Talk:Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets/Archive01

Older, non categorized stuff

Added some more information on uniforms and daily life.

I added a lot about the class system, some of the traditions. I hope I added some balance to this page. Especially as one who not only attended A&M but wore the Boots and The Ring without being TOO overzealous. I think this page could really benfit from some pictures. I will head up to Aggieland this Fall and try to get some pictures for this page. If anyone has any on file please post. User:Synthesis I removed the references to "racist and xenophobic attitude" made by 128.194.39.137, due to a total lack of substantiation of these claims. Although I do not believe that it deserves such a large percentage of the article, I left the information regarding hazing largely intact. I did, however, do some of the research required to subtantiate those points, which should have been performed by 128.194.39.137 prior to editing the article. I tried to maintain the NPOV throughout. I think the solution would be for someone more-familiar with the Corps of Cadets to flesh out the article, providing some more positives to offset the negatives. Removal of the hazing info is clearly not warranted--this has received quite a bit of attention in the local press, as a Google search will attest. Chris 23:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A reference to an alleged incident in which the Ross Volunteer Honor Corps (should have been Honor Guard anyway) was removed because cadets were cleared of any wrongdoing (and it was even stated as such). I felt there was NO reason to bring unsubstantiated charges later proven to be 100% false into a scholarly article. An incident during training in 2003 was also missing in the article. As President Bush committed troops to war in Iraq, some on campus started a protest. They performed this protest in an area usually used for training for cadets and their rifles. While the charges were later proven to be false, the cadets were strung through the ringer over allegations that they pointed their rifles and shouted hateful speech towards the protestors. It was proven through witness testimony that the protestors didn't understand the concept of "jodying" (the songs sung by military members whilte running/marching) and didn;t understand this was their normal practicing spot. I also added a section to describe the technical aspects of hazing. While incidents of "hazing" unfortunately do occur, it should be noted the actual acts that have been perpetrated. While some were forced to lie in horse excrement, the same cadets were also required to dispose of it as part of their daily dutiesin caring for the horses of the only ROTC Mounted Cavalry Unit in the country. It may be disgusting, but it is not like they aren't exposed to it on a regular basis anyway. I am not saying it is right and I condemn their actions as disgusting, but it should also not be shown completely out of context.

Hazing has no place in this article.

Hazing is not anything unique or acceptable within the Corps. There have been alleged hazing incidents that were never proven to be hazing under University/Corps/State regulations. Even the reference to the PMC incident has never actually found any wrong-doing, so why mention it?

We could go through news archives from a few years ago, and find stories of high school beatings up north that were actual hazing incidents, which were caught on film and proven in a court of law.

My point is that hazing has always been a big issue in the Corps in terms of trying to discourage it, but it has never been a wild, out-of-control issue that warrants listing it in this article. BQAggie2004 16:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. Although the mention of hazing may be overkill, the wholesale deletion of a section in this manner is unacceptable without first discussing it on the talk page. I think we should reach a consensus about the hazing material before deleting it. I am putting it back, as is. - Scm83x 21:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I happen to be a former cadet, and I have personal knowledge of the lifestyle and culture of the Corps. Hazing has no place either in the Corps, or this article. The vast majority of current and former cadets would agree with me.

After all, would you include a section about hazing for other organizations where it is known that hazing has occured in an encyclopedia, like for the Marine Corps? The specific incident that was cited was never proven to have been hazing, although it probably was wrong. I am not knowledgeable enough about that incident to comment on it, but the actions of one group of cadets should not reflect upon the entire Corps.

Also, other unsubstantiated hazing/harrassment claims have been removed from this article. For example, the alleged incident where the Ross Volunteers were running in the vicinity of a peace protest.

As far as editing whole sections out, that's what Wikipedia is for. If changes weren't made on the main page, they probably wouldn't get made. BQAggie2004 23:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Right, what I am saying is that you have a sure bias. I don't want a unilateral decision. Wikipedia is about a community, not a single person making all of the decisions. Let's talk about the hazing section on the talk page. Wikipedia must come from the NPOV; let's discuss this where it should be discussed. - Scm83x 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hazing, for good or ill, is as much a part of the history of the Cadet Corps at Texas A&M as Bonfire. It may controversial, it may be illegal, and it may be argued as to what constitutes hazing and what does not. Pushups, pink-stool, steam-showers, crap-outs, morning runs, musical uniforms, drown-outs, quaddings, etc. etc. etc. I don't see how you can even write an article about the Cadet Corps without having at least a small section on hazing. To leave it out puts the credibility of the entire article in question. This is not supposed to be a P.R. piece. I think some of you may be too emotionally invested in this issue. By the way, I am not new to Wikipedia (or to Texas A&M, for that matter). I graduated 35 years ago. My Corps outfit just had the largest turnout of all the outfits at the Class of '71 Reunion this year. Further, I've spent the last 30 years of my life in College Station. My father, father-in-law, brother-in-law, and son all attended Texas A&M. PGNormand 23:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope you aren't insinuating that Bonfire was an illegal activity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The incident in question

First off, A&M does have a history of hazing. In fact, many fraternities, sororities, military/civil organizations, and other groups have hazing as well. It is just a history today, not a fact of life. This history is the reason why the University and the Corps have such strict guidelines. If someone wants to write about those, then so be it.

The 2002 Parson's Mounted Cavalry (PMC) incident, however, was not ever proven to be hazing, yet, therefore, it should not be mentioned.

http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2004/bcseagle/200402/20040224hazinghearing.html BQAggie2004 02:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As a current 2007 member of Parsons Mounted Cavalry, i believe it is important to leave the hazing in the full article, however it should also be noted that all cadets were found to have their rights violated through the university's hasty prosecution. - Jhuerta

Changes to fish Section

I was in the Corps and saw a couple of mistakes/ommissions.

1) In the "sir, not being informed..." part a sir was missing.

2) There are 5 responses. You missed "(Class year) sir!"

3) There is no mention of the fish priveldge to "bust ass" in their dorm.

4) There is no mention of blackbelts having to wear taps on their low quarters.

5) It is also not a fish privelege to see through doorways, have a first name or scope out an upperclassman.

• 1) You guys have added a lot of "sirs" since I was in the Corps. Now you have "Sir sandwiches." That did not exist in the Corps during the Vietnam era. So the addition or omission of "sirs" is relative to when you were in school. It changes.

• 2) The number of "fish answers" is confusing. If you are going to count "(Class year) sir!" then you ought to count "cackle and dope" as a "fish answer" to the question "Hey fish Jones. What's for breakfast?"

• 3) When I was in the Corps, Air Crap fish did not "bust ass." We "took off" or "buzzed off."

• 4) Its interesting that the wearing of taps on lowquarter shoes, which we did simply to save wear on our shoe heels, is now a requirement! Things do change.

• 5) The word "privilege" is spelled the same all over, whether you're a fish or a former student. We 'are' supposed to be editors here, after all. PGNormand 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

* In response to "So the addition or omission of "sirs" is relative to when you were in school. It changes."

In order to be consistent, perhaps we should include a note that this has changed over time. There is no consistency in history (since there were numerous changes, so can we all agree to just use the most current version?

* We should just stick with the 4 fish answers for now. Put the rest under traditions and what we call chow.

• But there are 5 fish answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.140.83 (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide a website or something similar to substantiate this claim. Perhaps things have changed in the past 6 years since I graduated. Perhaps it is just your outfit that contends this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Outlaw

I take it this has nothing to do with the famed outlaws of billy the kid and Jesse James and all the others. Why then when is there a link here form outlaws aricle under famed outlaws. . I will leave it hear incase i am missing something but could someone please explain this to me. (70.244.114.211 00:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

After a little searching I found the "Outlaw" in question and removed it from the page. The Outlaw wasn't a real person(iirc) and was just a mascot created to represent Squadron 8. In my opinion certainly not notable enough to be considered a famed outlaw. -Robhakari 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Class Rank Section

Gents, Class of '92 here - worked in this article early on. Lets think about modifying the ranking system section. It takes up a large amount of room. I think we ought to cut it down to a smaller size. In addition with all the great traditions of the Corps, not sure a long list of ranks is needed, although we could start a subsequent page. Ideas/ Comments? In addition, surely some old Ag has some good pictures - finanl review etc..mine were all taken BEFORE the dig camera. Gig Em Synthesis 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one objects I am going to remove the class rank part - maybe we can bring it back in the form of a table similar to a rank table with insignia. Let me also appeal once again to the younger crowd - lets get some good digital oictures up here. Synthesis 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a table in early 2007. Sorry there wasn't a comment in here. My bad — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Assertion That A&M trains more Military Officers

I know that The Corps had more officers in service that any other school including Annapolis or West Point - BUT I am not sure we still do today as asserted early on in the intro paragraph. I would imagine we are only commissioning a few hundred officers at best a year. Lets get this one right. Any input. Synthesis 06:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone in the Trigon ought to be able to nail this down. But, from an editing standpoint (I know I mentioned this elsewhere) the Cadet Corps does not "train military officers" as there are no military officers in the Corps. Rather, the R.O.T.C. Department, or the College of Military Sciences, "trains cadets to be military officers." The Cadet Corps trains cadets to be Aggies, not to be military officers. As I said, this is an "editing point." I've learned that its all about how you word it so that it sounds like I actually went to school. PGNormand 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The Corps does train cadets to become officers. As a Senior Military College it is supposed to. That said, it is not the end goal of the Corps, merely a desired by-product. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the public relations department in May 2007 of both Texas A&M and The Citadel. The Citadel has both a larger corps and commissions more officers and has done so for many years. It would appear your statement about the size of the corps is also incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.45.130 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please read WP:NOR. I would personally be happy to update this if you can find a reputable source. THANK YOU for using the talk page!!! Too many people don't. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Biter" not "Bider"

I was pretty surprised that no one had corrected the term "bider" in the text when referring to the slang term for garrison caps. I went through and corrected it to "biter." Actually, "biter" is an abbreviation of the word "cockbiter." I guess I'm surprised that something that we all knew, back when I was in school, has essentially been forgotten, to the point that everyone now simply calls them "biders" with no thought as to the etymology of the word. (I've actually had to explain to some people that the word "guidon" is not "guide on". Sheesh!) Unfortunately, the military has always had obscene or profane nicknames for the garrison cap. Sorry. Wish it wasn't true, but it is. PGNormand 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Made the same correction a few days ago. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

TAMU's PR department places the current number in the corps at 1873 as of September 21, 2007. TAMU's PR department placed the number of commissionees at 80 for May 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.193.193 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be the number at the spring commissioning. That does not include summer commissionees, fall semester commissionees, or those that commission out of the typical cycles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Time Perspective of Article

I guess the one thing that has struck me about the article as it now stands is that it is only a "snapshot" of the Cadet Corps as it now exists, or has existed for the past few years. A more comprehensive article, however, would be less specific to "the Corps today," and would be more about the Corps as it has always existed, leaving out or at least de-emphasizing current peculiarities and the little recent specifics and anomolies that have not always been true of the Corps.

For instance, I noticed that today's Cadet thinks of the Corps as 'a segment' of the student body, where for the majority of the history of the school (1876 to 1963) the Corps pretty much 'was' the student body. Oh, I know there were civilian students back during and just after WWII, but the idea that the Corps was not synonymous with the student body (or the 12th man) was a notion that did not arise until the late 1960's and early 1970's.

As a result, in the article there is a mention of "The Quadrangle" as being "the Corps area", or some similar reference. But the Corps was not limited to just the Quad until the 1970's when I was in school. I know that as late as 1967 there were Corps outfits living in the red brick dorms on the North side, near Sbisa Dining Hall. In fact, my father and my father-in-law who both graduated in the 1940's referred to all the red brick dorms on both the North and South sides as "the new dorms."

My point is that just because something was a certain way from 1991 or 2001 to the present does not mean that it has always been that way, OR that it will always be that way. We should probably be editing this article to make it "read true" to any former Cadet whether he graduated in 1946 or 2006. PGNormand 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would you make it the "same?" The University has changed over the years. Shouldn't we simply state how it is now with the understanding that it may not have always been this way. Otherwise, we will be throwing caveats into every statement. i.e. we should avoid "The cadets eat in Duncan Dining Center, although they used to eat at Sbisa, but before that they ate at..." Can't we simply state where they eat now?

Organization

I've added quite a bit to the "Organization" section. I took information from Henry C. Dethloff's "Centennial History of Texas A & M University," from yearbooks of 1929, 1939, 1948, and 1968, as well as several other books. This needs more work. But that's what I had readily available, plus it shows the Cadet Corps organization ten years before and just before WWII, as well as after WWII, and also at the high point of the Vietnam War era. A better approach might have been to pick the points at which there were major reorganizations.

The point here is that this article, like any other article in Wikipedia, should not be solely about how the organization operates today. Rather, it should be about how it has always been. It is true to say that "the Cadet Corps has never had a set organizational structure." It is not true to say that "the Cadet Corps has always been organized into a Band, two Brigades, two Wings and two Regiments." For example, if you looked up a Wikipedia article on the U.S. Army, any comments about its organization should not be limited to how it operates today, but rather should include comments about it has operated 'historically'. PGNormand 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with my earlier point, if you want to go over the history of the Corps, maybe you should write a specific section for it (maybe even an entire article; heaven knows that the history is lengthy). Most people who read this article will probably want to know more about the Corps. The history is interesting, but has little bearing on how it will affect recruits/cadets/parents/ other interested parties today. Does it really matter that the Wing was formed in the 50s? Does it matter that we have gone from 3 brigades to 2 back in 1980? I don't know if these are true, but it is more of a footnote than something that should qualify every statement.

I agree that people should be careful and not use phrases like "the Cadet Corps has always been organized into a Band, two Brigades, two Wings and two Regiments," but is perfectly acceptable (and should be the norm) to phrase it, "The Corps is currently organized into..."

College vs. University

From an editing standpoint it is improper to refer to the school as "Texas A&M University" when you are referring to it prior to its name change in the early 1960's. For instance, one reference said: "The Corps of Cadets is as old as the school itself, founded in 1876 when Texas A&M University was an all-male military college."

In 1876 there was no "Texas A&M University." Further, the sentence is somewhat ambiguous because it suggests that the A. & M. College of Texas was an all-male military college in 1876, but perhaps not later than that. Certainly, WE know that it remained so for many years, but the average reader would not. And that is who we are supposed to be writing for. PGNormand 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of Jargon & Slang

I just removed the word "outfits" and replaced it with the words "military units" in the section on "History." The average reader would not know what an "outfit" is. The term "military unit" is much more explanatory. When writing an article such as this, the editor (that's you) needs to be able to back away and read it from the P.O.V. of an uninformed reader. That often means removing jargon and slang with which only the informed are familiar. PGNormand 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Military units" is the incorrect term (now). Historically speaking, units used to be designated according to how they were being trained (i.e. chemical corps, signal corps, cavalry, etc). At that time, they could be refered to as military units. Currently, none of the standard units (excluding special units such as PMC and RVs) have any particular affiliation with a particular mission or even a particular branch of ROTC. I know many cadets who were Air Force, but were in A-1. In addition, there are squadrons, companies, batteries, etc. and the common term "outfit" is used to describe any unit. In addition, the Corps is only military unit is the sense that it is the military Academy for the State of Texas. The mission of the Corps (and ROTC for that matter) is to produce leaders for our country, not military officers. Granted this is done through military-type training, but the military is not the goal; it is leaders. In short, "military unit" is an inappropriate term in this context. I replaced one term to "outfits" and left it in quotes since it is the term A&M uses. While it is jargon or slang (which we use in spades), it is a more accurate term.

I also added batteries, since A-Battery and B-Battery are also in the mix.

I agree. While "military unit" might sound right to someone used to that lifestyle, "outfit" is much closer to the current reality. Doran Routhe 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cadet Corps vs. R.O.T.C.

While editing the introductory paragraph, I came across a common misconception. That is, the confusion between "The Cadet Corps" and "The College of Military Sciences" or R.O.T.C., or "The Trigon," as it is known. Some are using the terms interchangeably.

I think the sentence in question said that "The Corps trains more military officers than any other school in the U.S." First of all, the Cadet Corps does not train military officers. Rather, it trains cadets. There are no military officers in the Cadet Corps. Secondly, there is a failure here to distinguish the student organization known as "The Cadet Corps," from the academic college known as "The College of Military Sciences."

The latter trains cadets to be military officers. The former, the Cadet Corps, trains cadets to be "Aggies." Military officers don't need to know the inscription on Sul Ross statue, or the hometowns and academic majors of upperclassmen, or all the other things that cadets are required to know. This is the training that cadets receive at the hands of upperclassmen, not as part of their R.O.T.C. training, but as part of their Corps training. The purpose of it is to make cadets into Aggies. This training is what makes membership in the Corps at A&M different from membership in the R.O.T.C. at say Texas Tech. By the way, the Trigon is a building on campus. PGNormand 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The mission statement of the Corps (and ROTC for that matter) states that their purpose is to train leaders, not Aggies. Cadets are Aggies by virtue of the fact that they are enrolled in classes at Texas A&M. There are other students (in fact, the majority) who are Aggies but did not need the Corps to become so. Some of the leaders the Corps produces receive their commissions into the military through their respective ROTC brnaches and by virtue of the fact that they graduated from Texas A&M. Therefore, it should be phrased that Texas A&M, the Corps, and ROTC produce more officers than any other school outside the service academies (whose primary goal is to produce officers).

On top of that, the current wording is worse than before, "...the College of Military Science at Texas A&M...provides training for more future military officers than any school in the United States." There is no "College of Military Science", only a department. Colleges can confer degrees; departments cannot. The proper term is "Department of Military Science." In addition, while the Trigon is a building on campus, it is also a manner in which people refer to leadership (i.e. "The Pentagon announced troop increases today in Somalia...") and is appropriate to use it as a term for the University Leadership of the Corps and ROTC.

I have made changes accordingly.

Wow. Old Army really IS dead. Is that a shovel in your hand? PGNormand (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

??? How is Ol' Army dead? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cadet Rank Structure

I'm going to set up a cadet rank structure article similar to that of the Air Force Academy's. Thoughts?

Go for it...whoever you areBQZip01 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it now, it seems the only thing missing is the AMU rank for freshmen ... my former outfit does show the image on its outfit-roster page. The image: http://sq-16.tamu.edu/members/pvt.jpg Doran Routhe 06:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While that is what they wear, it is not their rank. An AMU denotes the school, not rank and is used in lieu of rank, see[cadets.tamu.edu/documents/standard/Standard.pdf The Standard] page 103. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Uniforms

I added a section yesterday on the uniforms. I'd love to get some good pictures to accompany it as well as specific references from The Standard. If it gets specific enough, we may want to split this section off into its own article.BQZip01 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the uniforms section to make it easier to read. Also, what's Corps Stack? It's referenced a few times. I'm a non-reg and don't know what tham officially means, so we might want to make it clear here for random readers. Karanacs 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.aggiecorps.org/home/corpscenter/contact/

The Corps Stack is the image in the upper left corner of this website. It is used on hats and a smaller version is used on senior buckles.

Combine History and Organization?

I think it would be more appropriate to combine the History and Organization sections, especially because the organization section is now in a mostly chronological format. Karanacs 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Senior Boots

I reverted an edit by Purgatory Fubar, which had completely removed the Senior boots section because it sounded like an advertisement. I rewrote the section to make it more factual and less like a Holick's ad. Senior boots are a huge deal in the corps and at A&M, so this section should not be removed again. Karanacs 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Katrina relief

Howdy Ags (and others)!

I recall hearing something a bit back about the Corps going down to Louisiana and assisting the National Guard in maintaining peace in New Orleans after the Hurricane Katrina incident. I don't know enough details to add anything, unfortunately, but maybe someone could help fill out a section? Thanks and gig 'em. JRDarby 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's true (at least, I never heard anything about it). The Corps did a lot to help run the shelter at Reed Arena, but other groups also assisted. I don't think it's notable enough to include here, although feel free to make a draft paragraph if you want. Karanacs 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Numerical answers by fish

The article currently states: Every fish is also required to know the answers to a wide number of questions including, "What's for chow?", "How many days until Final Review?", and a long list of Texas A&M University history, or "Campusology," questions. For any question requiring a number answer, a fish is expected to respond with his/her class year.

Does this mean that if a fish in the incoming class is asked "How many days until Final Review?" he or she is supposed to respond "2011, Sir/Ma'am!" (referring to the Class of 2011)? Is this passage written poorly or am I just misinterpreting it? --Metropolitan90 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Written poorly. There are a limited number of specific questions that require specific answers (Final Review=specific number of days, "Good night, fish Jones, how many pencils do you have in this drawer?"="2011 pencils, sir.").

Once Aggie Bonfire is done with the Featured Article candidacy (please review!!!), I plan to do a revamp on this article (time permitting). — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

There is a statement under the intro to history section reading, "Of those, 14,123 Aggies served as officers; more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy." and again latter in the section reading, "The Cadet Corps at Texas A&M sent over 20,229 former cadets into World War II, 14,223 of them as commissioned officers, more than the combined totals of both military academies." Those sentences are vague and at first read imply there were more TAMU-graduated officers than West Point-graduated officers fighting in WWII. I know the sentences are saying that the total is greater than the student population of the service academies, but they should be more clearly written. --Daysleeper47 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Daysleeper,

This is a statement I have been trying to make as abundantly clear as possible, so let me try to make it as explicit as possible here and maybe you can help with the phrasing. During WWII, 20,229 Aggies (students of Texas A&M; graduates or otherwise) entered the military. Of those 14,223 were commissioned as officers. This number was more than the combined total produced by West Point and Annapolis during the same timeframe. This is NOT stating that it is more than the student population, but the output of officers from all three schools. Is that clear enough? How would you suggest rephrasing? Additionally, if needed, I can get you the actual numbers of officers produced from West Point, Annapolis, Texas A&M, Clemson, and a few others, but not for a few days (I'm away from my house right now). — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Daysleeper (I'm trailing him on editor review :)), but I might suggest something like "Of those, 14,123 Aggies served as officers, a number of officers greater than the combined totals contributed by the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy" and "The Cadet Corps at Texas A&M sent over 20,229 former cadets into World War II, 14,223 of them as commissioned officers, a greater number of officers than the combined totals produced by both military academies." I am a drive-by. If you'd like me to come back to discuss this further, please give me a heads up on my talk page. :) If it suits you, please feel free to utilize both changes or parts of them. --Moonriddengirl 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with each:

"Of those, 14,123 Aggies served as officers, a number of officers greater than the combined totals contributed by the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy"

1. excessive/redundant use of the word "officers"
2. "number" isn't needed

"The Cadet Corps at Texas A&M sent over 20,229 former cadets into World War II, 14,223 of them as commissioned officers, a greater number of officers than the combined totals produced by both military academies."

1. The Cadet Corps" didn't "send" anyone. They volunteered/were drafted. Military training was available and benefited the military greatly
2. Too many clauses in a row.
3. "Former cadets" is awkward IMHO
4. Again, excessive/redundant use of the word "officers"; "number" isn't needed.

For a drive-by, that was pretty good analysis. Can you state specifically what the problem is with the phrasing as it is now? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sorry it took me so long to come back; my computer has lacked connectivity for most of the day. Boy, am I behind! As the sentence stands, it seems that Daysleeper at least found it confusing, since he presumed that what you were really trying to say was that "the total is greater than the student population of the service academies". I'm not sure that can read it with fresh eyes myself, because I first encountered the sentence (and the article) in his comment above. As I said, I'm doing an editor review. But I work as an editor on a magazine, and I've been encouraged to presume that if one person voices confusion, there are probably others who are confused but don't bother saying anything. If my phrasing doesn't suit you, what about adapting that you used above to explain to explain what you meant to Daysleeper? It seems perfectly clear to me: "Of those, 14,123 Aggies were commissioned as officers. This number was more than the combined total produced by West Point and Annapolis during the same timeframe". It's hard to misinterpret that. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I concur with your assessment. IMHO, "This number" doesn't sound encyclopedic or right. How about "Of those, 14,123 were commissioned as officers, more than the combined total produced by West Point and Annapolis during the same timeframe." ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to work to me. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we really going to go through this again?

ThreeE, this is nothing like a primary source in ANY way. It is an award-winning book produced by an organization (the Texas A&M University Press) independent of the subject at hand. That the person who wrote it used to be a member is irrelevant. Moreover, changing the policy after 24 hours of time on the talk page (with only a single person in agreement and a single dissenter) is not consensus...especially for a policy. You can't change policy and then change every article you want because of your changes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary Source Tag

The tag seems appropriate: it is from the school's website, it is published by the school, it is written by a corpsman (corpman?), about the school's corps of cadets. I think the content is fine, it just needs another reference -- surely this can be found and we can avoid another ThreeE/BQZip thing.

Regarding ThreeE and BQ, I think BQ is just a bit over-zealous and ThreeE likes to point it out. 216.85.6.131 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read this to read what a primary source actually is.

From the page of the book in question: "Skillfully integrating contemporary political, social, and cultural elements, John A. Adams, Jr., has analyzed hundreds of primary source documents to shed historical light on the values, customs, and controversies that have shaped the Corps's 125-year history: the Southern military tradition of duty, honor, and sacrifice; the struggle to integrate veterans returning from both world wars into campus—and Corps— life; the admission of women into the university and into the Corps; and the evolution of the Corps into a voluntary, rather than mandatory, part of an expanding and diversifying university.

As for the author, he is an expert on the subject and an award winning author. Again, quoting from the site: "JOHN A. ADAMS, JR., Class of '73, knows his subject from the inside out, holding three degrees, including a doctorate in history, from Texas A&M University, where he himself was a member of the Corps. He is the author of two other books on the university's history, Softly Call the Muster: The Evolution of a Texas Aggie Tradition, and We Are the Aggies: The Texas A&M University Association of Former Students. Adams won the 1990 T. R. Fehrenbach Book Award for excellence in Texas history for his Damming the Colorado: The Rise of the Lower Colorado River Authority, 1933–1939."

This book is not a primary source and it is written by a noted historian. Even if it were (and I'm not saying it is), none of the claims are contentious by any stretch of the imagination.

As for how I feel about the subject, it is irrelevant. Can I not edit pages in which I am interested?

As for another reference. Near as I can tell, there isn't one available. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about you -- the book was written by the corpsman. Did you write this section of the article?

Furthermore, your tone is making my point on being over zealous. The tag is reasonable and deserves discussion. Your points actually make it more reasonable -- everything is A&M in source. 216.85.6.131 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You said I was being "overzealous". A Corpsman is not what you think it is. He was a former member of the Corps. He hasn't been for over three decades. Where do you expect to find a source on A&M, Texas Tech?

Again, even if you consider it as a primary source, that is not a problem in Wikipedia. If you want to add sources, be my guest. But questioning the single best source for way, way, way back history in this organization is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the unreliability of the reference: "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." If we can't find another source, then the information is just a copy job from the reference and the article isn't encyclopedic. 216.85.6.131 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." is not a policy or guideline anywhere on wikipedia. I question the validity of this tag even existing in the first place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a completely differenct question, but I think it is valid. Also, there is like 20 straight paragraphs with the A&M book as the only reference. That seems to be a bad thing. I agree that ThreeE is being a bit antagonistic, but s/he is keeping to the content. I did ask that s/he lay off your edits a bit. 216.85.6.131 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh...why is that a bad thing at all? While he is keeping to the content, he is intentionally being contentious. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is bad because it runs afoul of WP:NFC#Unacceptable text -- specifically "Excessively long copyright excerpts. 216.85.6.131 02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The text only came FROM a source, it isn't the copyrighted text itself (i.e. a block quote 9 paragraphs long). Nothing there is copyrighted. Perhaps you don't understand what a copyrighted material is? (this is not meant as an insult, merely a question). If it means as you say it does, then almost every article is ENTIRELY in violation of this "problem". — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused (no insult intended). If you just take the copyrighted text and change the words around over 20 (!) paragraphs, you are still infringing the copyright and plagiarizing. 216.85.6.131 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then aren't all the cited paragraphs plagiarized (not just those from that source?) — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, plagiarism "is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement." I do not claim this work as my own and cite this book as the source of the information I posted. Ergo, it is NOT plagiarism. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, plagiarism and copyright infringement are NOT the issue here. "Primary source" is. I find it hard to believe anyone would think that a primary source can possibly be made up of primary sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you had no additional objections, I assumed your queries were satisfied and I reverted the tag. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You made a bad assumption. 216.85.6.131 12:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what are your additional objections? I've been waiting now for about 2 hours. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think BQZip's frustration is because of continued aspersions on the quality of sources from the Texas A&M University Press when WP:V specifically recommends books from university presses. If you will read the definition of a primary source, you'll see that the book in question relies on primary sources (which is good), but the book is actually a secondary source (which WP articles are supposed to use). A secondary source interprets information from the primary sources. On the other hand, information from the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets website is a primary source. In my opinion, it is unreasonable to expect a book on the history of an organization to be written by someone completely unaffiliated with the organization; it could be much more difficult for someone who was never affiliated with the organization to have access to certain primary sources or to even be enough aware of some events in the organization's history to look for evidence of them. Karanacs 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If no one other than the primary source has commented on the subject, then it isn't encyclopedic -- yet. In addition, no one has commented negatively on A&M on a publishing institution -- that is an entirely different matter. 216.85.6.131 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read what a primary source actually is. This book isn't it (have you read it? have you seen it? then how can you say it is a primary source?). This is why I take issue with the above assertions and the tag. Additionally, ThreeE has put reliability of a source/no verifiability/etc forward in the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article with almost the same kinds of objections. These objections were put down as "just plain wrong" by 3 admins, a requested third party, and the majority of editors on the page. However, continued edits (many unwarranted) by said user have continued for almost a month. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You desperately need to read WP:OWN. 216.85.6.131 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And now, rather than deal with the issue, you accuse me of being a sock puppet... 216.85.6.131 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I exert no ownership whatsoever over this article. I will, however, watch it as an editor of Wikipedia (as everyone is entitled to do). I have addressed your concern, but you are offering no feedback as to how it is wrong.I am explicitly following guidance with regards to how to report a suspected sockpuppet and the dispute resolution process. To quote Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Handling: "If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That is generally the only way to really prove you are not anyone's puppet"

Furthermore, "If no one other than the primary source has commented on the subject, then it isn't encyclopedic -- yet." is an opinion, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag until someone other than yourself has commented -- and then for a while. In addition, please review WP:COI and WP:V#Sources ThreeE 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag this time as someone who really disliked the Corps of Cadets (in my time at A&M I wrote letters to the editor and various administrators multiple times). A book published by a university press is NOT a primary source, it is a secondary source. In my opinion, this is turning into a "pick-your-favorite-tag" game over the same core issue of whether or not books published by the Texas A&M University Press should be considered valid sources for articles about Texas A&M issue (not anyone's behavior) needs to be submitted to mediation or arbitration. It is ridiculous to continue to have this argument on multiple articles. ThreeE, will you agree to have the issue of the validity of the source type considered by mediation or arbitration (and if not, why not)? Karanacs 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Thank you Karanacs for stating so eloquently what I didn't.
2. I have never hidden my affiliation with the University, Corps, or Band. While I was part of those organizations, I am no longer. To imply I have a conflict of interest where none exists is disingenuous. To quote the last admin you and I had a discussion with, "WP:COI does not bar an editor from participating in articles, they just need to be careful when editing those articles and discuss proposed edits on the talk page while avoiding controversial edits. If ThreeE believes you truly have a COI, then he can report it to the COI notice board." Ergo, your complaint with WP:COI has little merit (if any). If you think I have a COI, then please report me instead of implying it and impugning my integrity. I would be happy to do so if it would clear the air of your implications.
3. You have been directed repeatedly (3 admins, a third party, and a majority of editors) that such sources are third party sources, yet you continue to assert some sort of conspiracy that it is all "a myth", in some way is unreliable, or is a copyright violation...despite the fact you do not have the sources or any published reason for your claims (if there were published contradictory evidence, this would be a completely different story). You have no way to prove any of your claims. Those edits I placed in this article are backed up by an award winning book. Your assertions are based on speculation/guesswork.
4. Your standards for tag removal are not Wikipedia guidelines. I have reasonably addressed every concern you have given as well as the IPs concerns. If you have additional concerns, please bring them up.
5. Others have responded and all concerns have been addressed.
6. I would be happy to do something to change your mind, but you have not offered a single option other than "delete" or "find another source". This is not in line with WP:V, WP:RS, and other policies/guidelines on Wikipedia. As such, your objection is not actionable and needs to go. Furthermore, there is no way we can reach a compromise if your demands are as aforementioned.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

what

"International students, female students, and others who do not elect participation in the Corps of Cadets are excused by the Administration and the Commandant. "

what? females are allowed in the corp. Kas0809 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since 1973... :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

as you can see, that last part was not a question. or maybe you cant???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kas0809 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)