User:Buffs/FTAB

Explicit request: Do NOT edit this page. It is a draft, not a submission. While individuals may be offended with what I have to say, this may not be my final thought on the subject. Give me some time to put my thoughts together. Your comments at this time are NOT welcome on this page.

Dispute resolution
Over the past few days, it has become clear to me that certain individuals intend to rewrite this article. While I have no objection to that basic premise, "the devil is in the details" and their actions, while possibly well-intentioned (I am not ruling out malice, but am assuming good faith...at this time), are quickly becoming non-productive.

Let me first be explicitly clear that I do NOT retain ownership of anything in this article. It is on Wikipedia. As such, it is open to any/all reasonable edits to better explain/clarify the subject. If something is lacking in the article, I expect someone will add it. If something is in the article that shouldn't be there, I expect it to be deleted. I do not mind controversy, as long as it is presented in a fair and neutral manner. I do not mind reasonable discourse on the subject and am willing to be convinced of the error of my ways...should it be warranted.

The problem currently lies in the manner in which those who want it changed want it done. Their requested changes are not required in accordance with current Wikipedia policy. While crystal-clear clarity and 100% unimpeachable and unequivocally accurate information is desired by these individuals, this may not always even be possible and Wikipedia policy states that it is not necessary. In addition, other changes reflect unwarranted negativity on the said organization and, as such, is slanderous/libelous.

Now that I have a brief overview, I would like to go into the specific problems brought up and how they have been addressed (note these will be in order from least to most contentious):

BQ
Adequately addressed

Only band that eats/sleeps/lives together
Apparently the Aggie Band might not be the only one. As soon as evidence (an article/book/ref) is brought, I will be happy to change it. A request for this information has been brought up both on this talk page and the user talk page of the person who noted it.

Rice in 1973
The entire referenced article mentions the Aggie Band and alludes to their actions (and the actions of others in the same sentence) only once. While the incident in question certainly was a point of contention between the schools, the Aggie Band played an insignificant and minor role in the actions that transpired. As such it should be removed.

Computer simulation
Quite frankly, I am getting sick of this. A direct quote from a reputable newspaper is being contested contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. Information from a reputable publisher is also being contested...again, contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. An additional source of information is also thrown in and it is also being questioned when the other two sources back it up.

I and many others believe them to be true. Others think they are myths. '''You know what? Both assertions are completely irrelevant IAW WP:V'''!!! Demands for names, times, places, computers used, memory available, software used are also completely irrelevant IAW WP:V.

This seems to be the key sticking point along with the definitions in WP:V and WP:RS

Original phrase
Let's begin with the original phrasing and go over it point by point: "The complex straight-line maneuvers, performed exclusively to traditional marches, are so complicated and precise that computer marching simulations say some of them cannot be performed."
 * 1. "The complex straight-line maneuvers..." Not much to object to here. The Aggie drills are complex and involve straight-line marching
 * 2. "...performed exclusively to traditional marches..." Again, no major problem. That's all they use.
 * 3. "...are so complicated..." They are complex, ergo, they are complicated. They are also complicated to a degree that they cause something
 * 4. "...and precise...' The Aggie Band is known for its precision; this is WELL documented
 * 5. "...that computer marching simulations say some of them cannot be performed."
 * Well, I guess here is the primary (sole?) point of contention.
 * It does not say all computers simulators, it says computer marching simulations. I am certain that there is some computer out there that CAN model this, just that it hasn't been done and noted anywhere. If someone wants to model this and publish a report, they are perfectly welcome to do so and this claim will be nullified.
 * It does not say that it can't be done, it says that the aforementioned simulations say it cannot be done.