Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rice University Incident 2 Heading changes 3 NPOV tag 4 New suggestion - attribute the claim more directly to the school/band 5 "Theoretically" 6 Independent opinion 7 Bias/editor doesn't assume good faith/removal of tag 8 Who Said This? 9 Opinion on POV Tag Removal Criteria 10 Nazi Reference 10.1 Get rid of this section 11 Claims 12 Resolution of the computer simulation wording? 13 Copyright Issues 14 Rice Paragraph Concensus 15 POV Tag Removal 16 The Battalion quote 17 A fresh look 17.1 Third party/verifiability/NPOV 17.2 Phrasing 17.3 CONCLUSION 17.4 More Proof 18 Computer Simulation 19 Mediation is the next step 20 Disagreement with assumptions in "Mediation..." 21 Entire text from WP:V#Sources 22 Another compromise 23 Further compromise

[edit] Rice University Incident

"Rumors surfaced that Rice students were using whistles..." There were rumors on both sides. At Rice, I heard from a witness that an Aggie drum major dropped his whistle, retrieved it, and blew it. Unsubstantiated rumors probably should not be included in wikipedia articles. And if they are, both sides should be included. SkyDot 21:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The rumor WAS false and I made this a little more explicit (better?). The intent was not to smear Rice, but to show why drills in Houston were no longer performed with whistle commands. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rice's name shouldn't even be mentioned if they were not involved in the band's error. Rice has nothing to do with why whistles aren't used by the band anymore. ThreeE 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Question? Is Rice the only place where whistles are not used at all by the Aggie Band? If so, then it should be included; if not, we should take it out. Karanacs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying it happened at the Rice game is fine -- implicating Rice or citing unsubstantiated rumors is not. ThreeE 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If the rumor is the only reason that the whistles are not used at only this one particular school, then, as long as it is made absolutely clear that the rumor was false, it should be included. I would support a rewrite of those sentences if the current meaning is unclear. Karanacs 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this makes Rice look bad at all. To the contrary, I think it makes A&M look bad. Let's look at what this is really saying: The A&M band messed up really bad. They initially blamed Rice for the A&M mistakes but Rice was not to blame. Despite this, they still do their drills differently when in Houston. If I were to ask for any sort of improvement, I'd ask why the Aggies still persist in changing their methods when in Houston. And when we say "Houston" do we really mean Rice? What if they play UH or if they make the Big12 Championship Game when it is held in Houston?

In short, I see nothing overtly wrong with this section at all. I like the fact that it shows this band in not infallible, given that a lot of the article is complimentary.

I'd like a little more information, but that is a minor quibble. Wikipedia articles are not expected to contain every possible factoid or answer every possible question. Johntex\^talk 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know. I haven't marched anywhere (other than a parade) in Houston or at Rice. The claim stands alone as-is. "Houston" was the only information provided. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording that states that the rumors were unsubstantiated. The point (somewhere below) that leaving in the statement, "The band now performs all drills in Houston without whistle commands," implies the truth of the rumor is a good point. Let's see, ThreeE said, 'If I went to the article on George Bush and said, "Rumors said that George was into rough sex. Those rumors were found to be false, but all of the whips were taken out of the white house" would that be NPOV to you?' There is another great point (question) about whether "Houston" means Rice or all Houston events. As for removing all references, I'm against it. This incident is well known at both TAMU and Rice and is part of the folklore and culture (at least within the MOB). SkyDot 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heading changes

It is a heading that is 100% accurate: it is the actions of the band into and past the millennium. That is sounds like marketing to you seems to be completely irrelevant and violates no policy of Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It teeters on WP:AWW by being a peacock term. Personally I am somewhat nonchalant about this particular article as it is outside my field, however I think that allowing changes to the article can only improve it in the eyes of the average reader. Thankyou User A1 08:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would allow changes (see above), but I do not believe "new millenium" is a peacock term as much as it is a statement of fact/perspective In addition, they also published a CD entitled Marching Into the next Millennium. In retrospect, I think the phrase is just common enough, but certainly could be in quotes and cited. Either way, I think the wording is appropriate as-is. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice that you would allow changes, by the way. Tempshill 16:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop taking what I say out of context. The person above stated "I think that allowing changes to the article can only improve it..." I responded with I certainly allowed changes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The objection to the section heading "Into the new millenium" honestly baffles me. "Millenium" is in no way a word coined by marketers to included in brochures and on commercials. Coincidentally, as I was typing the second sentence, I heard the term "into the new millenium" on NPR's Morning Edition in a report about Ethiopia, which follows the Julian calendar. NPR is a far cry from a marketing firm. Here's the link to the story. →Wordbuilder 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong objections myself, but I do think I understand how someone could object. My thinking:

"New millennium" may not be a marketing term per se but it is a somewhat grandiose phraseology, IMO. Even if it was not invented by marketers, it does seem to have been co-opted for marketing purposes.

It is a somewhat arbitrary breakpoint. This section of the article talks about events ranging from 1994 to 2007. How far on either side of the line would "leading into the new millennium" qualifies for this section?

Perhaps an alternative would be something like "Under Toler and Rhea" or even "Recent directors". The word recent has its own issues, of course, but I have no doubt that this article will be kept current.

As I said, I don't mind the wording that much, I just wanted to help communicate what might be an issue for some readers. Johntex\^talk 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Whereas, I still have no problem with the current heading, I would agree to a change. I suppose it's a matter of "if it causes your brother to stumble". For the two you suggest, I prefer "Under Toler and Rhea". It is similar to earlier headings and doesn't include the word "current". →Wordbuilder 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Both alternatives make sense. User A1 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "Into the new millennium" is accurate as you have to be previous to this millennium to go "into" it. It was changed in the FAC process from "Toler and Rhea Years" to its current wording...which violates no WP policy or guideline. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

ThreeE, you have added a different tag to the article. Please explain here what statements in the article you feel to violate WP:NPOV. Please include specific quotations from policy to back-up your claims. Thanks. Johntex\^talk 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Start with Wikipedia:Verifiability on the impossibility of computer simulation described in the article as: "Some of these close-quarters drills are so complex and precise that they cannot be reproduced by computer programs that design marching shows; theoretically, they require two people to be in the same place at once." The source should be third-party source unassociated with the band or school. And be sure to wait for consensus on the talk page to the same degree as has been unilaterally levied by the primary author on changes to date. Finally, this is but one obvious example. More will follow when I have more time. I am sure others will contribute as well -- and have in the above talk page. ThreeE 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that one of the "references" (the school newspaper, not a third party as required) given by the author actually says "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." Note the critical placement of the word "some" and a total lack of evidence. ThreeE 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am happy to start with Verifiability. Have you read it carefully? It begins by saying, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

You mention the "impossibility" of this claim, but our policy on verifiability clearly says it is not our place to prove that this claim is true or untrue, if that is what you are worried about. There are multiple references given to back up the claim.

If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which is a guideline, not policy) there is nothing there to support the claim that sources have to be "unassociated with the band or school". On the contrary, please look at 2005 Texas Longhorn football team or University of Michigan. Both are featured articles. Both cite sources directly connected to the school described in the article.

The claim is currently verifiable by reliable sources. If you want to suggest further tweaks to the wording, please do so. Unless you make a concrete suggestion, there is little for anyone to act on. Johntex\^talk 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All three references not only do not say what is claimed in the article, they are not, and I quote from the guidelines: "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Additionally, "sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Claiming that something is theoretically and/or computationally impossible is exceptional. Why not just add "according to the band" or "used by the band" as I suggested days ago? ThreeE 23:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for all sources to be third party sources. You are misinterpreting the guideline, as proven by multiple Featured Articles such as the two I point out to you above.

As to your suggestion, of "according to the band" or "used by the band", your suggestion above got overwhelmed by petty bickering. What would the full sentence read, according to your suggestion?

Also, is this your only issue, or do you have others? Johntex\^talk 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the sources section of Wikipedia:Verifiability. I quote: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Regarding the other articles, I have no problem with putting a POV banner on them as well. Just because they have the same problem does not justify it here. ThreeE 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Another POV issue -- the comment about Rice whistles. The article blames the Rice student body for an aggie band mishap, but then points out that it wasn't caused by the Rice student body. All of this is based on a reference to an aggie publication. Not POV? ThreeE 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Another issue -- almost every paragraph cites reference #1 -- a reference that isn't easily available and is, again, a publication of the very institution being written about. This is 1) not easily verifiable, 2) not a third party, 3) not NPOV. It makes the article seem like a cliff notes version of the reference. This probably should be called out with a copyright banner. There is nothing wrong with using material published by the organization that the article is about, but, again, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, it should not be the primary source. ThreeE 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arkansas isn't safe either! "The director doesn't want to hear the Arkansas band, he wants to hear the Aggie Band." Was this really said? Probably not because, you guessed it, it came from reference #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 12, 2007

Bottom line -- most of this is harmless mythology surrounding a band at a school. That's fine. Every school does this. Just label it as such. It is fine for the aggie yearbook to tout these myths -- but not Wikipedia. ThreeE 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V does not say, "use only third party sources. What we should avoid is using only primary sources or only self-published sources. That is not a problem here because the overall article is sourced from various different sources. Even the sources for this particular claim are all distinct sources. None are from the band themselves. One is from the school newspaper, which is independent from the band and follows a regular editorial process. Another is from the alumni association which again is distinct from the band. The third is a book about the band that happens to be published by the University Press, but the university press publishes lots of books. They are just a publisher.

WP:V does say that you should use third party sources. You certainly can use self-published sources -- just not primarily or exclusively. All of the referred to references are school-related. To say they are not self-referencing is to say that one company's division isn't related to a different division. Why do you suppose that you can't find a third party reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 12, 2007

Good luck going around tagging a bunch of FAs with a NPOV tag on the pretense that they include sources related to the topic. Before you do that, you might want to review WP:POINT.

I've never used the POV banner before -- or even edited a FA. Why would that matter anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 12, 2007

The Rice section states that their were rumors and that the rumors proved to be unfounded. What is the problem with that? It seems very NPOV. It just reports on what happened and what the consequences were.

Come on. If I went to the article on George Bush and said, "Rumors said that George was into rough sex. Those rumors were found to be false, but all of the whips were taken out of the white house" would that be NPOV to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 12, 2007

As to the book - books are reliable sources. They are sometimes considered preferable to online sources in fact. There is no requirement that a source be easily verified. If you want to do serious scholarship you sometimes have to make some effort. You might try your local library for a copy of the book. Being published by the school publishing company does not prove any allegation about NPOV. As to copyright, since you admit you haven't looked at the source, it would be very counter-intuitive for you to claim there is any proof of copyright infringement.

Books are fine. Books authored by the subject organization are POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 12, 2007

Also, please see the section below this one. You have not commented there yet and I'd like to hear your opinion. Johntex\^talk 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording below is better, but just take the second sentence off and you are golden. ThreeE 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have stayed out of this fray for some time, but I really feel that the integrity of Donald B. Powell and Mary Jo Powell and all organizations associated with Texas A&M are being called into question, but with no evidence: "Was this really said? Probably not because, you guessed it, it came from reference #1." Let me get this straight you are asserting the incident never happened because it was written in this book? Why? You have no reason to claim it never happened except an apparent bias against anything. The reference no easily being available is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy. I am sorry you do not have access to a large library, but that seems to be more of a personal issue. Perhaps you can talk to your local library about an interlibrary loan?

Why are ANY of the sources about the phrase in question not considered to be third party? One is a reputable newspaper (an independent student-run organization), another is a reputable publishing company (with hundreds of publications under its belt...and on top of that, the book in question has over 150 footnoted references...not including those referenced within the text of the book), the third is an association that is a separate entity from the University and its sub-organization (the band).

As for the "rumors" section, are the allegations of rough sex or its consequences of any note? If not, then it should not be included. Same goes for this article. In the case of this article, the incident in question was of note in the history of the band in that it was their worst performance. The aftermath/fallout/changes from the incident are of note. I would support this kind of phrasing in any article.

Without a signature on your posts, your comments are hard to follow. Please follow your responses with a signature to help us follwo the conversation and who said what.

In response to "All of this is based on a reference to an aggie publication. Not POV?", please read what POV actually states, because it states nothing like what you are alluding to.

In summary, none of the assertions you make seem to have any merit and no one seems to agree with you. I humbly request that the tag be removed from the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are quotes directly from WP:V and WP:RS.

• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses (bolding mine). Please note that one of the sources for this statement is a book published by a university press.
• All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). --Note that if no reliable sources have published an alternate view, it does not need to be included. No one is asserting in any source that a computer program would be able to model some of the Aggie Band marches.
• "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Two of the sources are online; a third is readily available via interlibrary loan. The online sources do say that computer simulators could not replicate some of the routines (I haven't seen the book, but I assume it says the same), thus verifying the claim as it is written in the article.

The Aggie Band has absolutely no control over the actions of the Texas A&M University Press, The Battalion or the Association of Former Students. If the Aggie Band had paid for the publication of the book, or if the claim was taken directly from their website, that would be a self-published sourcing issue.

To summarize: Three sources are used, all of which verify the fact as presented in the article. None of these sources is under the control of, nor paid for, by the Aggie Band. Any disputing facts should be included if they exist, but no one has found any. Therefore, under the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, this claim in the article is both verified and NPOV. I think the tag needs to be removed because there is no basis for it. Would you prefer that we submit this as an RfC and get other opinions so that we can resolve this more quickly?? Karanacs 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed and am of the opinion that the editor that placed it is trying to require a level of verifibility that is not warranted by the guidelines (as quoted above). -- Upholder 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Karanacs and Upholder. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think we are working towards a point where the tag could be removed, but we should not be too hasty. It has only been 2 days. We have not yet agreed on final wording of the computer simulation bit. We have not had much discussion on the Rice whistle bit at all. I think placing the tag was overkill given that discussion was already under way here, but now that the tag has been placed we should not be too hasty to remove it. Let's focus our discussion on the objections raised. Johntex\^talk 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the sources section of Wikipedia:Verifiability. I quote: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ThreeE 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are reliable (a university press and a newspaper). They are third-party (the Aggie Band has no influence whatsoever over either the university press or the newspaper. For that matter, even Texas A&M University does not exert editorial control over either the press or the newspaper). According to WP:RS, university presses are considered one of the two most reliable types of sources (peer-reviewed journals being the other). The Battalion has been listed as one of the 20 best college newspapers in theUS. Can you provide anything beyond your opinion to support your assertion that this particular university press and this particular newspaper are not reliable and don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Your argument appears to hold the sources for this article to much higher standards than are expected on wikipedia. Karanacs 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All three are a&m system entities and get their funding from the same source. They are certainly not third-parties by any definition. ThreeE 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Karanacs here. ThreeE is claiming bias in these sources where there is no evidence to indicate the sources are biased. A school newspaper is a third party source when writing about the school's band. To imply that the school newspaper is under control of the band is laughable. The same is true of the university press. They publish books on all sorts of topics. Many of them relate somehow to the Southwest or Texas like The Yankee Invasion of Texas and Texas Women on the Cattle Trails, but some do not, like The Ghosts of Iwo Jima and Nixon's Business: Authority and Power in Presidential Politics. I list those 4 because they are among many award-winning books by this publisher. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that The Association of Former Students gets zero funding from Texas A&M University and is not a part of the Texas A&M System, and much of the university press funding comes from endowments and book sales. The A&M system has no editorial control over either the school newspaper, the university press, or anything the Association of Former Students chooses to produce.Karanacs 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BQ, as you are one of the primary editors of this article AND a former member of the aggie band (am I correct in saying that is your picture in the article?), you have to admit that you are more likely to be swayed by the lore and legend of the school and maybe aren't 100% neutral. Statements like "the integrity of Donald B. Powell and Mary Jo Powell and all organizations associated with Texas A&M are being called into question" are quite telling. Most of us neither know nor care who these people are. We just want to see a high-quality, neutral article, and if we have to call into question the integrity (read "neutrality") of these people in the process, then so be it. I have most issue with the statements regarding the inability of software to model aggie marches. In this day and age, that tells more about the shortcomings of the software than the complexity of the marches. There are better ways of stating how complex the aggie marches are (and I've seen quite a few live and in person... they are indeed complex) than by making a reference to obviously inadequate software. I prefer that the POV tag remain on the article until this is resolved, by arbitration if necessary.Thedukeofno 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New suggestion - attribute the claim more directly to the school/band

There seems to still be concerns about the sentence

Some of these close-quarters drills are so complex and precise that they cannot be reproduced by computer programs that design marching shows; theoretically, they require two people to be in the same place at once.

In re-reading the discussion above, I get the impression that some people take issue with the "theoretically" part. Others take issue with the idea that it is the general complexity that causes the problem, as opposed to some specific issue. I wonder if another part of the problem is that one has to check the source to see who is making the claim. I therefore propose the following sentence in its place:

Some of the close-quarter drills require band members to march extremely close together, even stepping between each others legs and rotating their instruments in order to avoid collisions. According to the school, this cannot be reproduced by computer programs used to design marching shows, because the software interprets these motions to mean two people are occupying the same space at the same time.

Suggestions for improving the above are very welcome. Johntex\^talk 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just take the second sentence off and you are golden. ThreeE 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not support that solution at all. It is at the heart of the matter. It is the main claim being made by the sources. Johntex\^talk 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a non-verified, self-referencing claim. Why not just state the facts -- as the first sentence does. ThreeE 00:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it non-verified? How is it self-referenced (and what does that actually mean)? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is acceptable:
Some of the close-quarter drills require band members to march extremely close together, even stepping between each others legs and rotating their instruments in order to avoid collisions. According to the school, this cannot be reproduced by computer programs used to design marching shows, because the software interprets these motions to mean two people are occupying the same space at the same time.
I think we've gotten to a point where we just need to come to a concensus. We're simply not going to please everyone and to try to do so would be an excercise in futility. →Wordbuilder 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, most drill writing programs keep it as simple as possible and use certain assumptions such as a two-dimensional field and people are treated as a point or a circle with certain boundaries.

BTW, I re-checked my original statement. My apologies on the earlier reference that it was on pages 102-104..it is actually in the right column, 2nd paragraph on page 33. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Some of the close-quarter drills require band members to step between each others' legs and rotate their instruments in order to avoid collisions. As of 2005, this cannot be reproduced by computer programs used to design marching shows, because the software interprets these motions to mean two people are occupying the same space in a two-dimensional plane at the same time.

My logic is as follows:

"Some of the close-quarter drills..."

"...require band members to step between each others'..." note the proper use of an apostrophe. I cut the other sections because they seemed wordy.

"...legs and rotate their instruments in order to avoid collisions."

"As of 2005" Shows when this was true and who states it is irrelevant; WP:V.

"...this cannot be reproduced by computer programs used to design marching shows, because the software interprets these motions to mean two people are occupying the same space in a two-dimensional plane at the same time."

Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like BQ's last suggestion because it more accurately states what we perceive the problem with the software to be. However, is that explanation found in any of the sources (I don't have a copy of the book)? It should hopefully be possible to find another source that discusses how the marching simulators work, though. Karanacs 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would prefer the statement include some sort of attribution to the school or band. It lends more credibility to the article to state who has tried to model this, and what they have said. Johntex\^talk 16:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do the sources support an attribution to the school or band? Although it can be assumed that the band is the one who tried to model these in the first place, the article from The Battalion does not provide details of the modeling experiments. BQ, what did the book say? Karanacs 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The book doesn't specifically say. Speaking from experience, the band leadership (the officers in charge of the band) were the ones who run the program and print out the drill charts. That said, others also use the program, such as the drum majors and others on band staff. This is the "truth", but I can't back it up with a reference. That doesn't make the asserted statement any less true though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it make it verifiable. ThreeE 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not what verifiable means . From WP:V: "'Verifiable'...means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I also never claimed ANY of this in the article. Clarification was requested.

Are you assuming anything I say anything said in association with Texas A&M is no more than a myth? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As it applies to this article yes. You cannot draw on your own personal knowledge without citing your source per Wikipedia:No original research ThreeE 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable and Reliable sources have been cited as per wikipedia guidelines and policy. The fact that you don't like them doesn't change that fact, nor does it make the contents of the article original research. -- Upholder 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this means we can't attribute the modeling to the school or the band because the sources don't cover that. We could say, "according to the book ..." Karanacs 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be OK with that. Especially given that the book is such a major source for the article, mentioning it directly by name seems appropriate. Johntex\^talk 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The book doesn't quite cover this in that detail, so that in-depth explanation is out. I am trying to assist in clarifying the statement(s) in question, but this in-depth analysis and explanation is cumbersome not required IAW WP:V. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well then, we can use:

Some of the close-quarter drills require band members to march extremely close together, even stepping between each others legs and rotating their instruments in order to avoid collisions. Some computer programs used to design marching shows cannot be used to plan the shows because the software interprets these motions to mean two people are occupying the same space at the same time.

That puts the emphasis back on what the software can do, instead of getting bogged down into who is claiming it. It also allows for the possibility that the Aggies may not have tried every possible form of software. Johntex\^talk 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that one, and it is certainly true, but the sources don't back up the claims of what the software interprets. I fear that if we change it to this, we will be facing a future claim with similar problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am against complete removal of the factoid about the computer programs not being able to simulate this drill. Speaking as someone from a wonderful university in Texas, unconnected with Texas a&m except for the fact that they are both state schools, I can attest to the fact that statements is made frequently. So, we have a claim that is widely known. We have sources for the claim. The sources comply with WP:V. We just need to correctly word the sentence. We are almost there, but we just keep getting side-tracked.

So, here is my new suggestion. We take an exact quote from the Batalion article and we attribute it to 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.

We don't need the other two references to back up this claim. This paper is on-line so anyone can check the reference without getting a book or watching a video. In a separate sentence, sourced separately, we can talk about the Aggies stepping between each others feet. That should not be hard to source. Johntex\^talk 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with including the direct quote. Karanacs 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I didn't see this sooner. This is PERFECT!!! As a quote, it works and it can be attributed to the Batt. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, those who insist on ignoring WP:V & WP:RS while simultaneously making up new standards by which Wikipedia should be run will likely disagree. I think the only thing that can be done in this instance is to go to WP:RfC (which I suspect will be ignored/insufficient) and then to WP:RfA. I will certainly be ecstatic if it stops before then, but I see no other options at this time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Theoretically"

"theoretically, they require two people to be in the same place at once"

What does this even mean? What is theoretical and who is "they?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"they" would be the maneuvers. I think we might be able to improve upon the word-choice of "theoretically". I believe what this is saying is basically "according to the internal logic being used by the computer software". Do you have a wording suggestion that might eliminatte this confusion? Also, please sign your posts on Talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\^talk 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the maneuvers "require two people to be in the same place at once?" ThreeE 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, this is because the program only works in two dimensions. From an aerial view, if one person's foot is under another person, it appears as if two people are on the same space in a 2D plane.

As a related example, this is why the original version of Doom (the video game) didn't have any overlapping surfaces: it was really a 2D map with height defined for each area; multiple surfaces on which a player could walk would be impossible with that engine.

As for "theoretical", it is obviously not impossible. I would assume (as a computer science major) that it is is reference to computer theory.

Regardless, this explanation is not required IAW WP:V as asserted above. That said, I am certainly willing to explain it or in someway satisfy your requests, but IAW WP:V, there is no reason that the phrase can't stay. I would recommend that if you feel WP:V is inadequate for Wikipedia you take it up on the talk page and see if you can get a consensus there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So the drill program requires two people to be in the same place at once? And I'm not sure I understand what is theoretical about all this -- please educate me. ThreeE 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE asked, 'So, the maneuvers "require two people to be in the same place at once?" ' The answer is "Yes, under the simplified world-view of the computer program, they do require exactly this." "Theoretically"<>"Actually" Johntex\^talk 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So we are changing the text in what way? ThreeE 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, we aren't. You haven't demonstrated that there is anything wrong with what was said. Nor have you given any sort of suggestion as to what should be stated. You only initially asked a question. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The maneuvers (or anyone/thing else) don't require people to be in the same place at the same time -- theoretically or otherwise -- so the statement isn't factual. My suggested edit is to remove the phrase entirely. Do you want to make the change or should I? ThreeE 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> I think we all know your view on the subject, but it isn't substantiated in policy, guidelines, or the referenced sources. As such, I suggest you drop it or come up with some actual phrasing. "I think that sounds wrong" is not a policy by which Wikipedia is run. Additionally "No, not that..." and deleting a section with which you disagree is counterproductive and only leads to bad feelings/problems. I personally feel like we are getting nowhere in this discussion as you appear to ignore all references to policy and guidelines and substitute it with your own opinions.

I will not continue to participate in a discussion where one party refuses to abide by the guidelines and policy on which Wikipedia is run. There are enough people around that agree the article and the sentences in question should be kept as-is or slightly rephrased. Deletion is not appropriate.

Will you submit and allow Arbitration to rule on this matter and accept their decision? I will. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• ThreeE, I think you should look one section above this one, where wording has been proposed and is being discussed. In this section, you just asked a question. Please look one section up. Johntex\^talk 01:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent opinion

I am responding to a inquiry at the Pump page. I read through the article and the talk page and don't see a problem here meriting a NPOV tag. I have one minor nit (minor!): "The announcer (Lieutenant Colonel Jay Brewer) then states, usually in unison with the crowd..." I don't see value added by mentioning him by name; WP articles should be timeless -- this statement is not. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm the one who posted the question about third-party sources at the village pump since we have had disagreement here on interpreting the policy on third-party sources. Kevin Murray is the first to respond. Karanacs 20:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea. ThreeE 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias/editor doesn't assume good faith/removal of tag

From my talk page: "Those few additional sources would make a huge difference. Holding your breath is still not recommended though. :) ThreeE 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)" It appears that this particular editor has provided evidence of an apparent bias towards this article/subject/related subjects. As with other situations described above, this same person is not interested in following WP policy and guidelines, but only how he/she views how things should be. I respectfully request that the POV tag be removed. In deference to the above discussion and the interest of other editors who have weighed in, I will NOT be the one to do it, but I request that an admin remove the tag.

Come on, I was adding some levity to a subject that desperately needs it -- note the smiley face. You might look closer to home for your own conflict of interest. Afterall, not only are/were you a member of the article's subject organization, your picture is in it as well! ThreeE 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still willing to come up with compromises on various phrasing, but the POV tag seems is inappropriate in this instance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I too will be happy when we can remove the tag. It is a blight on the top of a Featured Article and that is unfortunate. However, as I said this morning (a few sections up this page):

I think we are working towards a point where the tag could be removed, but we should not be too hasty. It has only been 2 days. We have not yet agreed on final wording of the computer simulation bit. We have not had much discussion on the Rice whistle bit at all. I think placing the tag was overkill given that discussion was already under way here, but now that the tag has been placed we should not be too hasty to remove it. Let's focus our discussion on the objections raised.

2 days is a small amount of time to work these differences out. Let's focus on discussing the merits of the requested improvements/clarifications and let's try not to worry about the tag. Johntex\^talk 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognize that some editors have day jobs and can only log on once per day -- usually in the evening. The current tag hasn't even been on the article for one of these cycles. ThreeE 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Said This?

"I dread going against the Aggie Band.... What is so humiliating is to see the Aggie Band do things band directors talk about as being impossible, and do them perfectly. It takes two weeks to recover from the trauma."

Can someone that has reference #1 tell us who said this and when? ThreeE 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This was a quote is only attributed to "a Southwest Conference Band director of [Adams'] era". specifcs are not there, but it was pulled from an interview with John West, Aggie Band class of 1957. See page 33, right column, 4th paragraph. It was included in the book and was appropriately referenced and mmets the criteria of WP:V — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So this is a quote in a quote by an aggie band member in the aggie band article? ThreeE 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is from an interview by someone who witnessed it first-hand. It is not an article, but a well-referenced history book published by a reputable publisher. Again...done IAW WP:V, but also IAW professional standards for interviews. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We still need to know who said this or, alternatively, label it as a quote from an aggie band member. Otherwise, this is just an unattributed slam on the Trinity band. ThreeE 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote is not referring to the Trinity band. The quote, and the actions of the Trinity band, are two separate, unrelated instances that show that the Aggie band was intimidating. Karanacs 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood on the quote -- I stand corrected. But that just means the quote is an unattributed slam on an unidentified Southwest Conference Band. In addition, the Trinity band is still disparaged by a self-referenced source regarding its non-performance. That also needs a new primary reference. ThreeE 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on POV Tag Removal Criteria

In an effort to come to consensus, these are the specific changes that, in my opinion, would need to be made to remove the POV tag. Note that I said that this is just my opinion. They are also in order of severity.

1. Remove all unsubstantiated rumors regarding individuals from or at Rice and the whistles. They didn't do anything and don't deserve the implication. It is all right to say that it happened at Rice.

2. Remove all references to computer simulations. It is all right to say that the moves are difficult and complex to plan.

3. Remove reference #1 from the article and anything that relies solely on that reference for a verifiability. As mentioned at the village pump, this is an alumni publication about the band. It is meant to have a air of boosterism. Additionally, the article simply relies too much on it. It is all right to do this over several days.

ThreeE 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• ThreeE, I will speak only for myself although I suspect that virtually everyone who reads your requests will agree with me. Basically, you are suggesting things that are not beneficial to the article and therefore they are not going to be supported by consensus.

1. The information about Rice is not "unsubstantiated" it is backed up by a source. Please read WP:V.
2. The information about the computer programs is also back up - by multiple sources. Everyone is willing to work on the language, but you are destroying your own credibility by asking for outright removal of the information about the computer programs.
3. Source 1 is a viable source from a major publisher. It is also an important source to this article. It is not going to be removed as a source.

I suggest you turn your attention to the area several sections up where we are actually trying to improve the wording about the computer programs. Johntex\^talk 02:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree but understand. These are my opinions alone and are not meant to be conditions for the article as a whole. In fact, I would reluctantly support removal of the tag if no one posts agreement with any of these conditions in the next 48 hours.

Futhermore, I would alter #3 to allow the use of the source, but only in addition to another source.

ThreeE 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You've taken what was said at the Pump and I guess you misread it or you are intentionally misleading us; I assume the former. For those who are not sure what we are talking about, please go here The exact quote you are referencing states "I would handle the Alum-association video with care, as it, by its nature would tend towards boosterism." This is in reference to the VIDEO, not the book. The book is not published by the Alumni Association, but by the University Press. It is NOT meant to have an air of boosterism in the manner which you have stated.

I concur with Johntex on this matter and personally feel you are ignoring the structure of Wikipedia and the guidelines/policies set up to guide editors in order to assert an opinion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree but understand your opinion. ThreeE 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you disagree with my second paragraph and not the first. If you disagree with everything, please explain. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I read this article as part of TFA but apparantly I need to give it another thorough pass. However, before I do that, let me make my opinion based on what I read a couple days ago. I agree with Johntex's response to your request. With regards to #3, my opinion is we are talking about a marching band. There is not going to be many completed unbiased publications that deal with a marching band. A vast majority of what is written about such a topic is meant to boost the object. I have no problem with using a primary source such as this as long as its not presented in a way that reads like a brochure, which has been accomplished in this article. Again, if I have time, I will try to read through the article more thoroughly and I will reply to my own post if I find anything that makes me change my mind.↔NMajdan•talk 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with ThreeE regarding the computer simulation aspect (2). My primary problem is that it says "We (the Aggies) have drill marches so complex that we can't simulate them with the software we use to simulate marches." This is a circular statement and doesn't really explain or talk about what the Aggies do, but what some marching drill software doesn't do. Also, the sources for the statement are all internal statements used for promotional purposes. I suggest focusing on what the Aggies are known for, and not some statement which is not only questionable, but also dated. I suggest the following for a starting point.

The Aggies marching band is known for its trademarck block T formation and complex drill maneveurs such as the (some well known drill) which at first glance don't appear possible.

This can be backed up by the references, and doesn't make grandiose statements. In any case, the statement that the drills cannot be simulated should go because it cannot be verified by a third party source. Arzel 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I appreciate the additional feedback.
2. The sources for the statement are all not "internal" statements (please see above) and their alleged use (which isn't backed up in any reasonable way) is immaterial. All of the statements and references are written IAW WP:V. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1 is from the The Association of Former Students, published by the Texas A&M University Press.

Reference 2 is from the Battalion, the Texas A&M student newspaper.

Reference 3 is from the The Former Students Association.

I am not saying these sources cannot be used at all in the article, but not for exceptional claims. I have to ask, why do you feel it is so important that it be mentioned that the drill software was unable to simulate the drill? Arzel 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ref 1 is not FROM the association, but was accepted into their centennial series of books.

My emotions are irrelevant, but since you are curious, it emphasizes the complexity of the drills. I do not know of another band that can/has made that claim. It show uniqueness that is not otherwise shown. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Complexity has little to do with what is or isn't possible. Flying is a relatively simple thing to do, however without outside assistance people cannot fly. Flying a plane, on the other hand, is very complicated, but it is not impossible. Arzel 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am against complete removal of the factoid about the computer programs not being able to simulate this drill. Speaking as someone from a wonderful university in Texas, unconnected with Texas a&m except for the fact that they are both state schools, I can attest to the fact that statements is made frequently. So, we have a claim that is widely known. We have sources for the claim. The sources comply with WP:V. We just need to correctly word the sentence. We are almost there, but we just keep getting side-tracked. Please see the section about 3 sections up titled "New suggestion - attribute the statement more directly to the school/band". Johntex\^talk 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, perhaps it should be.

The Aggies marching band is known for claiming that some complex drill maneveurs such as the (some well known drill) cannot be simulated via some computer marching software.

Here are the facts.

1. T A&M makes this claim.
2. No one else outside of or closely related to T A&M backs up this claim.
3. It is not believable.
4. It says nothing about T A&M, save the fact that they perhaps use software which is flawed.
5. It is primarily used for promotional material (watch the video).
6. It is not verifiable by a reliable third party source.

Arzel 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources don't support the proposal that we attribute the statement to the band. As Johntex suggested above, we could rephrase to -- 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."

This uses a direct quote from the source and attributes it appropriately to the source, a well-regarded newspaper. Please see the discussion above (at the end of New suggestion - attribute the claim more directly to the school/band) as to further improvements we could make. Karanacs 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Arzel after edit conflict with Karanacs) Responding to your points:

1. Yes, A&M makes this claim.
2. Who else would possibly be in a position to back up the claim? Why would anyone else bother to run the A&M drills through software and report on the results.
3. It is a perfectly believable claim. It just reads strangely the way it has been worded. That is why we are working on the wording. Once you understand the constraints of typical software, it makes perfect sense. It goes like this: Most bands don't have routines that call for members to step between each others legs. Computer software is written to be sold so it is written to handle what most customers need. Must customers are fine with software that treats each member as a point in space or a 2D circle of fixed radius. This assumption produces an error if your points appear to be moving through each other. It is a perfectly believable situation.
4. The software is not flawed. It is designed to work for "typical" marching styles. The whole point is that A&M is doing something that is not typical - that is why it is relevant to this article.
5. How the school uses the claim makes no difference. George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton make claims as part of their campaigns. IBM makes claims, so does Exxon. We report on those statements. We don't go around and rip out claims just because they are used in promotional materials. The fact that the claim has been made is verifiable, and complies with WP:V.
6. The sources cited ARE third party sources under WP:V. None of them are under control of the band.

I hope that helps you understand the facts a little better. Johntex\^talk 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Reference

There is a reference within the Rice incident that the Rice band was portraying the Aggies as Nazi's, however this is not backed up by the reference. Is there another reference which backs this up? Arzel 04:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes: here. Though Nazis are not specifically mentioned a "Germanesque" march was played and the bandsmen goosestepped down the field. The inference is obvious. I have also removed that paragraph for now. The entire thing was a word-for-word copy of the referenced website. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. It was not a word for word copy. ThreeE 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with pointing out that the band parodied the aggies by goose stepping. I wouldn't go so far as saying that the MOB called the aggies Nazis though -- although if you point to a reference where they did, you could put that in the article. I wouldn't put it past them... :) ThreeE 05:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then let us go through it line-by-line (and I'll concede the entire thing was not word for word, but 2 of the 5 sentences were).

"In 1973, the Aggie Band took exception to the Rice Marching Owl Band's (MOB) halftime show which parodied many bands, including the Aggie Band." The halftime show parodied only one band and portrayed the Aggie Band as Nazis, note I never said they SAID they were nazis; IMHO, the inference is obvious. As such, this is not word for word, but is inaccurate and is missing information to put the actions of both groups in context. I'll get a refe to back that up though, if that will satisfy your problem.

"The Aggie Band pushed through the Rice group back into the stands. Ice, epithets and not a few fists flew."

From the website: "The Aggie Band pushed through the Rice group back into the stands. Ice, epithets and not a few fists flew." this is word-for-word.

"Angered by the show and after losing the game 24-20 to Rice (spoiling their undefeated record and dashing their national championship aspirations), the band and other Aggies in attendance barricaded the MOB in their band room." The final score of the game is never mentioned, it should be an endash, not a hyphen, they weren't in the band room, they were in a tunnel.

"Over the subsequent years, the Aggies' accusations against the MOB grew in scope." This is not stated anywhere in this source, thought the taunting DID continue. How exactly did it grow? was it bigger? weighed more? I'm just trying to point out that this is poor word usage.

I have no objection including this incident, but it should be included appropriately and with proper perspective. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I've thought this over and the whole thing is about the Rice band and the Aggie fans. There is only ONE mention of the actions of the band and they do not match up with the said articles. (See below) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We can work this out. I've made some changes. Let's agree to not simply delete whole paragraphs. ThreeE 05:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't support the claim that the A&M band was involved in the post game baracade. As such, I have deleted the last two sentences of the paragraph in question as they are not relevant without that claim. -- Upholder 05:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the Nazi reference, I think the inference is enough, but here's a source anyway: Here's the Nazi reference

Additionally, Reveille had just been put down and the MOB played "where oh where has my little dog gone" while picturing a fire hydrant and one person held an empty leash. I gotta admit of someone mocked me when I lost a loved one, I too would have been a little peeved. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't true: [1]. It is scatalogical. ThreeE 06:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...good point, but scatalogical...the inference there is a bit much. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Houston chronicle, in a 1996 article, described it as "Aggies at Rice Stadium didn't think the MOB touch was light back in 1973, when the MOB poked fun at the Aggies' mascot, among other things. In the watershed event in MOB history - when many of today's members were what they call ""negative 5" - MOBsters, afraid of attack by angry Aggies, left the stadium in food service trucks. " (Their pre-1985 articles aren't online, unfortunately). It doesn't mention the band, just Aggies in general. Unless we find a source that specifically talks about the actions of the Aggie band, I don't think this section belongs in this particular article. Karanacs 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of this section

The Aggie Band didn't have anything to do with the performance or the effects afterward. While they took exception, they had to get back to their seats after their halftime performance and "had to push through" the Rice fans (maybe even the band itself) to get there. It makes it sound as if they went looking for a fight when in fact they were doing what they were supposed to. It also doesn't seem like there is any specific criticism of the band, but the Aggie fans as a whole (justified or not). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• As the article stands at this moment, it does not mention any criticism or parodies of the band. That is an unfortunate omission that hampers the completeness of the article. References for that are not hard to find:

From the Texas Tech University school newspaper:

For example, the Corps of Cadets at A&M has a handful of militaristic and, when exaggerated, Nazi-like qualities, and God knows they're fair game as the butt of our jokes.[2]

Daily Utah Chronicle compares the Aggie band to members of the "Third Reich"[3]

In addition, fans of Corps style marching bands often criticize A&M for "only" marching in straight lines. here is one such statement to that effect on YouTube. Johntex\^talk 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful to differentiate between criticism of the Corps and criticism of the Band, which is part of the Corps and must thus follow the Corps rules. The criticism in the two articles here is directed at the Corps, not specifically at the band, and would thus belong more in the Corps of Cadets article and not this one (in my opinion). I also question whether we need to include criticism of marching bands here; shouldn't that go in the marching band article instead, unless the criticism is specifically directed at this band? Karanacs 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We actually don't have to completely disregard criticism of the Corps. As you point out, the Band is part of the Corps, so general criticism of the Corps applies to the Band also. Besides, the article already talks about things related to the Corps in general, such as "senior boots". Also, the criticism of the band marching "only" in straight-lines is not a criticism of bands in general, it is a criticism made of this band in particular. Johntex\^talk 16:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason this section was deleted. Deleting this and doing it before discussion is why this article has become POV. ThreeE 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a significant amount of discussion that has taken place in the last 12 hours about this paragraph. You need to assume good faith. -- Upholder 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph again to reflect the rough consensus reached here. ThreeE, if you are still insistent that this paragraph be included, you will need to improve it here and reach consensus before simply putting it back into the article. -- Upholder 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims

Every sentence does NOT need to be preceded by "XYZ claims..." AND followed by a reference. It's as if you are trying to add some disclaimer to any claim ("Well, only one guy says this, so don't put too much weight on it..."). This kind of "referencing" is simply NOT needed IAW WP:CITE. In addition, your claims that this book, and everything else, is nothing more than mythology and that everything in it isn't true ("most of this is harmless mythology surrounding a band at a school...It is fine for the aggie yearbook to tout these myths -- but not Wikipedia."), I find to be condescending and rather insulting. You have NO reason to doubt these claims. But even if you did, it still could be included IAW WP:V and WP:RS. Your changes do not have a consensus amongst editors and are quickly becoming an annoyance and a hindrance to progress. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that "The quote is a quote within a quote by an aggie band member. The according should stay or the quote should be removed" is incorrect. It is not a quote within a quote (it would only be as such if I wrote it verbatim and included outside text where this was a quote from the book) . You are confusing proper historical research by a historian with some made-up rule. Accordingly, it is not needed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion in the comments of one of your recent changes states "the band continues to make accusations." But this is not backed up by any reference of any kind. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution of the computer simulation wording?

In response to the discussion above about how to word the part about computer simulations, it seems that there is general support for wording this such that it is attributable to specific sources. Therefore, I changed it to:

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."^[1] This is also discussed in a video by the The Association of Former Students of Texas A&M University.^[2]
References

1. ^ Baker, Emily. "Now forming at the north end of Kyle Field...", The Battalion, November 17, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-09-11. 
2. ^ Traditions (WMV). The Former Students Association. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.

I look forward to feedback. Johntex\^talk 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Been watching from the sidelines for the past day or two.) I don't see anything wrong with it. To be nitpicky: I think the quote from The Battalion is a bit clumsy, but not enough so as to be confusing or misleading. And since it's a quote ... eh, we'll live with it. The second sentence could be a little clearer in regard to what the video discusses (e.g., that it makes the same claim), but again, I think most readers will make the connection. Don't forget about the sentence in the lede, though. It's a bit bloated right now, so I'll make a few edits to it. -- RG² 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

After searching through the discussion above, I still don't see where the words "commercially available" come from, how they're relevant, or how they're verifiable. "As of 2005," doesn't seem necessary to me, either. Johntex's language certainly doesn't make reference to those claims – we should just rewrite that sentence based on the new, what I assume to be, consensus wording. -- RG² 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also responding to above. What I feel is the biggest problem is the notion that the simulation says that the drill is impossible. All of the references to this statement come from the band, making a claim that computer simulation says it is impossible. Even if the sources were actually unrelated to the band, they are still using the band as the underlying source. It seems to me that the band is most known for claiming that it's drills can't be simulated by a computer program for promotional purposes. Thus it is a situation of WP:SELF of an exceptional claim. Why not just state that they are known for their complex manuvers? Which is entirely true and easily backed up. If the COI here want to include the computer simulation aspect, simply state that they claim as such.

The Aggies marching band is known for its complex drills, some of which they claim cannot be simulated by marching software. Arzel 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the sources don't say WHO made the claim. We can't attribute that claim to the band because (to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong), the sources don't say that the band said this. That is an inference, but isn't verifiable. Karanacs 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And that is where the problem is. Who made the claim? Who did the simulation work? Until these questions can be answered and cited (and perhaps they can be) it should not be in the article. ThreeE 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Who made these claims?" The Association of Former Students, The Battalion, and Donald/Mary Jo/the Texas A&M University Press.

"Who did the simulation work?" It is not stated, but is irrelevant. For the sake of facts, I personally know that it was one of the band directors or one of the drum majors (Extremely likely that it was th former, not the latter

"Until these questions can be answered and cited (and perhaps they can be) it should not be in the article." Not in accordance with Wikipedia policy/ guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS, etc. This has been explained ad nauseum and you seem to have no regard for it/ignore it.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 20:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should check out WP:REDFLAG within the WP:RS section. Exceptional claims require exception sources. Specifically, Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. You keep saying it is irrelevant as to who said it, but I think you are missing the point. I am fine with it staying so long as it is mentioned that it is claimed by the AMB. It reads as if it has been verfied by a reliable third source, yet know one seems to know who this third source is. Furthermore, there seems to a bit of WP:WIKILAWYERING regarding the understanding of WP:RS and WP:V. Most distrubing is the large amount of WP:COI which is attributed to this article in general. Arzel 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the sources, we can't say that the Aggie band said this. We can (and now do) certainly say that The Battalion made the claim.Karanacs 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include the information The Battalion is the student newspaper? There is a wikilink that people can follow if they want to find more information about it. There's been a similar discussion at the J.K. Rowling talk page on whether we should include information about the people or organizations referenced in the article, and it was decided to remove those because it introduced a potential bias (thus making the article WP:NPOV). Karanacs 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some quick remarks: I agree with Karanacs that we can't say the band claims this - not with the references we are currently looking at. So, Arzel's suggestion won't work. In regards to RG2's questions: The "As of 2005" is because the Battalion article was published then. This was a proposal to address statements made here that possibly technology has improved. Likewise, the "commercially available" clause was a proposal to counter objections that maybe software could exist somewhere (NASA?) that would be able to model this drill. I don't think we need either of these clauses, and the second one is not directly supported by the reference anyway. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JohnTex. WP:V, WP:RS, and others support its inclusion in the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured that was the reasoning behind it, but yes, they should be removed. As of 2005, some software couldn't model it, but as of 2007, it's pretty clear some software still can't model it. There's always going to be some software that can't model it. Verifiable, but meaningless. And the inclusion of "commercially available" is just wrong, as it's an unsupported claim; The Battalion says that some software couldn't do it, not that all commercially available software couldn't do it. -- RG² 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I do like Arzel's wording the best, though it could use a few tweaks. I think it best emphasizes the point we want to make in an article like this -- that Aggie Band drills are complex. That's what A&M wants to emphasize, as well, by claiming that some software can't model it; the point isn't to emphasize the shortcomings of some software.

It's a good line that seems like it's widely disseminated, so it's certainly verifiable. But in an encyclopedic context, what we have now doesn't hold a lot of meaning. Sure, some software can't model the drills, but I'm sure I could whip up some pretty terrible software that couldn't model much at all. New language would definitely be a plus, anyway -- the cutline we quote verbatim from The Battalion is horribly worded, and Johntex's second sentence sounds a little vague.

Why don't we say something like, "Several of the Aggie marching band's maneuvers are complex enough, some claim, that certain drill-charting software consider them impossible." Of course, I'd like mention the reason that some software fails -- because they think that two people are in the same place at the same time. However, I'm having trouble finding a source that actually says that.

The Battalion says that the drills (or the maneuvers -- the wording is confusing) require two people to be in the same place at the same time. This misleading claim is certainly verifiable from this source, but anyone with an ounce of common sense realizes that it's not physically possible -- it's just a shortcoming of the software.

Does your hard-copy reference, BQZip01, word it better and give us a better source to say that the software fails because it thinks two people are in the same place at the same time -- and not that the drill actually does the impossible? -- RG² 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

no — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we'll keep the horribly written and misleading line, I suppose? Any other suggestions? -- RG² 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If we just stick with the quote, the onus is on The Battalion. and this discussion should be over. A simple paraphrase (which is what I originally attempted) would also be acceptable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bad compromise in my personal opinion. Simply remove the quotation regarding the computer simulation or insert the statement that it is claimed by the band (which is obviously is.) Reference 1 (where most of this seems to originate) was co-written by DONALD B. POWELL, who was the 1993-94 president of the Texas Aggie Band Association, which is when that book was written. The Battalion article uses the same wording, and the pictures associated with the captions (where this quote is taken) are from the band as well. Arzel 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A question that has to be asked here is if it is all right to let a self-referenced claim stand. If I Joe Famous writes a book that says he is fifty feet tall, is it all right to say in a Wikipedia article about him that he is fifty feet tall with only his autobiography as a reference? I think you could but only if you preface it with "According to Joe, ..."

This isn't exactly our case as we have to ask if Donald Powel's words are self-referencing (I think they are) to the aggie band as well, but it is a first step. ThreeE 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why we were trying to attribute this to the Batt. If that is not acceptable to you, could we instead use the previous wording and attribute it to Powell, former president of the Texas Aggie Band Association? Karanacs 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Issues

I continue to believe that this article has serious copyright issues. Almost every paragraph is simply a re-ordering of words from either reference #1 or aggie band website material. Google any sentence that has reference #1 in it and you find it. ThreeE 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please post some evidence to back up your claim. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I have assumed good faith up until this point, but this claim is in bad faith and is completely unsubstantiated. It appears to be intended to waste the time and efforts of Wikipedia editors. I took the first twenty sentences with a [1] in it and Googled them. The only significant result was this article or Wikipedia knock-off sites. This person's "beliefs" and desires for 100% irrefutable information are irrelevant. Wikipedia policy/guidelines are.

Results: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

— BQZip01 — ^talk 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right -- it's all a cliff note version of reference 1. ThreeE 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if it is online, it supports your claim that it's copyright infringement ("Google any sentence that has reference #1 in it and you find it.")...except your claim is 100% false...so it is still a copyright infringement? You are unbelievable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have added additional citations for a lot of the information that was in the Powell book, in part to allay some of your concerns. The other information could be additionally referenced if someone had the time and ability to visit the archives of the Bryan-College Station Eagle, the Houston Chronicle, or The Battalion. I don't see that it is necessary for us to do so. There are plenty of other sources for this article besides the book, so allegations that it is a copyright violation (especially since you have admittedly never seen the book) are improper. Karanacs 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I also had to just rewrite the section on the Aggie band messing up at Rice because it was taken almost word-for-word from the Aggie band website (and the citation was formatted incorrectly). ThreeE, this is the second time you've added text to the article that we've later discovered was taken directly from another website. Please don't do that again. If you need help with the writing, put the text here and we'll rewrite it for you. Karanacs 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-ordering copied words (as most of this article has done) doesn't change the fact that it is copied. ThreeE 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ThreeE 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• ThreeE - you don't even have source 1 - how can you be claiming to spot any copyright problems between this article and source 1? Johntex\^talk 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rice Paragraph Concensus

Let's be sure to check the consensus on this paragraph:

In 1973, an incident involving the Aggie Band occurred with members of the Rice Marching Owl Band (MOB) concerning their halftime show. The MOB, which parodies other bands, mocked the Aggies by goose-stepping on the field. "The Aggie Band pushed through the Rice group back into the stands. Ice, epithets and not a few fists flew."[4][5]

It may be that there is not consensus to add this paragraph -- but let's check. I will not add it back if the consensus is that it doesn't belong. ThreeE 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ThreeE 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - its not as simple as a straight yes-or-no. I favor including some language discussing criticism/parody of the band. I'm not sure the above paragraph is the best we can do. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree The incident is much more about the interaction of the A&M fans and the Rice band than about the A&M band. Would be relevant for the article about the Rice Band, but I don't think it adds to this article. There is significant discussion about this paragraph above in the #Nazi Reference section above. -- Upholder 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree See Upholder's comments — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag Removal

I'm not sure how we are going to make this article NPOV. I have outlined my suggestions. I do know that it isn't right that the primary (almost sole) author, who is/was a member of the subject organization and whose picture is in the article should not remove it. That editor should not be the one to determine if we have eliminated conflict of interest and POV issues that multiple editors (not just me) have identified. It also should be discussed here for a long enough time to allow others to weigh in. ThreeE 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You have NO specifics, nothing that isn't in accordance with WP policy and guidelines, and you make up criteria that has been approved by no one. As the primary (almost sole) person who objects to this article, your objections are not in accordance with any POV criteria:

WP:NPOV & WP:NOPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one...the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints...The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'...

Bias: "One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas."

Types of bias

Class: N/A

Commercial: N/A

Ethnic or racial: N/A

Geographical: N/A

Nationalistic: N/A

Gender: N/A

Political: N/A

Religious: N/A

Sensationalist: N/A "This includes emphasizing, distorting, or fabricating exceptional news to boost commercial ratings; N/A

Scientific: N/A

WP:ASF: "[T]here are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." This is apparently not sufficient for you.

Achieving neutrality: N/A

Article naming: N/A

Article structure: N/A

WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:Undue weight, WP:WEIGHT: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source..." Your view is published NOWHERE "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" We have. "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." You haven't. "If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced."

Good research: "Disagreements...can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available."

Balance: N/A

Fairness of tone: "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views impartially."

Characterizing opinions of people's work: N/A

As such, this article has met all POV/NPOV criteria — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE, you're right. This article is a terrible mess, violating several of WP's policies (npov and tone are the most obvious ones). We now have an edit war with extremely entrenched Marching Band cabal. You are of course right that the main contributing editor is the last person to remove an NPOV tag. I suggest escalating this by re-evaluating its FA status. The whole article is a disgrace, and the lack of editorial attention, and extreme stubbornness (edit warring over a POV tag, for crying out loud!) of BQZip01 after the fact is worrying. 130.235.16.196 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be explicit and detailed about the portions of the article that you feel are not in compliance with WP:NPOV. -- Upholder —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not make this edit -- although I agree with it. See my ThreeE talk page. I also encourage all to consider the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE discussion. ThreeE 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly this article reads like a collection of rumors and anecdotes citing sources that are basically collections of anectdotes by the same group of people writing the article. Specific examples: Under Compositions "The Aggie Band highly recommends that all members participate in the Spend the Night with the Corps program to better understand the rigors of life in the Corps of Cadets." This has to be straight out of recruitment materials and does not belong. Under modernization and expansion "The following weekend the band attempted their most complicated drill and performed flawlessly. Each subsequent week, the drills became more complicated" Says who? What drill? Djgranados 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful there "...collections of anectdotes [sic] by the same group of people writing the article." You are assuming a group is writing this article when, in fact, it is a bunch of Wikipedia editors (while I was a member, I am not currently), not some conglomeration or entity trying to promote an agenda.

As for each of your problems

1. The directors of the band encourage the SNWC program. This statement is backed up by the attached reference (though I just had to update it to the new page as the band altered their website recently). If you feel it is "out of recruiting materials", please explain why. I personally feel the whole paragraph helps better describe what the typical band composition is and how people get there. As for "has to be straight out of recruitment materials" is irrelevant. It can still be in the article. If you feel it shouldn't, please explain why.
2. As for " 'The following weekend the band attempted their most complicated drill and performed flawlessly. Each subsequent week, the drills became more complicated' Says who? What drill?" This is from the stated source material. Please explain "what drill?" What information are you seeking? What is not already included? What is missing? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Battalion quote

The sentence about the computer simulations has recently been changed to be a direct quote from The Battalion. I've seen several people insert the qualified "the A&M student newspaper", or something similar, into the sentence. I've been a party to a similar discussion on the J.K. Rowling talk page about adding qualifying adjectives when discussing subjects that have their own article, and, over there, we decided that adding the qualifier introduces its own bias. We felt there that keeping the qualifier out allowed people to consult the wikipedia article for that subject and make up their own minds. As mentioned several sections above, my personal opinion is to do the same here (no qualifiers for the Batt), but I'm open to other opinions. Karanacs 17:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the band itself is making the claim. Reference 1 was co-authored by the president of the Texas Aggies Band Association, while he was president, the same wording is used within the promotional video and the captions from the Batt article (the quote is within the caption, not with the article proper). The real question remains, "Who said it?". The precident thus far is that no one knows. It is not attributed in the article, nor is it attributed in the Batt or the video. However, there are some editors here that were actually members of the band, and they heard it somewhere, it didn't just appear out of nowhere. Additionally, no one seems to know even what software was used, even though it is stated as fact that this is true. If this is to be within the lead it should be easy to verify who said it, when they said it, and in what capacity, and I find it hard to believe that someone that was actually a member of the band has no idea who said it or when they said it. Arzel 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While the band certainly makes the claim, others do as well and place their reputations on the line accordingly (Mister Powell & his wife, the Texas A&M University Press, The Former Students Association at Texas A&M, and The Battalion, thus far). As has already been stated by two admins (Johntex and NMjadan (sp)), these references and the statements are acceptable IAW WP:V as third-party references, though not necessarily as phrased in the article. Any additional information may not be available from reliable sources IAW WP:V, WP:RS, and no original research, but as stated above, the information you have requested is not required for inclusion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are to make the statement that "As of 2005, some of these maneuvers could not be simulated by commercially available computer marching drill programs." then we need some better references.

1. "As of 2005, some of these maneuvers could not be simulated.." Completely guessing. The video and the Batt appear to be using the book as a reference, which is dated 1994. In anycase no one seems to know, you are even guessing yourself by the inclusion of 2005 because that is the date of the Batt article, which in itself is OR.
2. "....could not be simulated by commercially available computer marching drill programs." Do we know it was tested on multiple software? The video just says a computer says that it is impossible, and the Batt says that charting software says it is impossible with no mention of simulation. My new suggestion below. Arzel 03:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my suggestion above? Could we replace the Batt quote with an attribution to Powell, former director of the Aggie Band Association? I think you're the only one with the book, so I'm not sure what the exact wording is in the book. Karanacs 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing is known. Lt. Col. Edward Adams, is attributed to the design of the "Criss Cross" which is the source of the so-called impossible statement, and was first performed in 1947 (from the video), thus my proposal.

The Aggies are known for their signature "Criss Cross" march, designed by Lt. Col. Edward Adams in 1947 without the use of computer drill charting software, which were unable to chart such a complicated procedure.

I suspect the book that no one can easily check will back up this statement, and it is also consistant with the video and is verifiable. Arzel 03:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Does any neutral, 3rd party source not in any way affiliated with or populated by present or former students make this claim? If not, I think it is relevant that the article mentions that Battalion is associated with the school. The article drops the name as if it were a commonly available periodical, such as the NY Times. It is not. It is a student newspaper, self-published by the University and it's students, and can hardly be considered free of bias. If we choose not to mention the association in the paragraph, then we should tag the paragraph as having insufficient references. This article is in dire, desperate need of non-Aggie editing. It reads like something out of the back of the yearbook.Thedukeofno 04:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A fresh look

There are two major issues remaining, but without a consensus on the first, a consensus on the last two is not possible.

1. The definition of a "third party"/verifiability (and with it the level of detail required for inclusion in WP)/NPOV
2. Phrasing

[edit] Third party/verifiability/NPOV

The problems I see here are the definition of "third party". Some interpret this to mean "a source with which the subject of an article has no affiliation whatsoever", but two administrators, an objective third party from "the pump", and a majority of the editors posting say otherwise. Nothing from the other editors has countered these arguments. If this cannot be reconciled, then there is no way we will ever agree on anything later. I realize this is long, but I feel it is important to re-emphasize these points:

Johntex (admin)

It is not our job to police the claims made by our sources. It is our job to accurately report what the sources say. Please read our official policy on verifiability.

WP:V starts with "[t]his page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This claim has multiple published sources to back it up.

WP:V continues with "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in the original) Johntex\^talk 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[[[WP:V]]]...begins by saying, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

You mention the "impossibility" of this claim, but our policy on verifiability clearly says it is not our place to prove that this claim is true or untrue, if that is what you are worried about. There are multiple references given to back up the claim.

If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which is a guideline, not policy) there is nothing there to support the claim that sources have to be "unassociated with the band or school". On the contrary, please look at 2005 Texas Longhorn football team or University of Michigan. Both are featured articles. Both cite sources directly connected to the school described in the article.

The claim is currently verifiable by reliable sources.Johntex\^talk 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for all sources to be third party sources. You are misinterpreting the guideline, as proven by multiple Featured Articles such as the two I point out to you above.

Johntex\^talk 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the name of the computer program would be great to add, but I don't think it is in any way necessary. Consider the following hypothetical parallel examples:

Andy Warhol mixed his own paint because he felt that commercial paints did not give suitable results.

J. K. Rowling thought her word processor was too cumbersome so she started working with pen and paper.

The pilot felt his navigation software was in error so he ignored it and proceeded safely to the airport.

We can read the above (fictional) examples and wonder what the commercial products were, but we don't need that information if the source does not provide it. Likewise, the name of the "marching band computer software" is not needed. What the source says is that software was tried and it gave a certain result. Johntex\^talk 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V does not say, "use only third party sources. What we should avoid is using only primary sources or only self-published sources. That is not a problem here because the overall article is sourced from various different sources. Even the sources for this particular claim are all distinct sources. None are from the band themselves. One is from the school newspaper, which is independent from the band and follows a regular editorial process. Another is from the alumni association which again is distinct from the band. The third is a book about the band that happens to be published by the University Press, but the university press publishes lots of books. They are just a publisher.

As to the book - books are reliable sources. They are sometimes considered preferable to online sources in fact. There is no requirement that a source be easily verified. If you want to do serious scholarship you sometimes have to make some effort. You might try your local library for a copy of the book. Being published by the school publishing company does not prove any allegation about NPOV. As to copyright, since you admit you haven't looked at the source, it would be very counter-intuitive for you to claim there is any proof of copyright infringement. Johntex\^talk 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE is claiming bias in these sources where there is no evidence to indicate the sources are biased. A school newspaper is a third party source when writing about the school's band. To imply that the school newspaper is under control of the band is laughable. The same is true of the university press. They publish books on all sorts of topics. Many of them relate somehow to the Southwest or Texas like The Yankee Invasion of Texas and Texas Women on the Cattle Trails, but some do not, like The Ghosts of Iwo Jima and Nixon's Business: Authority and Power in Presidential Politics. I list those 4 because they are among many award-winning books by this publisher. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am against complete removal of the factoid about the computer programs not being able to simulate this drill. Speaking as someone from a wonderful university in Texas, unconnected with Texas a&m except for the fact that they are both state schools, I can attest to the fact that statements is made frequently. So, we have a claim that is widely known. We have sources for the claim. The sources comply with WP:V.

So, here is my new suggestion. We take an exact quote from the Batalion article and we attribute it to 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.

We don't need the other two references to back up this claim. This paper is on-line so anyone can check the reference without getting a book or watching a video. In a separate sentence, sourced separately, we can talk about the Aggies stepping between each others feet. That should not be hard to source. Johntex\^talk 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NMajdan (admin)

"I agree with Johntex's response...I will reply to my own post if I find anything that makes me change my mind." NMajdan•talk 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Murray (third party from the village pump)

• I am responding to a inquiry at the Pump page. I read through the article and the talk page and don't see a problem here meriting a NPOV tag.--Kevin Murray 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs

• Here are quotes directly from WP:V and WP:RS.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses (bolding mine). Please note that one of the sources for this statement is a book published by a university press.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). --Note that if no reliable sources have published an alternate view, it does not need to be included. No one is asserting in any source that a computer program would be able to model some of the Aggie Band marches.

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Two of the sources are online; a third is readily available via interlibrary loan. The online sources do say that computer simulators could not replicate some of the routines (I haven't seen the book, but I assume it says the same), thus verifying the claim as it is written in the article.

The Aggie Band has absolutely no control over the actions of the Texas A&M University Press, The Battalion or the Association of Former Students. If the Aggie Band had paid for the publication of the book, or if the claim was taken directly from their website, that would be a self-published sourcing issue.

To summarize: Three sources are used, all of which verify the fact as presented in the article. None of these sources is under the control of, nor paid for, by the Aggie Band. Any disputing facts should be included if they exist, but no one has found any. Therefore, under the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, this claim in the article is both verified and NPOV. Karanacs 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are reliable (a university press and a newspaper). They are third-party (the Aggie Band has no influence whatsoever over either the university press or the newspaper. For that matter, even Texas A&M University does not exert editorial control over either the press or the newspaper). According to WP:RS, university presses are considered one of the two most reliable types of sources (peer-reviewed journals being the other). The Battalion has been listed as one of the 20 best college newspapers in theUS. Can you provide anything beyond your opinion to support your assertion that this particular university press and this particular newspaper are not reliable and don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Karanacs 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that The Association of Former Students gets zero funding from Texas A&M University and is not a part of the Texas A&M System, and much of the university press funding comes from endowments and book sales. The A&M system has no editorial control over either the school newspaper, the university press, or anything the Association of Former Students chooses to produce.Karanacs 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Upholder

I agree that the tag should be removed and am of the opinion that the editor that placed it is trying to require a level of verifibility that is not warranted by the guidelines (as quoted above). -- Upholder 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable and Reliable sources have been cited as per wikipedia guidelines and policy. The fact that you don't like them doesn't change that fact, nor does it make the contents of the article original research. -- Upholder 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

CONCLUSION

The definition of a "third party" has been firmly established and these sources meet that criteria. The sources stated are verifiable with respect to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Though the details would be tantalizing and of serious interest amongst editors of this page (and perhaps others, the level of detail is irrelevant as long as it satisfies WP:V. Therefore, this article does not need a {{POV}} tag with regards to any of the aforementioned reasons.

[edit] Phrasing

Individual passages may need tweaking to reflect a more neutral point of view, but the basic accuracy of this article is sufficient. I would certainly be welcome to altering phrasing accordingly and even removing phrases that do not meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CONCLUSION

The phrases may need slight alterations, but a {{POV tag}} is not necessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Proof

... that this project stinks. I have a lot of trouble believing that this article reads like an entry in an encylopedia. It simply doesn't. Can any of you imagine opening Encyclopaedia Americana, Brittanica or Collier's to find this article? All references and sources have bias (see WP:BIAS), and it is our job as editors to edit the bias out. I don't see this as having been done on this article.Thedukeofno 15:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides the disputed wording on the computer simulation fact, are there other areas that you feel should be reworded? If so, let's discuss those here rather than simply complain. Thanks, Karanacs 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"More proof...this project stinks" To what exactly are you referring? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By "project" I mean wikipedia. Karanacs, am I correct in stating that wikipedia is "a free encyclopedia than anyone can edit"? Should I "be bold" and edit the article myself, or do I have to run all changes past you BQZip? But since you asked, here are a few items just from the "Cadet Life" section:

- Does the manufacturer and cost of the calvary boots really offer much to the article?

- Can anybody really see the "brass lyre" on BQZip's collar in the picture?

- One person, out of hundreds of thousands that have ever attended games where A&M has played, requested return of tickets. Is that really relevant to the article? If so, why is it in the "Cadet Life" section?

- The last sentence on the paragraph regarding practices sums up the band practices succinctly and renders the previous three sentences useless.

A good question that the authors of this article need to ask themselves is "who is the audience". Who are you writing this article for? What do you think when someone in (insert English speaking country other than the US here) reads this and sees "Recall! Step off on Hullabaloo"? Do you think they know what that means and understand it?

Being a Texan and a graduate from a military academy, I've been exposed to a similar lifestyle and understand how A&M folks get wrapped up in the lore and legend of the school. You're very proud of your school; I appreciate and understand it. But the bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia. There is too much "insider information" here, for lack of a better term. This article could be 2/3rds the size and still give the reader everything they need to know about the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band.

As an example, reference #1 is cited at least 42 times in the article!! Isn't that a bit extreme? If a reader needs to know that much about the band, why don't they just purchase reference #1? It would seem to me that every quote and statistic in the book has been cited.Thedukeofno 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll respond to your inquiries/statements one at a time:

"By 'project' I mean wikipedia." So, Wikipedia stinks?

"Karanacs, am I correct in stating that wikipedia is 'a free encyclopedia than anyone can edit'?" I'll field that one: yes, you are correct...but just because you "can" do anything, doesn't necessarily mean you "should".

"Should I "be bold" and edit the article myself, or do I have to run all changes past you BQZip?" Again, you certainly can, but that runs contrary to WP:DR, one of Wikipedia's policies: "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page..." Since, the phrasing is of dispute, we should try and resolve it here first.

"Does the manufacturer and cost of the calvary [sic] boots really offer much to the article?" The fact that the band originated the tradition of wearing senior boots (a MAJOR honor earned by senior cadets), the cost associated with that privilege helps put it in context. If you feel otherwise, we certainly can remove that fact.

"Can anybody really see the "brass lyre" on BQZip's collar in the picture?" As opposed to corps brass, it is visible. Another better picture is becoming available soon (currently commented out until copyright issues can be resolved). Taking out the band lyre part is fine if its needed.

"One person, out of hundreds of thousands that have ever attended games where A&M has played, requested return of tickets. Is that really relevant to the article? If so, why is it in the "Cadet Life" section?" This is not an isolated incident and has happened on several other occasions. As for its placement, do you have a better location for it?

"The last sentence on the paragraph regarding practices sums up the band practices succinctly and renders the previous three sentences useless." I concur, but an explanation of that last sentence was requested during this article's FA candidacy. Since the source of the number is not explicitly stated. This is what was agreed upon.

"A good question that the authors of this article need to ask themselves is "who is the audience". Who are you writing this article for? What do you think when someone in (insert English speaking country other than the US here) reads this and sees "Recall! Step off on Hullabaloo"? Do you think they know what that means and understand it?" LOL. Hell, even AGGIES don't know what it means. That said, it is why "Recall" is wikilinked. I went ahead and wikilinked "Hullabaloo" to the Aggie Way Hymn lyrics too. Does this help? How about a ref/link to this website?

"Being a Texan and a graduate from a military academy..." Where did you go?

"But the bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia. There is too much "insider information" here, for lack of a better term. This article could be 2/3rds the size and still give the reader everything they need to know about the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band." Then what would you like to see cut? Additionally, this article is almost the EXACT size recommended by Wikipedia (32KB), so I fail to see how size is an issue.

"As an example, reference #1 is cited at least 42 times in the article!! Isn't that a bit extreme?" Not at all. Referencing it does very little to the size of the article, so I fail to see what it has to do with the SIZE of the article as a whole. Second, Ref #1 is a major source of information. IAW WP:CITE, Sources should be cited "When you quote someone" and when it is "...material that is challenged or likely to be challenged..." Ergo, the sources are needed. I would be happy to pull them off of all paragraphs and just leave them with the quotes, if that will suffice.

"If a reader needs to know that much about the band, why don't they just purchase reference #1?" The book contains much, much more than is included here. What is here is merely a snippet of information gleaned from the book.

"It would seem to me that every quote and statistic in the book has been cited." That is what is SUPPOSED to be done.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 17:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with mostly everything that you have written and have neither the time nor the inclination to go into a point-by-point diatribe, but your last point is particularly telling. Actually, you're not supposed to take a source and place every quote and statistic from it in the article as you seem to believe. Suffice it to say that the article simply does not read like an encyclopedia.

One other point you made: "As opposed to corps brass, it's visible" - See what I mean? You assume that the reader of the article knows what the hell corps brass looks like or even what it is!!?? Why? You're writing the article as if facts, details, slogans and uniform items of TAMU are common knowledge. Who is your audience? If it's the incoming freshman class, frogs or fish, - whatever you call them-, then I applaud your efforts. If it is someone who maybe doesn't know that much about A&M or is coming upon the article in a different manner, as it was the FA last week, then I say it needs editing to be NPOV.Thedukeofno 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Actually, you're not supposed to take a source and place every quote and statistic from it in the article as you seem to believe." I never anything of the kind and I am disappointed that you are skewing what I actually said. I said you are supposed to cite your sources appropriately IAW WP:CITE

"One other point you made: 'As opposed to corps brass, it's visible' - See what I mean? You assume that the reader of the article knows what the hell corps brass looks like or even what it is!!?? Why? You're writing the article as if facts, details, slogans and uniform items of TAMU are common knowledge. Who is your audience?...If it is someone who maybe doesn't know that much about A&M or is coming upon the article in a different manner, as it was the FA last week, then I say it needs editing to be NPOV." Again, you are taking what I said and skewing it. You asked how that could be of any importance. I gave you AN example, not a definitive reason it has to be included. Corps Brass is not even mentioned in the article, though it might be a good addition. I also said I would be happy to rephrase/delete. Instead of offering a solution, you go off on a rant of how non-POV it is. Your comments are not a discussion on how to improve the article: they are formatted as a lecture. Give suggestions on how to IMPROVE THE ARTICLE!!! Don't just get on here and whine. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You brought up corps brass. I don't even have a clue as to what it is, so why on earth would I bring it up. You stated "As opposed to corps brass, it's visible", to my comment that the collar device being a lyre isn't visible in your picture. It could be two dogs humping for all I can see.

The last sentence in your 17:35 posting reads: "It would seem to me that every quote and statistic in the book has been cited." That is what is SUPPOSED to be done." Are you not saying that every that every quote and statistic IN THE BOOK should be cited? I'm not skewing your words; you're tripping on them yourself.Thedukeofno 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could replace the cadet picture with a close-up of the lyre? ThreeE 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I am stating that every quote and statistic from the book has been cited in the article IAW WP:CITE.
2. Let me see what I can find as far as a band lyre goes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, please read what both you and I have written before you launch accusations about skewing words. You're taking this whole thing a little too personal for my tastes, which somewhat backs up our POV assertions. Thedukeofno 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Simulation

We need a vote for that computer simulation phrase: "As of 2005, some of these maneuvers could not be simulated by commercially available computer marching drill programs." This also applies to the Texas A&M University page. while it might be able to stay here, is it necessary on the main A&M page? Lets give this vote a week or so. Should the statement stay on both this page, or be removed? should it on the main page.

Oppose the statement on both pages. For a statement like the one above id prefer to know the specific computer program and the circumstances in with it gave an error. I use to read the batt a lot, i never took it with complete trust. heck our school doesn't have a journalism department. and if the statement does stay on this page, i feel because it is so controversial on this page it should be removed on our main page. the main page is growing and a good cut would be approprate. Oldag07 11:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Oldag07's stipulations. At the least, the name of the software program (or programs) should be included. →Wordbuilder 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Partial support I'd suggest an alternate wording as I think the word "simulation" is a large part of the objection of many: "As of 2005, some of the maneuvers executed were considered to involve collisions between marchers by commercially available computer marching band drill writing programs." -- Upholder 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. While I'm not quite as skeptical as Oldag07 and Wordbuilder in regard to The Battalion -- perhaps mistakenly so -- I think the wording we use just isn't sourced at all. (Of course, I don't have the book source in front of me right now.) Nowhere have I seen a claim that no "commercially available" drill software can do the actions in question. And since we're using the qualifier "some," which in itself is OK, but not ideal, "as of 2005" is meaningless, because there's always going to be "some" software unable to do it. -- RG² 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I didn't intend to come off as skeptical of The Batallion—I really don't have an opinion either way—I was just agreeing that the name of the software should be included. I've struck the "per Oldag07" to avoid futher confusion. →Wordbuilder 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Comment The name is not available in any publication. Per discussions above, it is not needed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Talk of computer simulation needs to be removed or reduced in significance. This statement tells more about the shortcomings of "commercially available" drill software (is there non-commercially available drill software?) than it tells of the marching skills of the band, which are impressive and unlike that of any school in our solar system, as the article does not hesitate to mention 50 times.Thedukeofno 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (remove the statement). I am in agreement with Thedukeofno's comments. In addition, I don't see how mention of computer simulations in any way provides encyclopedic info regarding the band. I also believe it is self-referencing and POV. But everyone knew that... ThreeE 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support Arzel's suggested wording with a small addition (see discussion farther down): "The Aggies are known for their signature "Criss Cross" march, designed by Lt. Col. Edward Adams in 1947 without the use of computer drill charting software, which were unable to chart such a complicated procedure at the time. I'm assuming Adams' design is cited somewhere. ThreeE 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support (Keep in both) IAW WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, etc. this statement is a paraphrase of a quote. The computer program used, the parameters used, who ran the program, the time of day, the weather at the time, etc. are all interesting to know, but they aren't required and I have made the case above to which no one has yet responded. Additionally, a vote simply tells us who stands where on the issue. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't vote and then say "majority rules" and do whatever we want. In accordance with Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Conduct_a_survey, this vote is merely academic. Our next step should be mediation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not a democracy. But six others have thus far agreed that there should be at least some alteration to the wording, and only one person has disagreed, so there's also the issue of there being a consensus for change. And realize that some of the arguments here have nothing to do with the requesting of additional information, so you ought to address them, too. -- RG² 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is five, not six. Second of all. I have addressed all of these ad nauseum above. Others agree with me and have not changed their minds. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no you haven't, you've spent most of your time Wikilawyering against ThreeE. And a partial support clearly isn't a complete support of the line in question. -- RG² 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone explain to me how this doesn't at least resemble consensus that the statement, for now, should be removed? ThreeE 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"alteration" != "remove" Additionally, to quote you "Recognize that some editors have day jobs and can only log on once per day -- usually in the evening. The current tag hasn't even been on the article for one of these cycles." This has been on the talk page less than 6 hours. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the POV tag on for as long as you wish this to be considered. ThreeE 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support exact quote from the Battalion - I really don't think this issue is very difficult. We take an exact quote from the Battalion article and we attribute it to 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." - Johntex\^talk 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation is the next step

Let's assume 2 things before we continue (I am not saying we agree on them now, but let's assume them for the sake of discussion).

1. The Battalion is a reliable source IAW WP:RS and A quoted sentence from a reliable source meets the standards of WP:V and can be included in a WP article.
2. We decide to include this information in some form.

So, before we go to mediation, I would like to propose a solution to the issue. Why not just quote the Battalion in the body of the text? Just say something like "Emily Baker stated 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 [in a two dimensional plane] at the same time.'" This completely removes the onus of credibility to The Battalion (assuming we can agree upon that). Then in the lead, we paraphrase that quote. Would this work for everyone? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that "place" is not the same as "space". — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What if we leave it in the body of the article and remove it from the lead? As some take issues with the statement, that would reduce its prominence, while still leaving the claim in the body of the article to satisfy those who would like to see it remain. At the same time, if BQ still has the book, it might be best to reword from the Batt quote to be a quote from the book, attributed to Donald Powell. Karanacs 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The book doesn't go into the same detail as the quote and it seems that ThreeE has problems with any source even remotely associated with the school (editorial independence notwithstanding and even with clear opinion admins and third parties that these sources are fine). For now, I'd like to stick with a source everyone can clearly see. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be an improvement, but not a long term solution. I personally would be satisfied by fully attributing it to the band's belief. Something like "the band is known for claiming these maneuvers are not able to be simulated." That way you make it clear that this is part of the "grip" of the band. ThreeE 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a single source that says the band claims it? If anything, we should claim the specific author in The Battalion, The Battalion itself, the Association of Former Students, Mr./Mrs. Powell, and the Texas A&M University press claim it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't so the quote should be removed. Can you cite a reference of who did the simulation work -- or is it just a myth the band perpetuates via the school's publications? ThreeE 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am really getting tired of you referring to this statement as a lie! It is a quote or a paraphrase of one.

Myth != lie. There is nothing wrong with the band telling some traditional, but mythical, stories -- but there is a problem with us repeating them here without noting that unless we can provide third-party verification. ThreeE 20:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should use a dictionary to verify the words you are using You are implying the band made the story up. STOP CALLING IT A MYTH! — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not implying that the band made the story up, I am saying it outright! Until you can show me third-party evidence to the contrary, for purposes of this article, it is a myth -- an urban legend if you like. All I have seen is what Arzel's suggested wording describes. Do you have any? If you do, I would welcome its addition to the article.

So, let me get this straight. You propose a solution that you wrote and you admit isn't backed up by anything. As a consequence, we should remove a sourced quote?

If this is the only productiveness we are going to get, I suggest we stop wasting each other's time and take this straight to RfC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think we're ready for mediation yet. I agree with Karanacs that it should be removed from the lead, as it doesn't add much and breaks the flow. Also, as I've stated it says more about the shortcomings of the software.

How about something simply like "Some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that commonly-used drill-charting software can not properly chart (or duplicate) the maneuvers"... or some such. It is the best of both worlds; 100% true and 100% verifiable. Using words like "impossible" begs for these kind of problems. Thedukeofno 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

THIS is what I have been asking for all along. Some sort of suggestion other than "no not that!"

Overall, it is a GREAT rewrite, but here is where I see problems:

1. "...so complex that commonly-used drill-charting software..." "commonly-used" is not in any of the cited materials, so how "common" is a matter of debate of which there will be no answer. Additionally, "drill charting software" is information I provided for purposes of clarification. "software" can certainly be inferred, since all computers run on it...well, many of them any way.
2. "...can not properly chart (or duplicate) the maneuvers..." I think "duplicate" would be the appropriate word here and goes with the spirit of the cited materials — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. How about: "Some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that the band has found no commercially-available drill-charting software which can properly duplicate the maneuvers. Thus all maneuvers are charted by hand..." or however you do it. Avoid the excessive superlatives and you'll find that 1) the article will be better written and 2) you'll appease us sharpshooters.Thedukeofno 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BQ's points are correct. the sources don't say too much about commercially available drill charing software. it is vague in the source, and such we can't imply more details than are already mentioned. (See my comments on Karanacs compromise in the next section) Oldag07 03:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement with assumptions in "Mediation..."

I don't see the student newspaper as a reliable third-party source as required. It can be used as a secondary source only per WP:V#Sources -- and that doesn't even mention the POV issues involved. Finally, I really don't think this requires mediation. ThreeE 18:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE, I think everyone is perfectly clear on your agenda here. You don't need to keep rehashing it. I already asked you specifically to forgo discussion on reliable sources and concentrate on the specific question. You keep going into it, but there is no consensus as of yet. I have asked a completely different question. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BQ, all due respect, but I do not need your permission to express my opinion on the talk page. In addition, there is a significant number of participants here that do believe the source is flawed or POV. ThreeE 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not getting sidetracked by your repeated bashing with a point of view that is not supported with WP policies or guidelines. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that your opinions can't be posted here. I already asked that the discussion be UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that WP:V had been met. Your contention is noted. Can you make a contribution under that assumption? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption is fundamentally flawed. What agenda do you believe I have that is perfectly clear? ThreeE 19:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You want it removed...you have said that at EVERY possible opportunity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with any self-referencing source. Editorial independence is pretty weak if not non-existant for a school newspaper as others have pointed out. ThreeE

Once again, that is not in accordance with WP:V or WP:RS, as has been stated many times by many people. -- Upholder 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are also the sole person who has made that assertion. No one else has. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion above? I'm certainly not alone. ThreeE 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were "alone" I said that you are the only one that has asserted "*Editorial independence is pretty weak if not non-existant[sic] for a school newspaper..." No "others" have "pointed this out." — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the lenghty talk page. There are others that have posted the same or agreed with the comment. ThreeE 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

SHOW ME ANY TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE AGREED that "Editorial independence is pretty weak if not non-existant[sic] for a school newspaper"!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel and the Thedukeofno. ThreeE 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where you get that idea. It is nowhere on this page. Do you have some sort of crystal ball? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in denial. And you are not in Egypt. ThreeE 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

...and who's trolling exactly, BQ? Regardless of the typo, you knew what he meant. Keep it above the table, please let us not get personal. WE should all have the same agenda; a well-written, neutral encyclopedia entry. Thedukeofno 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What typo are you talking about? Regardless of spelling, no one else on this page has ever asserted that "Editorial independence is pretty weak/non-existent for a school newspaper", never mind the Battalion which is not controlled by the University in any way. I agree we should all have the same agenda. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Battalion isn't "controlled" by the University. But how about biased? Influenced? Is anyone both in the band and on the staff of the Battalion? Is anyone in the band friends with someone on the staff of the Battalion? Classmates? Do you see my point? I don't think that the Battalion and ref #1 are far enough displaced from the topic to be primary references. Thedukeofno 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself how likely it is that the student newspaper at a&m would print negative stories on the band. Moveover (and this is even more important), isn't it likely that the batt. would be perceived to have a conflict of interest? ThreeE 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You already cited an example of The Batt posting something on the FRONT PAGE that was detrimental to the Band (my outfit in particular). I don't take exception to it, it is news. The Batt is known for publishing many incidents of things that have happened in the Corps. As for a perceived conflict of interest, as defined by Wikipedia, there is none. Even if there is a perceived conflict, there isn't an actual conflict. It is a reliable, independent source. From what I understand, they don't even get funding from the University, just ad sales...like every other newspaper... — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BQ, you can fight this 'til you're blue in the face, if you care to, but the matter of fact is when the Battalion reports on something pertaining to A&M, it is biased, plain and simple. As stated in WP:NPOV "all editors and all sources have biases". The Battalion is not exempt from this. It is staffed by students, contributed to by the band director... it may be funded independently, but that's where its independence stops. Thedukeofno 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thedukeofno, your claim that "when the Battalion reports on something pertaining to A&M, it is biased, plain and simple." is an extraordinary claim. It may even be libel. It is certainly far from being a reasonable statement. I suggest you retract it because it only hurts your credibility. Johntex\^talk 19:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entire text from WP:V#Sources

Emphasis is mine - — BQZip01 — ^talk

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[4]

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you have referenced is third-party -- so you lost me on the first sentence. But I indulged you and went to the second paragraph -- but you really lost me there as nothing you have suggested is a peer-reviewed journal or book. So what was your point? ThreeE 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your statements are nothing but trolling at this point. The book and newspaper article squarely ARE third party sources as discussed above in EXCRUCIATING detail (two admins, a third party reviewer, and numerous other editors agree). I never claimed anything was a peer-reviewed journal. One source is a book published by a university press and the other is a mainstream newspaper, both the preferred choices of Wikipedia as sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The book you are referencing is not a peer-reviewed book. The battalion is not a mainstream newspaper. Neither are third-party sources. All have a conflict of interest. Which part don't you understand? ThreeE 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They are BOTH considered third party sources. The VAST majority of the editors on the page agree with that. I never claimed it was a peer reviewed book...EVER! I said it was a book published by a university press. Nothing above says it has to be peer-reviewed. As for the newspaper, it is part of the U-wire service (similar to the AP) and has been quoted in the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. How much more mainstream do you want?!? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why my comment was removed but it should be known here in this discussion, that the University Press is not making the claim, they simply published the book. The co-author of the book is D. B. Powell. Powell was the President of the Texas Aggies Band Association from 1993-94, which is when the book was published. He was also Chairman of the board of Regents of Texas A&M as recent as 1997. It is quite clear that this book was written by someone with very close ties to both T A&M and the band as well, how can that be considered a Third Party Source? As a follow-up, what exactly does the book say regarding this issue? Arzel 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, shouldn't the names of the authors of reference 1 be included in the citation listing? ThreeE 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Arzel 01:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They are listed in the code of the text. I'm not sure why they aren't mentioned here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BQ, by definition, reference #1 is self-published, as is the Battalion. That doesn't mean they can't be used, but it does mean that they must be used carefully. Using it as the primary reference for an article starts to cross that line, IMO. Thedukeofno 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How the hell is is self-published? When did the band get their own printing press? Of course the Batt publishes it themselves. Who else would? So does the New York Times. As far as another primary reference, what would YOU suggest, because apparently nothing is good enough for your personal standards (never mind Wikipedia's)? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, calm down first of all, and quit with the attacks. You've been the defensive one here, acting as if we're all defecating on your personal Mona Lisa. I'll tell you how the hell it's self-published, in the simplest of terms: University has band. University has publishing company. Unless the band is in no way affiliated with the University, or the University is in no way affiliated with the publishing company... but something tells me both the band and the publishing company are affiliated with the University...self-published.Thedukeofno 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to The Duke's comments, at least one of the editors/co-authors of reference 1, the article's primary reference, was the President of the Texas Aggies Band Association from 1993-94 -- when the book was published. In addition to making the reference self-published, this introduces a clear conflict of interest. As if that wasn't enough, your adding the reference, as an ex-band member, does nothing to decrease the conflict of interest. Is this really lost on you? ThreeE 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More information about Dr. Powell, who was co-author of the book (Other author was Mary Jo Powell, I assume to be his wife, but not sure). He retired in 1998 from Texas A&M after a distinguished career. http://newsarchive.tamu.edu/article.php?articleid=3209&month=9&year=1998

A retirement reception will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. Friday (Sept. 11) for Donald B. Powell, special assistant to the vice president for administration. The reception, held in Rudder Exhibit Hall, is sponsored by the Office of the Vice President for Administration and will honor Powell for 25 years of service to Texas A&M. In addition to his service in the Division of Administration, Powell also is known for his work with the Corps of Cadets and the Aggie Band, as well as for the "dp" cartoon that ran in The Battalion for many years and now runs in The Eagle, and as the host of the annual telecast of the Aggie Bonfire. 09/07/98

I think it is clear he had a direct relationship with the band. I am not saying the book cannot be used as a reference, but I would still like to know what was said in the book about the marching drills. Arzel 01:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:COI does not apply to Mr. Powell, ergo, your assertion has no legs to stand upon. Autobiographies published by reputable sources are acceptable, but this is not? Please explain. Let's go over what a first party source is: something that came DIRECTLY from the source, not indirectly. A third party source is one from OUTSIDE the organization in question. Can an extraordinary claim come from the state of Texas? Can it come from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security? From the military? All of these contribute funds to Texas A&M and dictate how it must be spent, but they do not dictate how the organization is specifically run. Additionally, equating the Aggie Band and the University Press is like affiliating Time Magazine with a chat room in AOL. Are they related? Yes. Do they exercise any control over the other? No. How about a report on an Air Force Special Operations unit from Air Education and Training Command. Same thing. Yes their money comes from the same source, but they are independent entities in their own right (I just used this as an example since I knew it).
2. What specifically would you like to know from the text? Do you want the exact quote and page number? If I give it to you will it make any sort of difference?

— BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, sometimes the only sources for these types of things are a university press or a school newspaper. who knows the issues of a university better than a university? It is like saying that the USA Today Newspaper is an invalid source about the United States of America because it is an American Newspaper. I will be very happy with Karanacs compromise on removing it from the lead. for two reasons:

1. The statement within the battalion and the school website is vague.
2. The battalion's comment on the band's computer simulation seems to be a footnote within the article. not a major premise or point. thus the battalion does not seem to put much emphasis on the statement.

I would also like to add, because what i am saying the computer simulation statement is a minor detail about the organization, not a defining characteristic, i do not feel like it is a major enough point to be written both in the Traditions of Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University articlesOldag07 03:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldag, I respectfully disagree with your analogy. I don't believe that the Battalion and ref #1 should be primary sources, and they should be used carefully. These publications are not independent. If I'm reading Arzel correctly, the band director was a contributor to the Battalion. If that is so, then surely this reference needs to be cited with caution. Thedukeofno 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't even read the document in question? The band director was interviewed in conjunction with the article; he wasn't some guest columnist. Who else is going to interview the band directors?

Please sign your statements, and also read what has been written. Arzel, above states that the band director is "known" for "the "dp" cartoon that ran in The Battalion for many years". I asked for a clarification on this... was the band director himself a contributor to the Battalion (not just as an interviewee)? If so, I think that this would refute the argument that the Battalion is independent. Thedukeofno 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another compromise

How about (within the article and ignoring the lead for a moment), "As of 2005, the Aggie Band has been unable to simulate some of the drills on a computer because two people are assigned to be in the same place at the same time." Does this work for everyone? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further compromise

Obviously, we are not making any headway here. If you are willing to take this to mediation and accept the consequences (whatever they may be), please sign below. If not, you should ask yourself why you aren't willing to listen and discuss with an outside, third party.

• — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Upholder 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose going to mediation. There have been plenty of eyes on this already. BQZip01 has requested at least three RfC/As, a Checkuser fishing expedition on me, and is the only voice of strong dissent against reasonable change. If I hadn't agreed to make changes to the article page, I would have edited out the statement already by claiming consensus. (sorry of top posting on you Duke, I wasn't sure where to go...) ThreeE 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose going to mediation, and it's not because I'm "not willing to listen and discuss with an outside, third party". Rather, it's because I know this article can be written correctly. I've proposed changes, and I've pointed out issues where I believe the article is lacking. You, BQ, seem to be unwilling to compromise. Ask yourself why that is. Thedukeofno 11:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is fine (maybe not ideal, but fine) as is. I have proposed numerous changes, but none are good enough because ThreeE seems to think all the Aggie Band spews is myths and lies. There can't possibly be a good thing that comes out of A&M because some guy might know another guy and there could be some possible perceived conflict of interest, but he has no proof...that's good enough, apparently. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to solve this issue than maybe you need to stop taking this so personal, and getting personal in turn. Three E never said the Aggie Band "spews" myths and lies. You are the primary author of this article from what I can see, but you are behaving as if you own it. You're the one shouting "mediation!", and also the one most unwilling to compromise. Just calm down and discuss this without getting personal. This doesn't need to be solved today. Other wiki articles have had disputes go on for weeks until a solution is found. I see no rush here... the world won't collapse because there is a POV tag on this article for a while longer. Thedukeofno 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not an accurate statement. ThreeE's most recent edit at the time I posted this is an accusation of the A&M band making up stories: "I am not implying that the band made the story up, I am saying it outright!"[6]. I disagree that BZQZip01 is the most unwilling person to compromise in this matter. Look thru the comments posted since the article was placed on the main page and you will see a number of offers of compromise, but none have been acceptable to ThreeE (or to a number of other editors). -- Upholder 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One of my first posts here was a suggested compromise -- to put the words "used by the band" after the statement. You reverted that and my next three suggestions. I have started at least two sections on the talk page called "Compromise" -- all rejected out of hand. And this for only one of several POV issues in this article. You, sir, have a conflict of interest on this article. Recuse yourself. ThreeE 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "used by the band" is that our sources don't say that. Karanacs 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not now nor have I ever been in any way associated with Texas A&M. Your assertions of my having a conflict of interest are unfounded. -- Upholder 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My abject apologies. I mistook your post for BQ's. I have no reason to believe that you have a COI. ThreeE 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

is starting to get out of hand. I don't have internet access for the rest of the day. i will say that i feel that the proposed computer simulation statement is a trivia fact not a defining characteristic of the organization. thus i like karanacs's compromise. what do you think bq? Oldag07 11:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Her compromise is fine, but doesn't solve anything. She wants to quote the book. The book is the primary problem. We can change it and the arguments will still continue since 3 people (and only 3) seem to think that the book is not reliable. As such, I am against the change as it solves nothing. If it will get the tag removed from the page, then I would be happy to do so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Points of issue.

1. 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.
2. Dr. Powell also contributed to the Batt.
3. 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.
4. The Former Student Association, has as one of its core priniciples to "Promote the interests and welfare of Texas A&M University;"

I suggest we start with what is known and verifiable without COI questions and without grandiose statements which may or may not be true, something along the lines which I suggested earlier. It no longer serves to claim that the references are Third party sources. The Author of the book appears to have played a part in all three references.

The Aggies are known for their signature "Criss Cross" march, designed by Lt. Col. Edward Adams in 1947 without the use of computer drill charting software, which were unable to chart such a complicated procedure.

This focuses on the Aggies, and also gives some credit to the guy that actually designed the procedure. It doesn't make any incredulous claims, and to me sounds more impressive then the current quote. Arzel 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel's is much better Djgranados 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)