Jump to content

Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Former see also section

I acted WP:BOLD when removing the see also section. Mid-InfraRed Technologies for Health and the Environment. I personally don't believe that the Infrared tech thingy belongs on this page. A&M seems to be only a minor participant in it. However, I wouldn't mind seeing it in the research section.

Furthermore, while looking through the new archive page, this was a topic of discussion. Moreover, this wasn't the only unfinished conversation that was archived. I propose moving back 2-3 sections from the archive. Thanks and gig em. Oldag07 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Is it okay to remove them from the archived page? The tag says otherwise. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I was really tired last night. I probably could have been a less direct. I apologize. It makes sense that we moved as much as we could off for the featured article of the day. As for continuing these discussions, instead of removing them from the archive we can just copy and paste them. After that we can just note in the archive that these sections have been elaborated on. Something like:
---This section has been continued on XXXXX ---. what do you think? Oldag07 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there was agreement on the other issues, just disagreement on the timing. Now that Main Page day is over, we can proceed with some of the changes. On a side note, it looks like a lot of Aggie-related pages were visited :) Karanacs (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur! A lot of things were updated yesterday, so that main page article really helped as well as the links to other articles. GREAT job everyone! — BQZip01 — talk 15:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I found a compromise solution. I put what I thought was the consensus of the archived materials as well as some ideas of my own on to the to do list on the page. Please modify the to do list as you see fit. Oldag07 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

University band page up for deletion

Hi. I just wanted to leave a friendly notice that at [1] the school Wind Symphony has been nominated for deletion as lacking evidence of notability under WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Supreme court case about GLBTA as a club?

I've heard several times that TAMU went to the supreme court over preventing a gay club forming on campus. Is there any truth to this, and shouldn't it be included if it is true?--96.249.190.186 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about this, but a quick search showed that it did happen this way. I think this belongs in the history article rather than the main one. I'll search for some reliable sources and add that in. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been added to History of Texas A&M University, and I've created a new article, Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, on the court case. Thanks for the lead! Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Karanacs, amazing work as always. Oldag07 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Individual Colleges and/or Departments at A&M

Organized list of colleges and departments at Texas A&M is missing. Consider adding a list or link to a list of the colleges at Texas A&M separate from the Student Body section of the Academics section of the page. Also consider adding pages with information about each department inside each college. Jimmayjr (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy, I appreciate the input, but I think getting that much information is a bit excessive in this context. There are well over 200 departments at A&M. Including them all here would simply take up too much space. Each of the already linked articles on each college includes information on their majors/departments. If you think a "List of ..." article would be appropriate, I encourage its creation. — BQZip01 — talk 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't. There's a pretty strong body of precedent grounded in WP:NOT#DIR and AfD practice that similar articles have and should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated Enrollment Statistics

Updated figures for Fall 2009 enrollment are available here [2] if someone with a better understanding of editing wants to do the honors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.48.144 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize archives

I was thinking about using some of the newer archiving systems. I like the {{Talk header}} system. objections? Oldag07 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the former box.

Old archive has been moved to more efficient archive standards. Oldag07 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"White males" part of the charter?

Was educating "white males" part of the original charter/mission? If actually part of the legislation/charter/mission, then it needs a citation. If not, that's an ugly phrasing, and also not notable in 1871. Moreover, the context immediately following (re desegregation and co-ed status) would explain the changes perfectly well in that case.

It's just a question of the language used: Vassar, for example, is not described as having been founded for "white females." (There's nothing remotely like this in the article for Virginia Tech, another southern A&M with a corps of cadets.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.19.11 (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Great image resource

Alexey Sergeev, a physics professor, has licensed photographs at his web page (http://www.asergeev.com/) under the GFDL. A directory of these images are available here. A number of these images are related to this institution. I encourage interested editors to upload these images at Commons with the license tag Commons:Template:Alex Sergeev permission. --GrapedApe (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. I've been looking for images of TAMUQ to put up on the main page! BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Aerialtamu.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Aerialtamu.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sulross.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sulross.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Texas A&M Campus Setting

Copied from my Talk page.

Good call... that is a more reliable source but however it does say rural fringe. I think we can settle with suburban. I live in college station and the campus borders two huge neighborhoods and a downtown area. The one side that is undeveloped has an airport.Tamu156 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we won't "settle with suburban." The source says rural. ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:TAMU Alumni Center 13.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TAMU Alumni Center 13.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

inaccurate claim on size of cadet corps

The official TAMU site and an article in the school paper last fall indicated the corps of cadets numbered 2100, The Citadel has 2154 so apparently is the largest. Also on the claim of commissioning the most military officers reference is given to a speech by President Bush who mentioned this fact, he is just repeating what he was told by someone else and is not in a position to know the exact numbers commissioned by TAMU and the other SMCs so this is not an acceptable reference.Bob80q (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Direct presence"

What is meant by "direct presence in each of the 254 counties"? Does that mean there is sometime of campus in each county? Or does it mean there is some type of research, such as crop or cattle research, being done in each county that is overseen by Texas A&M. I couldn't find any extra information or verification in the article so I'm a little unsure why the phrase is used and in the lead. My apologies if I missed it. 71.210.185.191 (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question a "direct prescence" is a reference to activities actively pursued in each county. For example, crop research in West Texas, engineering research in Houston, education programs in Austin, etc. All of these are University activities and work towards improving Texas as a whole. — BQZip01 — talk 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that the phrase is quite vague and not supported. I think the introduction will look better with out it. --Yousowiki (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Campuses

Currently there is section in the article titled "Campus" which briefly describes the College Station campus. I believe this section should be renamed to Campuses (or Locations), and have as subsections each of the three campuses the university has: College Station, Galveston, and Qatar. As an example of this style, see Tufts University. (yaniel87, 07.29.2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaniel87 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Main campus is significantly bigger than the other branch campuses. The branch campuses are mentioned in the paragraph before:
"Additionally, the university includes two branch campuses: Texas A&M at Qatar located in Education City in Doha, Qatar devoted to engineering disciplines[1] and Texas A&M University at Galveston in Galveston, Texas, devoted to marine research and host to the Texas Maritime Academy.[2]"
This page is already large as is. Would duplicating the information make sense? I wouldn't mind moving the paragraph above down to the campus section. That could be a good compromise. Oldag07 (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of the articles on prominent universities with satellite campuses have subsections dedicated to each campus. I'll give plenty of examples just to show the trend: Cornell University, Northwestern University, Boston University, University of Miami, New York University, and Tufts University (already mentioned above). Other articles do not have subsections dedicated to each satellite campus of the school, but they do contain a general subsection that describes these campuses. For example, Stanford University, Columbia University, Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, and University of Chicago. --Yousowiki (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I could do it sometime in the near future. I would not mind if someone would beat me to it though. --Yousowiki (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't create a separate subsection, but I did make a paragraph about the branch campuses. You can expand the paragraph and make the branch campuses subjection if you want. Oldag07 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • A separate subsection makes sense, but it can't be the exact same information just under a subsection header. It needs to be expanded upon substantially to make a subsection necessary; like at least another paragraph. Accordingly, I've reverted until we need that section. PLEASE feel free to add to it and make a subsection once it reaches 2 paragraphs. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
TAMU does not list Riverside as one of its satellite campuses and there is no information about it anywhere on the TAMU domain. Based on that it should be taken out of the article. Also, while reverting to the previous version you re-introduced erroneous information: The Galveston campus is not an engineering campus, i.e., not all degrees are awarded by the College of Engineering as is the case for Qatar. --Yousowiki (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:TexasAMUHelmet.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • There are currently four photographs of the cadets in the article. That's almost one-fifth of all the photographs on the article. Clearly, the cadets are not one-fifth of the university body. I think one would be fine, but four is three too many. --Yousowiki (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate section on notable faculty

Hi, The wiki page lacks a section on notable professors at TAMU. We have one of the best faculties in the United States and having their list at the TAMU wiki page seems relevant. Several of the top universities (e.g., Princeton, Harvard, Stanford etc.) have a separate list of notable faculties.

I think there is a separate wiki page on the notable faculties from TAMU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_A%26M_University_people

So this post is not relevant now.


Regards, Aditya Kumar, Dept of CSE Texas A&M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiraditya (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

although there is a separate list of notable faculty, i think it is appropriate to include a shorter version as subsection in the section of "Notable People" in the main article. Two reasons: (1) other schools' wiki entries do have this type of subsection; (2) well, prominent researchers/faculty are part of the notable people set by definition.

Yousowiki (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

First or second university in Texas?

While the Texas Constitution states "as a branch campus of ..." this "branch campus" opened in 1876, before the University of Texas' 1883. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also relevant is this edit [3]. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this was the first or second university it Texas but it's entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to attempt to analyze a primary source to draw a conclusion that may not be as straight forward as a novice historian may assume. Surely there are many sources discussing colleges and universities in Texas that can provide evidence of the scholarly consensus on this issue~ ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

t

It was stated in the constitution to be a branch, but that never materialized. Texas A&M is the "first public institution of higher learning" in the state of Texas, but technically it was not the first public "university" in Texas because it was a "college". Moreover, the oldest university in Texas is Baylor, not any of the public universities. Oldag07 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an inaccuracy in the footnote, which references the Texas Constitution of 1876, which was passed subsequent to the creation of Texas A&M (1871) and therefore did not "create" Texas A&M. An A&M College was indeed mentioned in the constitution as part of a presumed University of Texas, but the constitution is unclear on whether or not this would be the existing A&M or a separate, additional A&M. The logic of why it could be the latter is that the Morrill Act specifically applied to only mechanical and agricultural schools and only by incorporating an A&M branch could UT receive Morrill Act funding. Since there is no documentary evidence of the already existant A&M (they were building buildings as the Constitution was passed) was somehow transferred to UT), so this clause should be considered nothing more of a placeholder which was not effected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.25.99 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"2012 Off campus shooting"

I've removed this section from the article because it did not happen at A&M. WP is WP:NOT#NOTNEWS either. If anyone feels strongly that it should be included in this article, we should talk about it here first. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that anyone from A&M was involved; just local police serving an eviction notice. Besides proximity, is there any connection to the university that's of interest? This just seems like an unrelated police blotter item. Kuru (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess linking the shooting to a prominent university is a way to make a dull story interesting, but local news reports (e.g. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Shooting-in-Progress-Near-Welborn-and-Fidelity-Streets-in-College-Station-166000226.html ) do not indicate such a link. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, we should link to the article, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblumber (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 August 2012‎
That article may not survive either. Once again, the relationship between the two is coincidental and tangential. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
i don't think there is a need to include in TAMU's entry information about a shooting that happened in college station and outside of the university. it is simply not related to the university. --Yousowiki (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Texas A&M School of Law

I am not sure if the School of Law is just of the University system like A&M Commerse, or the University proper like Galveston or Qutar. That does affect if the school of law belongs on this page or the university system page. Oldag07 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This article from the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, suggests that it is part of the university and not an independent school of the system. The main clue being midway down the article with the statement, "The law school will be part of Texas A&M University and overseen by president R. Bowen Loftin." --TreyGeek (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
So we should lop this and the reintegration of the med school on the campus section and the history section right? Oldag07 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose some cleanup will be needed. I found a more recent source[4] referencing the law school (about midway through). Apparently it isn't official until June, pending accreditation approval. Also, all news I can find call it the Texas A&M University School of Law at Texas Wesleyan University and not simply Texas A&M School of Law, so that should probably be cleaned up as well. I've only barely looked at the law school details and not at all about the med school. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't do original research, but the medical school being reintegrated into the main school is what I heard from the chancellor of the A&M at the Dallas Muster. Oldag07 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is a source for the merger of the medical school into A&M proper. [5] Oldag07 (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Medical School will definitely belong in the TAMU's page. But presently, it looks like the Medical School has not been officially incorporated as noted above. This is easy to see since the school's website is not of the type .tamu.edu. See, http://medicine.tamhsc.edu/. --Yousowiki (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Academic Organization

I would like to promote the idea of a new section in the TAMU's page called "Academic Organization". Large research universities such as Texas A&M comprise numerous colleges and schools as subdivisions. Not all of these units are common to all universities. For example, some universities have schools of dentistry, others don't; some have schools of nutrition while others don't; some contain vet schools and others don't; etc. Furthermore, a type of school which may be common to some universities, can be more prominent in some of them over the others. And even when one restricts to one university, say TAMU, the different schools function very differently. Some contain undergraduate and graduate alike, while others are entirely for graduate students are research. Thus for the reasons listed here, I note that describing the schools and colleges within TAMU (or any other large university) is only essential to the completeness of the picture of the institution.

Here are some examples of entries about research universities in Wikipedia that contain an Academic Organization section: University of Washington , Tufts University, Rice University, andGeorgia Tech. --Yousowiki (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea. We sort of did that with the student body section, which could to be updated, and elaborated upon. We do have all of the departments in the student body section. That should be spun off to reduce redundancy. We also should keep the departments in prose. As you can see: This takes me back. We are an FA unlike the schools mentioned above Oldag07 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing part of history

I propose cutting:

In December 2006, university President Robert Gates resigned from his position to become the U.S. Secretary of Defense.[3] Elsa Muranobecame his replacement in January 2008, but later resigned in June 2009[4] and was replaced by R. Bowen Loftin

A&M had many presidents. The leaving and coming in of new presidents seems a little frivolous. Oldag07 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Yousowiki (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Largest university in Texas?

The (latest version) of the source for this claim (in the intro) shows A&M is #2 - behind UT-Austin. uriah923(talk) 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When only the including the main campus (College Station), UT Austin is larger. However, A&M has branch campuses (which UT does not) in Qatar and Galveston that put it slightly over UT Austin. Generally speaking, the two universities are comparable in size and this is one of the first years A&M has been larger than its rival.--Ðrdak (T) 00:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Class ring

Is the tradition of the wearing of the ring allowed for those seniors that did not receive an undergraduate degree?Taikomochiyarichin (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Relationship with UT Austin

'A&M's archrival is the University of Texas.' This is no longer valid due to A&M leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, and no longer plays Texas. Shouldn't it be updated to 'was', and perhaps explain why this is no longer valid? Dperry4930 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Flagship status

An unregistered is edit warring to (sloppily) remove "flagship" from this article. He or she has not put forth any argument or evidence supporting his or her belief that this institution is not regarded by many as one of the flagship universities of the state of Texas. It is indisputably the flagship of the Texas A&M system but there is considerable evidence that many reliable sources disagree also believe that the institution is a flagship in the state of Texas e.g., The Houston Chronicle, The Texas Tribune, the Chancellor of the University of California-Berkeley, and scholars who have studied Texas higher education.

It's possible that our colleague may believe that states can or should have only one flagship university and another university - probably one in Austin - already holds that distinction. Or he or she may believe that "flagship" is an official title that can only be conferred by someone with considerable legal authority like a state legislature or governor. Neither of those beliefs are correct and we are bound to include in our articles significant, important, and useful information that is widely disseminated in reliable sources. A few such sources have been cited above. We may not like it or agree with it but many experts believe that Texas A&M is a flagship university so we must include that in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The definition of a "flagship university" is very vague. However, it is definitely the flagship institution of the Texas A&M University system (I am not sure what citation template I should use for this) [6] Page 2 Oldag07 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Law School?

There is no mention of the law school. I'm not sure if it fits under the main university or if it's its own thing, so I'm not going to interject, but it should be mentioned either here or under the system page, I would think. 128.146.149.117 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is listed in the table in the Academics section. If you click it, it will take you to the School of Law's article. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of a primary source for endowment

Two editors are insisting - without any discussion here or anywhere else except in their edit summaries - that we use this source for the endowment figure in this article. That appears to be a disclosure form that the institution submitted to the NCAA about their FY2015 finances. I don't think it's a good source to use in this or any other article for something as complex as endowment; we typically use the annual reports released by NACUBO that, a report that comes from an organization who specializes in this area and makes that report specifically for the public to use. It's clear that the NACUBO report has shortcomings, including the fact that it sometimes lumps together system endowments, but endowments are often complex and difficult for laypeople to understand (including complexities such as "it's impossible to separate some system funds among constituent institutions") so we must rely on secondary and tertiary sources provided by financial experts who produce reports that make comparisons possible. This report from the institution submitted to an athletics organization does not meet those criteria. ElKevbo (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not "insisting" on using any particular source. However, the NACUBO document flatly does not support attributing the stated endowment figure for the entire Texas A&M System (which comprises multiple universities, state agencies, and other entities) to the individual flagship university, whatever complicating "complexities" may exist. (The same is true for the University of Texas System; the ~$24 billion figure for UT is for the entire system, not just for UT-Austin.) An official document from Texas A&M itself – specifically, the single university in College Station – stating its institutional endowment is easily a more reliable indicator of Texas A&M's institutional endowment than a document that plainly labels the figure provided as being for an entire system comprising 11 universities and multiple other agencies and entities. In the vast majority of cases, the NACUBO report will be an ideal source for a university or college's endowment, because almost all schools are reported individually; as this is not the case with the TAMU and UT Systems, the report is not a reliable source for endowments of individual universities within those systems. João Do Rio (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless you are expert in higher education finances, you should not be trying to interpret a primary source about finances. If you're unhappy with the NACUBO source then please find another one that is appropriate; the one that you're citing is not appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia guideline that supports your mandate not to use the Texas A&M-generated document? If so, then the solution for now would be simply to leave the field unfilled pending the location of a reliable source for the individual institution's endowment, because the NACUBO source is inappropriate on its face. It plainly states that the figure cited is for the entire TAMU System, not only for the flagship institution. If it's appropriate to list the entire system's endowment for only the university in College Station, then it would also be appropriate to list the ~$10 billion figure as the endowment figure for each and every individual university (and any other entity) in the TAMU System – for instance, Prairie View A&M University. This, of course, would be patently absurd, which only serves to show that the NACUBO document is flatly insufficient as a source in this particular circumstance. João Do Rio (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was blocked for a day for correcting the TAMU College Station campus endowment figure based upon information taken audited financial reports prepared by the university. I'm not understanding that at all.

The page in question deals with one single institution - the Texas A&M University College Station campus, not the overall Texas A&M University System. The audited figures I produced show only the endowment for that one institution as of Dec 31, 2015. What the other editor was insisting to be more relevant were unaudited figures supplied by the university to NACUBO as of Dec 31, 2014 (I spoke to the Director of Research at NACUBO to find the source of the information used in their survey).

The closest example I can find for how this is handled on other similar pages is the page for The University of Texas at Austin. The UT Austin page lists only the endowment for the institution, not for the entire system. Rather, in the case of UT, the entire system endowment is used only for the page discussing the entire system. It would seem more appropriate to use the individual institution's endowment for the individual institution and the overall system figure for the overall system, wouldn't it? I'm not seeing how the aggregate the data for I believe 11 separate legal entities being represented as that of just one institution is reasonable, especially when the data for the individual institution is more recent and comes from audited (as opposed to unaudited as supplied by the other editor) financial reports.

Give me some help understanding how institution specific, timely and audited figures supplied by the university gets someone blocked and unaudited, older numbers, not even specifically related to the institution being discussed on the page at issue are deemed more precise. I'm just not getting the logic here. Randolph Duke (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And specifically addressing ElKevbo's comment of 02:21, 26 February 2017, I don't believe one needs to be an expert on endowments to interpret a primary source about finances which, in this case is looking at a number on a report supplied by the university. This is pretty basic stuff we are talking about. The NACUBO report is a secondary source, not a primary source. The NACUBO merely compiles information submitted by the institutions. No verification are conducted and no assurances the numbers are audited figures or not. Additionally, the NACUBO survey only gives the endowment of the aggregated system institutions. The page at hand is for one institution, so the NACUBO information doesn't even provide the information for the campus being discussed on the page. You claim "we must rely on secondary and tertiary sources provided by financial experts who produce reports that make comparisons possible." This is not true. The information submitted that substantiates the individual institution endowment for the TAMU College Station campus was compiled by administrators at Texas A&M University, verified by PwC - the auditors of Texas A&M College Station, and contains the name and contact info of multiple university administrators (including the university president) for anyone wishing to verify the information individually. This is a primary source, not a secondary or tertiary source. Furthermore, the procedures under which the report was compiled are readily available. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016FIN_AgreedProcedures_20160727.pdf

Your claim that unaudited, aggregated data for the entire TAMU as of Dec 2014 sumbitted by NACUBO is more relevant than audited information prepared by the university as of Jan 15, 2016 (I earlier mis-stated the date as Dec 31, 2015) is laughable. Use the audited institution-specific info as of Jan 15, 2016 ($259 million) for the individual institution and the unaudited, Dec 2014 system-wide information for the page on the overall system. Randolph Duke (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

First, you do need to be an expert to interpret a primary source. That is precisely why we explicitly discourage the use of primary sources in Wikipedia articles. I commend you on the investigations that you're engaging in but they're precisely the kinds of things that Wikipedia editors should not be doing. Instead, we should be relying on experts who have already done that work and published the information. (Incidentally, relying on those experts is also how we ensure that the information is something we should include in an encyclopedia article in the first place.)
Second, I believe that it's common to use the NACUBO source or similar ones in many articles by adding footnotes or parenthetical notes when appropriate e.g., noting that a particular number refers to the entire system if the article is about a specific campus. It's not perfect and some articles do indeed have more specific sources that focus on one campus.
Finally, please note that my objection here is solely to the use of this (or virtually any other) primary source. If you can find a reliable secondary source that explicitly describes the portion of the endowment that is solely dedicated to this particular campus then that would be fine. (I'd be curious to know how such a source would allocate system-level endowments, both restricted and unrestricted, to each campus. That's a prime example of the kinds of complications that concern me when we're discussing endowments and sourcing them. I think that it's our implicit hope - at least it's mine! - that relying on NACUBO helps ensure that we're at least consistent in presenting these figures in multiple articles based on the same series of decisions and definitions as established by experts in this area instead of relying on Wikipedia editors or journalists who each make their own idiosyncratic and possibly ill-informed decisions and definitions.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Simply amazing. The NACUBO survey does not provide the information being sought, which is the endowment for the Texas A&M College Station campus. The information I provided was from a public document created by employees of the state government. The information was specifically that sought (the endowment for the specific institution) and the accuracy of the information was verified by an independent auditor. Are you really trying to tell us that unless a recognized expert in interpreting government financial disclosures opines on whether "endowment for institution" means "endowment for institution" then the default is to use unaudited figures for an entirely different organization (the TAMU System)? It is neither novel nor shocking that an encyclopedic work would include information supplied by government reports. Budget figures, census data, NOAA data, NIH data are all routinely used in encyclopedic works without a second thought. Using verified data gleaned from a government document and including that document as a cited source is unquestionably acceptable. Following your protocol would be akin to ignoring U.S. Census data for estimates of the population of Arizona because an "expert" had not opined on the document and instead offering population estimates for Guatemala in its place. The NACUBO numbers are not for the TAMU College Station campus. They are unaudited figures. There is no information as to what date they were compiled. NACUBO merely takes the numbers and compiles them into a format and distributes them. This in no way should be conflated with NACUBO acting as an sort of expert with respect to university endowment. Exactly what "expert" imprimatur are you asserting NACUBO has placed upon these unverified numbers that makes the data for a wholly different entity germane to this matter and what do you believe NACUBO has added that makes the audited figures contained in a state document without value? I understand that people laugh at Wikipedia for the quality of its content and I personally know professional factcheckers for major publications who are prohibited from using Wikipedia as a source, but this seems to be a first hand example of how invalid, distorted data from a trade organization with a stated bias of existing solely to promote the narrow interests of its members is being mandated over specific, verified information obtained from government documents. If you are really going to say that information and data gleaned directly from government documents has no place in Wikipedia, put it in writing and I will begin to clean ever bit of government data from every Wikipedia page. However, if I did that, I believe people would ask me what I was doing and I don't believe your claim that government documents verified by independent auditors are improper as source documents. Randolph Duke (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that the discussion is going intense. I think going to another venue would resolve this matter. I'm thinking either WP:RSN or WP:DRN. Pinging Randolph Duke, ElKevbo, and João Do Rio. --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is intense, I think it is comical. For background, I have worked over 30 years in the financial services industry as a trader for global banks and have traded well into the trillions of dollars of government securities. I am also a recognized expert witness for litigation in the federal courts. I can't remember how many government documents I have reviewed to glean bits of data. Heck, I AM the expert on the subject of interpreting government financial reports ElKevbo is looking for. But supposedly, when an unaudited number is given to a trade group for an intern to enter into a spreadsheet and then that spreadsheet is published by the trade group, the act of the intern somehow is supposed to be somehow adding a level of authenticity to what otherwise would simply be an empirical number any reader could interpret for themself. An audited number from a government report speaks for itself. It doesn't need a trade group intern to interject themself into interpreting or transforming the number in any way to give it any encyclopedia importance. It borders on comical to assert there is anything the intern at NACUBO could do that would add any assistance to the reader in interpreting the number. The data speaks for itself. To reject the data and instead offer information regarding a wholly different legal entity (the overall system endowment as opposed to the endowment for just the institution) is beyond absurd. As an aside, the endowment figure for the overall system isn't even an accounting of the system's endowment funds. As a branch of The University of Texas since it's inception, A&M receives income from the UT endowment, A&M has no state funded endowment of its own whatsoever, even though the school administrators claim more that $9B of their claimed $10B "endowment" to be public funds. The $10B Texas A&M University endowment is an imputed figure based upon portion of the University of Texas System endowment that by law is dedicated to the A&M System. The A&M regents have no control whatsoever over $9B of the $10B they are claiming as the System's endowment. So, even the $10B for the System ElKevbo believes to be appropriate to represent the endowment of the College Station campus isn't correct. Randolph Duke (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Edited to correct typo and clarify A&M having no publicly funded endowment, in spite of its claims to have in excess of $9 B of public money as its endowment.Randolph Duke (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, if you have a reliable and accurate secondary source that has a more accurate figure for this institution then please feel free to use it. But it's a bad idea to use a primary source submitted to an athletics organization instead of a secondary source from a business organization. The kinds of analysis that you are performing are exactly the kinds of things that we don't want Wikipedia editors to try to do which is why we rely on secondary sources that have (ideally) already done all of that analysis.
(And if you're thinking that I'm very skeptical of nearly all of the popular press sources that report on endowments or simplify them - including the NACUBO reports - then you're absolutely right! It's a much more complex subject than most people realize. I hope that by trying to rely mostly on one source that should have some expertise in this area we'll avoid many of the common mistakes or at least be making the same ones consistently across articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, I am not relying on the representations made by the university regarding their endowment. The "reputable source (NACUBO)" you are give so much weight is the entity relying on the representations made by the university. I still would like you to explain how the information for an organization (the overall university system) not even the subject of the page at issue (one element of the university system), provided by a primary source and transferred to a spreadsheet by an intern for a trade group with no analysis or verification performed whatsoever has a greater importance than the institution specific information I am providing. What makes the information I have provided more substantive than the trade group survey to find so compelling isn't that it was provided by the university. Rather it was provided byu the university to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and verified by PxC as being accurate. It is the fact that PwC, an organization of licensed professionals acting in a fiduciary capacity has verified the information. We are weighing that imprimatur against the imprimatur of the intern for the trade group which you feel more substantive. I find your position that trade group interns are to be taken as more meaningful analysts of information than trained auditors such as Pwc acting in consideration of the fiduciary duties under the law. Such an assertion is beyond comical. My argument here is that relying on PwC's verification of the standards which the institution-specific information was compiled is more proper than the non-specific, systemwide information gathered under unknown conditions and submitted to an industry trade group for compilation by an intern. Your position is laughable and must be rejected. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting your information about interns and PwC; I'm seeing information from NACUBO (yes, self-reported from institutions) and NCAA (also likely self-reported from institutions). I think that you're trying to paint as radical a picture of "facts" as you possibly can and disregarding what I've said. You've also edit-warred to retain your preferred edits in this article. This issue simply isn't important enough to me for me to continue dealing with this so I'm disengaging and removing this article from my watchlist. Best of luck with this article! ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas A&M University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct

Someone added this info on hearings and sexual misconduct with the same references 3x. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, but it was poorly formatted and seemed to include a significant bias without clarification (i.e. 9500 allegations, ~50 punishments, but with no clarification as to how many were dropped, found to be doubtful, etc as well as ho many were prosecuted by local authorities). Buffs (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Same author added similar information to 2 other University articles. Rm as POV pushing. I welcome dissenting opinions; let's discuss! Buffs (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Spinoff Article

Revlib24 has been encouraged to open a discussion on this talk page to discuss the spinoff of an article for the Texas A&M College of Liberal Arts. We are attempting to create this article because the College of Liberal Arts has notability and relevance like the other colleges who do have articles. Could the appropriate user help us get the spinoff approved? If you have questions please let us know.

Revlib24 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Issues with this FA

I'm concerned about the heavy use of primary sources published by Texas A & M that are used in this article. Could this be fixed? ~ HAL333 03:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

Change mascot name to Reveille X 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:67 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deauthorized. (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. source Buffs (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deauthorized Please be a little kinder in your replies and check to see what the person is talking about. The IP was indeed correct and a simple google search found it on the first result. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Images 2022-01-14

I was on campus and got the privilege of taking a lot of pictures which have been posted on the wikimedia commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Oldag07 Oldag07 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Founded date

When was the university founded? @Kvolanto and Buffs: (See discussion at User talk:Kvolanto#Texas A&M University edits.) Do sources differ, or is it an unclear definition of founded? Is it when the legislature declared it a university or when the first classes took place? Does it matter what date the university chose to put on its seal? Please discuss. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The date that a University is "founded" is an unclear nomenclature and varies from school to school. I completely agree, funding was established and it was formally formed in 1871...without any buildings or even a single employee or student. It didn't start until 1876. As you clearly indicated, the seal indicates 1876, not 1871. Moreover, the school celebrates its anniversaries in relation to the 1876 date, not 1871. The school isn't "wrong" to celebrate based on 1876. It's simply a preference. I strongly disagree with the statement "The tradition of every college is to use the year that the charter was adopted". Texas A&M clearly appears to be an exception (others include t.u., .
There is also "Note 1" which states "The seal contains the date 1876, the year in which Texas A&M began classes. This is not a discrepancy as both 1871 (the year the Texas Legislature appropriated funds to begin A&M's construction) and 1876 can be considered the dates of establishment depending on the definition used and the reference sourced (even within the Texas A&M University System)." Both dates are clearly annotated and I find it difficult to support telling these sources and the University it's wrong based on the opinions of a single historian Wikipedian's input. It simply depends on how you define "founded". Many schools were founded when a wealthy donor gave buildings and land to start a school. In such a case, classes started as soon as they got teachers. Others were "established" by laws but didn't even begin construction until years (even decades!) later.
If you'll check the archives, this has been repeatedly discussed in the past: Talk:Texas_A&M_University/Archive_7
Date of establishment varies from institution to institution.
1876 as the established date is not taken flippantly nor without considerable discussion. Buffs (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
By your definition, that overglorified junior college down the road in Austin celebrated its 50th anniversary just 5 years after opening its doors...seems kinda silly. Buffs (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In looking at other schools, most start within 2 years of their "established" date. A&M and Texas did not, which probably has a lot to do with the discrepancy. Buffs (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The confusion does not lie with any real "discrepancy of terminology," just a misunderstanding among many about Reconstruction Era politics. The tradition in the U.S. follows the tradition in England. The founding date of a college is whenever its charter is approved by the chartering authority. In the case of A&M, it's when the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature during Reconstruction approved the proposed school's charter and agreed to the terms of the Morrill Land Grant College Act (in 1871). The only reason 1876 is on the college seal is that the Democrats who controlled the Legislature by '76 and were bound by the terms of the agreement to open and run the school decided to put the year that the school started teaching classes as a sort of slap in the face to the Republicans at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvolanto (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] Buffs (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The 1876 date is not wrong because it's my "opinion,' it's wrong because it's wrong. The notion that it's up to individual schools to decide their establishment date isn't backed by anything. The link to that Wiki Page "establishment of institutions" or whatever it is called does not add anything to the discussion. It's 12 years old and still doesn't have any sources attached to it and reads like somebody just typed it up on the fly. Just look at the various colleges discussed on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and you'll see that the practice has always been, and continues to be, when the authority approves the charter. That's what founding/establishment means, not when a school opens its doors. That would be the only point that needs to be made on this matter, but it's also more important than that in the case of A&M, because it's also all tied into Reconstruction Era politics, i.e. that's WHY there is a "discrepancy" between the date on the seal and the actual establishment date....Kvolanto (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)kvolanto
That is your opinion. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Buffs (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Introductory sentences

@Buidhe: you have labeled following sentences as ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] and one as puffery and in the edit summary as WP:OR.

  • "Many Aggies have attained local, national, and international prominence."
  • "Many Aggies have become leaders in the armed forces."

In both instances, these are introductory sentences, much like the first sentence of the section introduces the rest of the section. They are supported by the following statements and do not need a specific citation. Likewise, this is not WP:OR. Heads of state, Cabinet-level officials, judges, etc clearly meet this description. For the second one, ~300 generals alone pretty well satisfies this statement.

Accordingly, I'm removing those tags, but I'm open to discussion and hearing your viewpoint. I don't think the edit summary is adequate to explain your POV. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A source for certain examples that arguably fulfill the criterion does not support "many". Without a source that actually supports "Many Aggies have attained local, national, and international prominence", yes, it's still OR (and puffery). Is it verifiable that more Aggies are prominent compared to the graduates of other universities? (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's split this into two separate discussions (one for each sentence) so we don't conflate/confuse the two Buffs (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Many Aggies have attained local, national, and international prominence."

This is an introductory sentence, not WP:OR. Just like the sentence prior is a summary of the entire section, this is a brief summary of the following paragraph. The following paragraph cites examples of Aggies who are prominent locally, nationally, and internationally (heads of state, for example, are "prominent"). You also ask for verification that "more Aggies are prominent compared to the graduates of other universities", but the article doesn't make that claim. The statement is that they are "prominent", not "more prominent than other schools". If School A had a graduate who became a US President and School B also had a graduate who became a US President, both schools could reasonably state that they had a "prominent graduate in national/international politics." One does not exclude the other; in fact, they do not even relate. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Would removing "many" satisfy your concerns? Buffs (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
No, because how do you decide what is "prominence" without reliable sources that support the statement? It should be removed as a subjective statement that does not add any information. (t · c) buidhe 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe:, Wait, you want a source to show that a governor or president is "prominent"? Really?! Given that these are the lead Executive for an entire state/country, that's self-evident. Likewise, the rest is a simple introductory statement; paragraph writing 101. We can remove "many" if you want. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Many Aggies have become leaders in the armed forces."

~300 generals alone pretty well satisfies this statement. They are selected leaders for the armed forces...others prominently led at the unit level to the point that they were recognized with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Not sure what other sourcing you need for this statement. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

At best, it's a subjective statement that does not add any more information than what is already said about generals, etc., and should be removed on that basis. Unless there is a source that declares "many" vs "few", it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor how many is "many". (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph mentions over 300 people. Objectively, by any definition, that isn't a "few", it's "many" Buffs (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The sentences in question are reasonable summaries of the content in the body of the article. That - summarizing what's in the body (and supported there by cited sources) - is the purpose of the lede and these sentences are completely appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Informal review

Buffs has asked me to review this article as a volunteer FAC mentor. I'd like to offer the following comments for consideration, noting at the outset that as an Australian I have only a vague awareness of this university:

  • "It is classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity"" - seems a bit obscure/detailed for the lead, and doesn't flow from the previous sentence
  • "Enrollment climbed to 258 students before declining to 108 students in 1883" - when did it hit 258?
  • "by 1918, 49% of all graduates of the college were in military service, more than any other school" - what explains this?
  • "with the college producing 20,229 combat troops" - no it didn't. The Army trained them. Sailors and airmen aren't "troops" either.
  • "Of those, 14,123 Aggies served as officers, more than any other school and more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy" - the USNA and USMA are elite institutions, and trained relatively small numbers of officers, so this comparison is misleading and basically boosterism. If this is going to be highlighted, the reason for this should be noted as well.
  • "until his death and burial on school grounds in 2018" - did he really die on the university's grounds? The article on him says he died at home in Houston.
  • The history section doesn't note when women were re-admitted, only when this was approved
  • Or mention desegregation
  • The para starting with 'In 2017, the status of the statue of Lawrence Sullivan ' is awkwardly worded, and seems to be trying to dodge a few issues.
  • Some of the statistics in the 'Student body' section look dated (e.g. the 2019 stats)
  • The 'Research' section could have been written by the university's PR team. It should describe the university's areas of research focus in a more flat way, noting areas of weakness as well.
  • "Texas A&M leads the Southwestern United States in annual research expenditures, including research on every continent alongside formal research and exchange agreements across the globe" - as above.
  • "Since 1876, over 285 Aggies have served as generals or flag officers, as of 2021.[19][172][173][171][174]" - does this really need five citations?
  • " These drills must be drawn by hand as computer marching programs return errors without disabling safety features; their calculations require two people to be in the same spot at the same time" - hard to follow, and seems like trivia
  • I presume that there has also been opposition to the Corps of Cadets? (for instance, in the Vietnam War). The whole institution seems to have a decidedly military aspect to it, and it would be good to explore this thematically: I imagine it attracts some students and repels others.
  • "Aggie students founded the largest one-day student-run service project in America known as The Big Event..." this para also reads like promotional material
  • "and consume the substance to obtain a feeling that they have earned the ring" - bit clunky
  • "To symbolize their "readiness, desire, and enthusiasm", it is traditional for students in attendance to stand throughout the sports game" - how does this work in the modern era for students with mobility issues?
  • "The Aggies are a member of the Southeastern Conference of the NCAA for all sports as of 2012" - can this be updated?
  • The three notes need supporting references.
  • More broadly, and this is a bit of a tricky comment to action, the article seems to be written from the perspective of the university administration. The experiences and views of students and teaching staff and how they've changed over time don't really come through. For instance, what did the first women and non-White people to enter the university in the 1960s experience, and how has this changed over time? How is the university viewed by potential students and staff given it seems to promote a rather old fashioned culture? What proportion of students adhere to this tradition? (for instance, if only 20% live on campus, do the other 80% turn up at the various traditional events held after classes?) Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Solid feedback! Thank you! I'm going to reply line-by-line at Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas A&M University/archive2, if that's ok with you. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Rankings template

It would seem that the rankings template people have completely remade the template. i am deleting all unnecessary rankings, but I figured I would save the numbers here: {{Infobox US university ranking |USNWR_NU =61 |USNWR_Bus =29 |USNWR_Eng =13 |USNWR_Ed =40 |ARWU_W =91 |ARWU_N =55 |ARWU_SCI =43 |ARWU_ENG =34 |ARWU_SOC =45 |THES_W =137 |THES_N =48 |CMUP =32 |Wamo =1 }}

Review from Hurricanehink

Similar to the above, I was asked to review the article. I hope there's no overlap with the above.

  • I hate to ask, but is there a reference for note3 - "Public" schools in the United States are generally funded by the state
  • "Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder in the 1960s, A.M.C. desegregated, became coeducational, and dropped the requirement for participation in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets and enrollment began to rapidly expand." - I feel like this could be split up. Maybe like - "Enrollment expanded again in the 1960s under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder. The college desegregated, became coeducational, and dropped the requirement for participation in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets."
  • I notice a lot of refs in the lead. There shouldn't be refs there unless anything is particularly controversial, as the lead is supposed to reflect the content in the article. Does the lead need all of those references?
  • "over 5,500 acres (22 km2)" - it might be nice to have the same style of unit, using mi2 along with km2, because I'm not sure people can grasp what 5,500 acres looks like. Then again, IDK if people know what 8.5 square miles looks like.
  • I notice you mention the student body being the largest in the US, and you also mention that one-fifth lives on campus, but you never mention the size of the student body in the lead.
  • "But after working through initial faculty resistance" - you're not supposed to start a sentence with "But"
  • " With the backing of State Senator William T. "Bill" Moore, also known as "the Bull of the Brazos" and "the father of the modern Texas A&M University." - I was gonna mention the nicknames as being unnecessary for Sul Ross, but he has a statue, whatever. But I don't think we need to know Moore was the Bull of the Brazos. Maybe just say who considered Moore to be the father, rather than having an unattributed quote?
  • In general in the history section, it would be nice if the paragraphs were closer in size to each other.
  • "With the backing of State Senator William T. "Bill" Moore, also known as "the Bull of the Brazos" and "the father of the modern Texas A&M University",[40] in 1963, the 58th Legislature of Texas approved Rudder's proposal for a substantial expansion in its physical plant construction, facilities upgrades, diversifying and expanding its student body by admitting women and minorities and making membership in the Corps of Cadets voluntary. " - similar to the lead, this bit seems a bit rushed, as it seems like one of the more important historic events at the university.
  • "In the following 35 years" - from Rudder's death in 1970?
  • "one of thirteen American presidential libraries operated by the National Archives and Records Administration" - the presidential library article says there are 15
  • Is it worth mentioning that the Aggie Bonfire continued unofficially after it was stopped? Also, should the bonfire get mention in two separate parts of the article? Seems overkill.
  • "With strong support from Rice University and the University of Texas, the Association of American Universities, the leading academic association of America's top research universities, inducted Texas A&M in May 2001, on the basis of the depth of the university's research and academic programs." - this could be a lot clearer
  • Is it worth mentioning Covid in the history section? That seems a bit more important than a statue's non-removal.
  • The university and colleges are generally accredited - eh?
  • Ref 8 doesn't seem to cover - "Texas A&M was the largest public American university"
  • "The institution self reports, that in 2019, the school had a four-year graduation rate of 59% and a six-year graduation of 81.7%." - is this figure pre-Covid for a reason?
  • The school is rated as "more selective" by US News & World Report - what does this mean?
  • "In 2016, the university was targeted by animal rights group PETA, who alleged abusive experiments on dogs. Texas A&M responded that a video had been posted by PETA with insufficient context, and it said that the dogs had a genetic condition that also affects humans, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for which there is no cure. "The dogs, who are already affected by this disease, are treated with the utmost respect and exceptional care on site by board-certified veterinarians and highly trained staff. The care team is further subject to scientific oversight by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, among other regulatory bodies." - this seems a bit too much detail
  • " In 2013, geographic researchers named the largest volcano on Earth, Tamu Massif, after the university." - since this isn't directly related to the research by the university, this should be in the "history" section
  • "Texas A&M leads the Southwestern United States" - Texas is Southwest?
  • "Texas A&M owns three international based facilities, a multipurpose center in Mexico City, the Soltis Research and Education Center near the town of San Isidro, Costa Rica, and the Santa Chiara Study Abroad Center in Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy." - I think some more syntax is needed. I believe it would be "international-based", but double check on that. Also, I'm not sure if it should be a colon : or a dash or something else after "facilities". Lastly, any more details on these facilities?
  • The campus is part of Qatar's "massive venture to import elite higher education from the United States" - it's not good to have unattributed quotes. Can't you just describe this without the quote? If not, list who said it.
  • "Instead, Texas A&M opened a $6 million marine biology center in Haifa, Israel." - when?
  • "The Corps Arches, a series of twelve arches that "[symbolize] the spirit of the 12th Man of Texas A&M", mark the entrance to the Quadrangle." - I'm not sure what you're linking with the 12th Man of Texas link.
  • " Reveille, the Aggie mascot, lives with her handlers in the Corps in the Quad." - is it worth mentioning that Reveille is a dog?
  • Under "Activities", I found the coverage of the GLBT organization to be odd. You say: GLBT Aggies, the descendant organization of Gay Student Services (GSS), successfully sued the university for official recognition in the decision Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, in which the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment required public universities to allow students the freedom to assemble. So you mention the group suing, but not that the organization has been around since 1985, and that it exists beyond just a lawsuit.
  • "W5AC broadcast the first live, play-by-play broadcast of a college football game, at Kyle Field, in November 1921." - was this station affiliated with the college? Or did it just happen to broadcast the play-by-play here? Considering it was a first, I think a bit more context would be nice.
  • "when 25 Aggies "mustered" during the battle for the island of Corregidor." - see, the "mustered" quote doesn't help because I don't know what happened!
  • To symbolize their "readiness, desire, and enthusiasm" - I'm noticing a pattern in the article of some unnecessary quotes that are unattributed
  • The Hall of Fame section isn't that long, so I think that would work best at the beginning of the sports section, so that way the sub-categories are about different types of sports.
  • "The women's team has been coached by Gary Blair since 2003." - needs updating, their season is over and he is now retired.
  • The school has 20 sports, of which football and basketball get a section, and only women's soccer and volleyball get an "also" mention. I think you should list all of them here.
  • Aviation pioneer Fred Weick did much of his post war research at Texas A&M. - should it be "post-war"?
  • I guess I expected a mention of the current college president somewhere in the article outside of the infobox.
  • One random thing that came to mind after finishing reading. How many buildings make up the main campus?
  • Having all of the images on the right looked visually boring. Maybe switch it up?

Those are my comments from my first read-through. The article does a good job at being current and thorough.

@Hurricanehink: Comments copied to Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas A&M University/archive2 & will respond there. Thank you so much for the feedback!!! Buffs (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Texas A&M University at Qatar". Texas A&M University. Retrieved April 30, 2007.
  2. ^ "Texas A&M University at Galveston". The Handbook of Texas. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
  3. ^ Mengers, Katlynn (January 19, 2007). "Search for new president begins". The Battalion. Retrieved May 3, 2007.
  4. ^ Perez, Israel (September 8, 2009). "Survey ranks desirable qualities for A&M's new president". The Daily Texan. Austin. Retrieved September 29, 2009.[dead link‍]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas_A%26M_University/Archive_8&oldid=1177288124"