Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: An excellent idea.  ThreeE 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bias/editor doesn't assume good faith/removal of tag

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who Said This? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Claims

message: 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."
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)
replies: text: Agree.  ThreeE 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Disagree See Upholder's comments — BQZip01 — talk 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rice Paragraph Concensus 

message: 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)
thread_title: Phrasing

message: The phrases may need slight alterations, but a  is not necessary. — BQZip01 — talk 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CONCLUSION

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Computer Simulation

message: 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)
thread_title: Another compromise

message: 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)
replies: text: * Upholder 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *
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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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