Talk:Cavalier Marching Band/Archive

There's plenty of room for this in University of Virginia. It's reasonable to have as a redirect to make it easy for people to find, but no reason in the world for it to be a separate article. If it doesn't deserve to be in the University of Virginia article, it certainly doesn't need to have a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you took out the history section, Uris. In an article about the UVa marching band, now known as the Cavalier Marching Band, why is the history of UVa marching bands not topical? An a quick account of marching bands at UVa is about the only thing this article is offering Wikipedia, anyway, since the information in the article now is contained almost entirely in the UVa article. We should be trying to convey what is notable about the Cavalier Marching Band; a striking feature of the band is that it is, as you say, a newcomer. Don't you think some explaination this via some history is due? At least some more explaination of why you cut the history section is due here before it gets tossed out. --ElmoHoo 16:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Uris. I'm going to give you a shot at making your new history section NPOV before I have a go. For example: "Some fans and students had steadily grown tired of the performances of the Virginia Pep Band" will have to be changed to something like "While many still enjoyed them, some fans and students had steadily grown tired of the performances of the Virginia Pep Band..." I think you get the idea.--ElmoHoo 17:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. As for your history section, it wasn't a history of the Cavalier Marching Band but I have re-added the relevant information under the "Previous Marching Bands" section. Uris 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You understand you've made this article more about the Pep Band than about the marching band, right? Maybe we should just list what happened here, and refer to the Pep Band article for specifics? --ElmoHoo 18:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Only one of four paragraphs I've added mentions the pep band at all, and that is necessary to describe the creation of the new band. Uris 18:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert? At least make an attempt at telling me what you object to. I'll try here: My wording gives opinion only when citing the group they originated from. Your "embarrassment" sentence is particularly one-sided. You already said Carl Smith gave the money, do you need to say it again? The inverted history is counter-intuitive, list it chronologically. We can revert all day, why don't we work on compromise? --ElmoHoo 18:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to compromise. I don't think a significant amount of people would ever see Pease as "desperate" to do anything, as he has been more successful than anyone anticipated, don't you think? A lot of other things in the article you keep trying to delete rather than "NPOV".  You did this with the fact that the pep band was banned from future Tire Bowls by its director also in the Pep Band article, as well.  It's factual and relevant to the Pep Band, is it not? Uris 19:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not relevent because it's obvious. If the Pep Band is band from University events, it's obviously not invited back to bowl games. Let's not do reverts, but keep changing each other's content. Eventually we'll work our way to a neutral version. I admit some of my wording isn't NPOV, despite my efforts. But that's what you're here for. :) --ElmoHoo 19:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The scramble band was banned from future bowls by Continental Tire Bowl officials a year before it was banned from university events by the University of Virginia's administration. That is not obvious by any stretch of the imagination to anyone reading these articles. Agree with you about the reverts though. I'm pre-occupied at the moment with something else but I will try to work on this soon. Sorry for the delay from this end. Uris 19:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. The bowl game was in December of 2002 and the ban came in April of 2003. I was there, I know. The AD saved their announcement that they would ban us until the end of the semester, as they had 10 years previous, so that they had their ducks in a row with Carl Smith and the student press didn't have time to respond. Anyway, the Tire Bowl is actually unimportant in the story, it was approved and performed EXACTLY as approved (again, I was there). It really just immediately preceded the ban; the ban was coming anyway according to sources within the AD. The AD's problem with the Pep Band was the threat of misbehavior. If little things like this that popped up every decade or so kept getting blown out of proportion, what would happen if the band wanted to do something really offensive? The AD couldn't afford to allow unpredictable student control in the world of corporate college athletics, and so banned us. I understand that you want to stress the misbehavior of the Pep Band, and you know I want to stress the threat to student governance that the athletic department poses. Hopefully we'll balance the needs. --ElmoHoo 20:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My point though was that the pep band was banned by the bowl well before being banned by the University. It had to borrow a high school band from West Charlotte High School to perform at the 2003 bowl.  You gloss over this fact and seem to want readers to believe that the pep band could have gone on performing for UVa at all its bowl games well into the future if the University had not acted. This is obviously not the case, and by getting banned by the bowl, the pep band forced the administration's hand a bit. I know you were there as a member of the pep band and this is all much closer to your heart, but I'd just like the facts to be presented objectively.


 * You've made the History section a history of other marching bands at the university, not the Cavalier Marching Band. This needs to be changed, again. Uris 20:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Let's cut this History section waaay down. Any specific information on the Pep Band can be found on that article, so we'll link it and mention the Pep Band as little as possible. The history should include a sketch of marching bands past, that's all. Fair? The gritty details of why the Pep Band was tossed out don't belong in this article. --ElmoHoo 21:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get your information on the size of the band? I heard Pease had promised 200, but the rosters I saw in the fall only had 160-170. --ElmoHoo 21:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... I'll try to find a source on that. I believe Pease wanted 150 for the first year, but was surprised when he got more.  200 may be an estimate in a newspaper article, I'll see what I can come up with.  Uris 00:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is better than the Pep Band one I just cleaned up, but it's not spectacular. Specifically, information about the current director and the membership should probably be in different [sub]sections from the intro and history. Also, try to avoid anything that might be construed as a value judgment, even if that's just the wording you use. It is useful when there is some sort of difference of opinion (say, among fans) to have two separate paragraphs, each describing an opposing viewpoint. This way, you do not take the partisan approach of listing arguments and then immediately refuting them.

Dave 15:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Uris, you say the money issues brought up by Pep Band proponents don't belong here. Why not? You state in the article that the Marching Band was completely paid for by the gift, but many I've spoken to say it doesn't nearly cover it. I think we should find some way to include an idea of finances when describing differences between the bands, or qualify the gift as "went to help pay for" not "paid for." I'll look into getting a expenditure report on the marching band, to see exactly how much they have spent, but for now, let's go with "went to help pay for." You portray the creation of the marching band as a free gift, and I see it as big pit to throw our money in. The right answer is somewhere in between. We do need a better way to protray the debate of Pep Band vs Marching Band, but just like you don't think it belongs in the Marching Band page, I don't think it belongs (anymore than it already does) in the Pep Band page. Putting it in just one necessarily skews the point of view. What do you think we should do? --ElmoHoo 03:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Elmo... I'm sort of on the fence, I did put it under a new "Criticism" section of the Cavalier Marching Band in the end, realizing it would make even less sense on the Pep Band page... but we could instead make a "Cavalier Marching Band vs. Pep Band Controversy" page or something like that and have both link to it. Then again, that could get kind of silly? –Uris 04:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

On Pease's salary, you may be right that it's not necessary. But it's freely available on the Cav Daily's website (due to the Freedom of Information Act). The fact that he's so highly paid is another arguing point, which is why I included it. He makes, in his second year and without tenure, well above average for many of the U's departments. Again, your call. --68.169.45.89 05:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, 68.169.45.89 is me. Don't try editting with an unlogged in Wikipedia tabbed window open. --ElmoHoo 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Uris, would you mind giving a reference on the misogynist usage of "State U-ism?" I've been looking around, and haven't found one. I did find a reference in the _Illustrated History of UVa_ with a cartoon about state uism from the 1960's. From this comic by the 1960's, it seems at least to some, the meaning you speak of was out of use. Both my parents went to UVa, and my mother was in one of the first classes of women at UVa, and from them I've only heard the usage I mention. The term "U-bags" I am familiar with in misogynist terms. Could you be mixing these up? Thanks! --ElmoHoo 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A Google search on State U-ism gives mostly articles about the Pep Band. There are a few without mention of the Pep Band, i.e. [].  Here's one worth looking at.  It mentions coeducation and Uism together as forces changing the University, but as they're distinct peices in a list, it seems they're parallel, but different ideas.  []   In every account I've seen, espousing a view against state u-ism doesn't indicate you are against the admission of women, although some against the growth of the U and state Uism were also at one time against the admission of women.  Take a look and see if you agree.  --ElmoHoo 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, as was once documented on the greater University of Virginia article, you are described by pep band members as a Google "stuffer"... creating a bunch of websites about the Pep Band and even trying to get searches for "UVa Marching Band" and such to go to your own "websites". A more reliable source would be Cavalier Daily articles from the 1960's. As you could guess, when my father attended the university from 1961-1966, and fear of State U-ism was all around, they didn't make webpages. But if you look back at those student periodicals from the 1960s and up to a decade earlier, you'll see the term was widey used to refer to the large (more than a few thousand students as UVa had at the time) co-educational universities. The bru-ha-ha about State-Uism came to a head when women were admitted in 1970... I had to read through all that stuff in the late 1990s for the "History of UVa" class that I think is still taught at the university. You're still at the U., check out the old collections of student periodicals, yearbooks, whatever you can find... you'll get a sense for the history of the term. –Uris 00:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it, but still disaggree with the need to give the full definition of the term here. In this discussion only the modern usage is relevant.  By bringing up the old connotation, it seems you want to paint the Pep Band supporters as misogynist, and it doesn't seem to be a neutral viewpoint to me.  My Googlebombing gag has nothing to do this discussion either.  I'm NOT giving Google as a be all end all source, I was using it to see what I could find.  I trust you if you say this is the case.  --ElmoHoo 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to get a line on the specifics of the Alumni Association's lobbying. I don't recall the names or dates. As for Michigan, it's really the exception that proves the rule, isn't it. Just because a few of the best Universities do succeed at the highest level of football doesn't hide that fact that most of the very best schools don't. "Football school" is a term which points this out, in a rather oxymoronic way, doesn't it? I'll leave your wording. On another note,did you hear the announcer's quote from the FSU game broadcast. "UVA has an image of being a soft school, a high academic school like the Ivys, Groh wants to change all that." --ElmoHoo 00:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Michigan just happens to be the biggest "football school" there is. That's why I pointed to that... but plenty of other football-enthusiast schools have great academics.  In fact of the top 5 public universities known for academics &mdash; Virginia, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UNC &mdash; all 5 take their football very seriously.  All 5 have large marching bands.  And look at Notre Dame, the grandaddy of them all (well, they and Michigan can vie for that title).  110% football school, and a highly-ranked private university (ranked higher than U.Va. in the latest academic rankings).


 * What Davie said was "U.Va. has the image of an Ivy League school and Groh wants to change that." That's not a quote from Al Groh, that's a quote from Bob Davie, who is not a bright man to begin with.  But he's probably right in that Groh probably does want UVa to not appear to be a "soft school", and neither do the great majority of U.Va. alums that I know.  And I'd put the research output of "hard image" football schools like Michigan, USC, UCLA, etc. up against the research output of the "soft schools" in the Ivy League anytime.  Yes, the Ivy League has horrible football teams but is that a good thing?  It is certainly not the reason for what academic output they do have.


 * Embrace U.Va. for what it is, not what it isn't. It is not a private liberal arts "soft" school like those found in the Ivy League.  It is a highly selective public research university at the head of its class with Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA, and UNC.  Top intellectual output with (hopefully) less snobbery.  With many winning programs in the most competitive athletics conference in the country, just as all in this "Power Five" do.


 * –Uris 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)