 3 and 4. Hope this helps. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

Does anyone have a copy of the book the section Adams era is sourced from? I think we need to make sure there are no copyright violations. Dreadstar † 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, but I am in the process of moving and it may take a few days (...I really hope it doesn't stretch into weeks). I was the one who added the information, is there anything I can answer about it? I have made a point to quote anything taken directly from the book (which is why there are so many [1]s in these paragraphs. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how much of the section (and the aritcle as a whole) is copied from the book? Copyright has Fair Use limitations that we must be careful not to violate. Dreadstar † 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are approximately 42 instances of the citation references, that seems like a very large amount of content if it's all copied from the book. Dreadstar † 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference between "copy[ing] from the book" and citing information from the book. In several spots in the article, text is quoted from the book, and I have a hard time believing that the author would have gone to that much trouble if he had actually "copied" various paragraphs from the book. From Wikipedia's Copyright policy "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference." As long as the article clearly cites the book when it is used, it should not violate any copyrights. Karanacs 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You can get the book via interlibrary loan. Karanacs 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My question for now is to anyone who currently has the book - how much exactly is copied directly from it - or is it just being appropriately cited? My question is based on Fair Use of copyrighted material:

"How much of the original work are you copying? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair."

Dreadstar † 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm talking about WP:FU#Acceptable use of text, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.". Dreadstar † 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with Karanacs's assessment. As for your concerns, note that the section you quoted specifically states "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The only quotes I used were specifically used to illustrate the feelings of the subject of the sentence or to provide context/background into the discussion. If there is somethign that you feel should be specifically reworded/trimmed, I'd certainly love to discuss. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that the only content copied directly from the book is formatted as direct quotes, between quotation marks? Dreadstar † 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Affirmative. If you have a specific section you feel needs additional scrutiny, I would be happy to copy a paragraph or so to show where it came from. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that makes me feel much better about potential copyvio issues...I honestly had no idea how much of the article was directly copied. I even went to the extent of ordering a copy of the book myself..;) So I guess the only concerns would be around WP:UNDUE and WP:CITE. Naturally, the quotations and the content are adequately represented by reference links and I see you addressed the issue of direct attributions in the FA for the article (e.g. "According to the Fightin' Aggie Book, other bands have run away in fear.<reference>" versus "Other bands have run away in fear.<reference>". Contentious claims should be directly attributed as in the first example, but the general content rephrased shouldn't present attribution issues.

As far as the amount of the article that is based on the one book...we want to be careful that the article isn't just a copy or review of the book itself - that may actually tread into copyvio territory again, and we need to make sure other viewpoints are presented as well, per WP:NPOV. Those are less serious than blatant copyvios, that's for sure... Thanks for the info! Dreadstar † 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent adds

A user has added a quote from the Utah Chronicle. While valid criticisms are certainly welcome, I believe this statement was taken from a humorous opinion piece and was not meant to be taken literally. While balance is certainly appropriate in Wikipedia, these kinds of additions seem to be an attempt to unjustly smear the Aggie Band by calling them names (I'm sure I could find, a few pages that call the band "dumb", "stupid", "arrogant", "elitist", "Nazis", "sheep fuckers", etc, but I don't think name-calling is appropriate here). I am not reverting these changes at this time so as to let everyone give their two cents, but I am opposed to keeping this text addition. Moreover, I'm not sure its placement is appropriate within the article. Perhaps a "Criticisms" section if there were some sort of controversy? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly can't stand to have any kind of dissenting opinion about the band here. News flash: when non-aggies see the band and the a&m "traditions", they do see them as "odd" and a bit cultish. ThreeE 12:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up article from the same source confirms that the original was a parody. Nice try though, ThreeE. BlueAg09 (Talk) 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it being a parody matter (which I don't believe was stated in the original article)? So change the statement to "parodied" instead of "panned" rather than simply delete it. ThreeE 18:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The placement of the quote really didn't make sense. I think the article could use a section on criticism of the band or the marching style (as I think Johntex suggested weeks ago), if you (ThreeE) are interested in creating one. Please be careful, however, to properly format your citations. That's a pet peeve of mine, and on an FA like this one we need to be careful to keep to the MOS on citations. I've fixed this one for now. Karanacs 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Utah Chronicle article only states that "the school marching band looked uncannily like the Third Reich". It doesn't explicitly state that the band's marching style was also similar to that of the Third Reich's. Therefore, I don't think this statement would fit under the "Marching" section, but it would under a criticism section. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this isn't parody (making fun of something by doing something similar but in a different way: i.e. Hot Shots and Top Gun), it is hyperbole. Since it is hyperbole and was a humorous piece designed to invoke laughter, I don't think its inclusion is appropriate in this article period, though its inclusion could be possible in some future version of this article with a "criticism" section. To reiterate, name-calling by fans of any school can be found across the web/popular culture, but that doesn't mean they should all be included here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is more like panning. I disagree in it being a purely humorous piece -- or in it being hyperbole. The article describes how a typical person from Utah reacted to the "cult-like" activities of the school and the band. I also don't think it was name calling, as the comments were based on observations. ThreeE 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Name calling can still be based on observations (the most humorous comments often are based on painstaking observation). The author himself claims the article was a parody, which, by definition, is a humorous piece...unless you are confirming that a ritual sacrifice took place at Yell Practice or that his desk clerk at his hotel was actually "Lucifer". There is no way anyone should think this a "typical reaction" of any kind. Giving it that sort of credibility...well, guys...you make the call. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's very much over the top and IMHO not appropriate for the article. -- Upholder 04:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"News flash: when non-aggies see the band and the a&m "traditions", they do see them as "odd" and a bit cultish" - Please find a similar statement in one of the articles from the Google News search below. BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 216.201.148.2 added the sentence back. Could 216.85.6.131 be the same person who added this? I laughed when the latter IP edited the Hainan Island incident article. If you look at BQ's recent contributions, BQ has also contributed to that article. Coincidence? I wonder what ThreeE has to say about this. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I just noticed both ThreeE and 216.85.6.131 have been blocked based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ThreeE. The same sentence is being added to the article, including the same reference format. (See [5] and [6]) BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...anyone else want some experience with the sockpuppet reporting process? Please add 216.201.148.2 at your leisure. What are the odds an IP edits 2 articles I edited and nothing else (1 in 2,000,000+ times 1 in 2,000,000+ somewhere in the one in four trillion range?) — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More sources

I did a Google News search for "Aggie Band" and got 791 articles. Perhaps some of these articles could be useful? BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of Dallas Morning News articles from the 80's covering the controversy about admitting women into the band. The first females became members in 1985. We could cover this in a controversy section. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Style

I deleted the word "style." ThreeE 05:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if you delete the word, it still wouldn't be appropriate under the "marching" section. Create a controversy section with the sentence we have now and I'll be fine with that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'd be fine with it, but it certainly doesn't fall here. A humorous comparison that is taken out of context violates WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, you are the sole editor who wishes to include this text, violating WP:CONSENSUS — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy and there is a very limited number of editors here. In addition, this is not undue weight. Is there any other non-booster phrase in the article at all? Having said that, I'd be fine with it moving into a different section of the article. ThreeE 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Satire, parody, and hyperbole don't add anything useful to the article. I've again deleted the information from that citation. -- Upholder 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE - That's why I'm asking you to help me comb through those 791 articles above so that we can add something negative. I started collecting articles here, so add your findings there. BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Individuals

Pictures of specific individuals like the 2007-2008 drum major, the freshman guarding the drums, and the senior cadet/author make this article look like an ego page. ThreeE 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, ThreeE. Let the fun begin...again! The article does go into detail about the band uniform, so it makes sense to include a picture of the uniform to help those (like me) who can't visualize well. Would you have less of an objection of the picture wasn't of our BQ (sorry, Aggie joke, they are all BQs)? I think the picture of the freshman is cute - and does say a lot about the measures the band takes against other bands/potential vandals? but could be removed without harming the article. I disapprove on principle of putting images in the references section, but I think the fact tag is unwarranted. Wikipedia takes the word of the contributor that the picture they upload is what they say it is. Since the image page says exactly what the caption says, we should be okay. If you really disagree, I think the place to dispute it is on the image page, not in the article, as the image could be used on multiple pages. Karanacs 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I don't think the discussion (not dipute) should be limited to any particular page though. Verifiability does apply to images as well, and if it is just the submitter alone, it is original research -- especially as it is a picture of a person. You pick -- citation, fact tag, or removal. ThreeE 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you recommend citing a picture of a person? Karanacs 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A reference that says the person pictured is who it is claimed to be. In this case, the drum major of the band. ThreeE 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a SERIOUSLY petty thing to do and does not assume good faith. I took this picture prior step off of the OSU game this year. The person pictured here is carrying a mace (only three people in this uniform are authorized to do so), wearing a whistle (a specific exception made in The Standard), and is wearing two diamonds. If he isn't the drum major, he is doing a picture perfect imitation.

".if it is just the submitter alone, it is original research." Good lord. Everyone put your cameras up and make sure not to add pictures. [/sarcasm used to emphasize point]

If it were something defamatory or amazing, it would be one thing, but this is simply a picture of a band member and is used to illustrate what a band member looks like. It is that simple. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how we could reference other than by pointing to another picture of the same guy that is published somewhere saying specifically who he is. That doesn't seem entirely reasonable. I also think the discussion really has to take place on the image page, because the image could be used in more than one article, and if there really is a question of its verifiability the discussion needs to take place somewhere that all potential users of the image can see and participate in. I'm copying this conversation over there. Let's please continue there. Karanacs 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the discussion happening on the image page as well, but there is no reason why it can't be had here as well where the image is used (and the only place it is used). You are correct that another published picture would be fine. Imagine I dressed up as an aggie drum major (don't worry, not going to happen) and put that image on the page. How would you argue for its removal? For the record, I have no problem with the image, just the caption. ThreeE 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the image caption, but rather the relevancy of having the picture in the references section. Just in browsing the article it comes across as if someone had randomly posted a vanity pic.Djgranados 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DJ, if there is a better place for it, by all means please move it. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)