Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHistory of Texas A&M University is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 14, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2007 Good article nomineeListed
August 14, 2007 Featured article candidatePromoted
January 11, 2009 Featured topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Featured article

older entries

If anyone has a photo of Rudder's statue, that would be a good addition to this page rather than Rudder Fountain - it was already uploaded, so I figured I might as well use it. - Texink 04:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Expansion

If anyone feels it necessary to expand this article a little more, here is a reliable source to use: [1] -- Blueag9 17:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vision 2020

Does anyone think we should include some info on Vision 2020 or on Gates's tenure? I'm torn. Karanacs 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Gates' tenure, yes (it is history now). Vision 2020: it's inception into the A&M planning, yes. It's progress, no; (not history yet). — BQZip01 — talk 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Should we include these things?

Here are other things I've thought might have a place in this article, but I'm not sure.

  • Formation of Aggie Band
  • Formation of Yell Leaders
  • Development of 12th Man tradition
  • Introduction of a mascot (first Reveille)
  • Milestones in athletic programs - e.g. 1939 football National Championship, 1982,1983, and 1987 softball national championships, 1957 Heisman winner John David Crow, Randy Matson as an Olympic Gold Medalist during his school years
  • 2001 Red-White-and-Blue Out
  • Aggies suing the Seattle Seahawks over 12th Man
  • Cloning

Does anyone else have an opinion? Karanacs 13:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

This is just my opinion, but I think it should be solely an academic history. Thus, only cloning would fit under that criteria. I think Texas A&M Aggies would be a better place to include historical athletic events, since that's where someone will first look if they want to know some aspect of A&M sports. Great job on the expansion of this article, by the way. - Texink 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Each of those things has its own article, so the history aspect of each would be suitable in its own respective article. -- Blueag9 ( Talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Karanacs. A non Aggie will not know about these events and will not look individual articles. before looking up at this page. i feel like a history textbook writer here. what is notable, and what isn't. we are living in history Oldag07 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
We need to add from the main article:
With strong support from Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin, the Association of American Universities inducted Texas A&M in May 2001, based on the depth of the university's research and academic programs. [1]
In 2004, the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa opened its 265th chapter at Texas A&M. [2] Oldag07 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Separate section, into the current status section? Oldag07 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
That's fine with me if you want to add these. Karanacs 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oldag, I doubt someone looking for a history on the band, yell leaders, 12th man, etc will find themselves on this article. Mentions of topics like that may be suitable, but anything longer than a couple sentences should saved for the topic's individual article. In my opinion, the main focus of this article should be academics and research - true university functions and a subject that does not have its own individual article. - Texink talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Texas A&M Selected For Membership In Association Of American Universities" (Press release). Texas A&M University. May 7, 2001. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{ cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)
  2. ^ "Texas A&M Joins Phi Beta Kappa Ranks" (Press release). Texas A&M University. February 17, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-01. {{ cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)

This sentence still way too long

The Morrill Act, signed into law July 2, 1862, granted states public lands to be sold at public auctions to establish a permanent fund to support colleges where the "leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanical arts...in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life".

How about: The Morrill Act, signed into law July 2, 1862, was created to establish colleges where the "leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanical arts...in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life". States were granted states public lands that were sold at public auctions that established permanent funds for these colleges ???

Your version is a lot nicer. I already made the change in the text :) Karanacs 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks Oldag07 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dead external links found

Three (3) links were detect as requiring assistance, Colleges and Achievements, Texas A&M Joins Phi Beta Kappa Ranks, and Texas A&M Selected For Membership In Association Of American Universities returned a HTTP 404 status message. — Dispenser 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I've fixed these. Karanacs 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Picture at the end

What do you think about having one more picture at the end for current status. something already in our commons should be more than adequate. ideas:

Be bold & just pick one!!! I say go with the Admin building. — BQZip01 — talk 05:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yep, one should be there. I agree with BQ; just pick one. → Wordbuilder 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I added an image to the Vision 2020 section. The Chemical Engineering building was added because of Vision 2020, so it fit. I don't think any of the other images we have really fit within current status. Of course, if you disagree, feel free to add one and we'll see how it looks. Karanacs 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Established date

See this conversation. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

"Agricultural and Mechanical College"

Wikipedia seems to have no content about the general history of the use of the term "Agricultural and Mechanical" in the names of colleges -- only articles about assorted individual US institutions, such as Texas A&M. It would be interesting to know when and where the term originated, how it spread, and how it is dying out. What most similar terms have been used in other countries?- 73.61.15.196 ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Texas A&M as a branch of The University of Texas

The Texas Constitution of 1876 unquestionably constituted A&M as a branch of UT. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.7.htm

Any claims that the state legislature separated the two institutions in 1875 are both untrue and, if true, immaterial, as the 1876 Constitution would have negated any act of the legislature in 1875.

In both 1915 and 1919, the voters of Texas defeated proposed Constitutional amendments to separate the two institutions. https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/billsearch/amendmentDetails.cfm?amendmentID=65&legSession=34-0&billTypedetail=HJR&billNumberDetail=34 https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/billsearch/amendmentDetails.cfm?amendmentID=76&legSession=36-0&billTypedetail=HJR&billNumberDetail=29

That the legislature passed proposed amendments after 1876 to separate the two institutions in both 1915 and 1919 and the proposed amendments were sent to voters should give some indication that the legislature (and Attorney General of Texas) believed A&M was in fact a branch of UT in 1915 and 1919.

Absent any indication that the information in the state archives (as cited above) Randolph Duke ( talk) 21:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)regarding the 1915 and 1919 proposed constitutional amendments is false, I will restore my edits that indicate the votes on the two amendments to terminate A&M's status as a branch of The University of Texas did in fact occur. Randolph Duke ( talk) 21:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

They are separate university systems. Yes, the source for the separation is source 18 (as of the time of this writing) https://web.archive.org/web/20070209164228/http://tamusystem.tamu.edu/overview/history.html While I want to assume good faith, your persistence in forcing down this fact leads me to a different opinion. Oldag07 ( talk) 22:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The citation you offer mentions nothing of any separation. Why did you even offer that as a citation?

The two systems are separate in function, but the fact that A&M was established as a branch of The University of Texas by the Constitution of 1876, and the fact that branch status has never been terminated, is important in any discussion of the History of Texas A&M.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1875, it was the representative of the Texas A&M Board of Directors (school Director Bennett Davis) who insisted that A&M be a branch of UT. Tomlinson, Marie Guy; The State Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, 1871-1879: the personalities, politics, and uncertainties; 1976 Thesis, Texas A&M University; p.168; http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1976-THESIS-T659/1976%20Thesis%20T659.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=n

This is information taken from a Texas A&M student's thesis, vetted by Texas A&M professors, and retrieved from a Texas A&M school website. Whatever motives you may choose to impute, the fact remains the information is both relevant and accurate. The readers are free to interpret the information as they choose.

We both know your assertion the state made the two institutions separate and distinct in 1875 is (at best) a misleading assertion, as the voters of Texas made A&M a branch of UT in 1876 when they passed the state constitution (Art 7, Sec 13, 1876 Constitution, previously cited). Your insistence that the branch status as set forth in the 1876 constitution not be mentioned quite frankly makes me question your motives. The fact you can offer no citation for the supposed 1875 "separation" casts doubt on why you believe that particular passage should be in this article. If can can find a citation for your 1875 "separation" and you feel it must be included, include your passage and cite it. Then I will add that that "separation" was made null and void, at the insistence of the A&M Board of Directors, in the 1876 Constitution. I will also post Tomlinson's thesis and the 1876 state Constitution to support my edits. Should this be satisfactory, cite your claim, I will post my edits, and we will be done with this.

Absent any objections other than your imputed motives, I will repost the information.

If it helps you understand the context of the proposed separation amendments in 1915 and 1919, here is the May 19, 1915 A&M school paper where the A&M school president advocates for the passage of the exact proposed separation amendment you believe should be hidden from individuals wishing to better understand the history of Texas A&M. Clearly, in 1915, the A&M school president was advocating for separation of the two schools. Yet you claim (but do not cite) that separation happened in 1875. https://newspaper.library.tamu.edu/lccn/sn86088544/1915-05-19/ed-1/seq-1/

The fact is that you are incorrect in your assertion the two schools were separated in 1875. In 1915, when the first separation (as recognized by the Texas A&M school president) amendment was put before the voters of Texas, Texas A&M was a branch college of The University of Texas (again, as recognized by the Texas A&M school president). If the separation amendment was important enough to draw the attention of the Texas A&M school president, the state legislature, and 125,000 Texas voters, I feel comfortable including a few words about it in a history of the history of Texas A&M on Wikipedia.

Randolph Duke ( talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

What you are saying is factually incorrect. Oldag07 ( talk) 14:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Lacking citations for your claims, and lacking any information that refutes the edits I have offered, I have to rely on the information and sources I found when developing my edits. Therefore, I have to revert to the cited revisions I posted.

Please do not edit the page without first discussing your proposed edits in the talk section.

Do you have any explanation why the president of Texas A&M, the entire state legislators and the voters of Texas would consider separation of Texas A&M from The University of Texas and termination of A&M's branch college status in 1915 if the two institutions, as you claim, were separated in 1875?

Again, without additional information and reputable citations, please do not alter this page again. A "reasonable compromise" to our disagreements would start with your offering reputable citations for your claims and your offering some reasonable explanation of why the proposed constitutional amendments to separate the two institutions in 1915 and 1919 should not be mentioned when you insist the spurious claim the two institutions were separated in 1875 should be mentioned. Randolph Duke ( talk) 14:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Not to get too deep into this, RD, but regardless of the legal statutes, A&M has always functioned as an independent school. I know how they were legally established, but these were treated as guidelines (that weren't followed). Updates to the law in 1915, 1919, 1948, and others better codified the relationship with the state and the other schools in the state. Moreover, no law actually gave authority for UT to run A&M. As such, it's accurate to state: "Though Texas A&M was originally established as a branch of the yet-to-be-created University of Texas, subsequent acts of the Texas Legislature never gave the University any authority over Texas A&M." Demand to "not edit the page without first discussing your proposed edits in the talk section." are in contradiction with Wikipedia policy. Buffs ( talk) 20:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I respect that Texas A&M has had separate governance from the main university, but if you are going to claim the separate governance structure was brought about by acts of the legislature, you need to provide citations for those claims. The acts of the Texas legislature are available online ( https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/GLT/). If evidence of your claims exists, you are obligated to produce it.

Governance and legal status are two distinct issues. I have offered abundant evidence that Texas A&M was established as a branch college of The University of Texas. I have also offered numerous citations supporting the fact that every effort to amend the Texas Constitution intended to terminate Texas A&M's branch college status have been resoundingly defeated. You are talking about daily governance. I am talking about legal status. The debate is about legal status. You have no support whatsoever for your claim that the constitution status of Texas A&M as a branch of the University of Texas has ever been altered. Therefore, the information that Texas A&M exists today as a branch of The University of Texas is not in question. Any article on the history of Texas A&M should reasonably include its origin as a branch of The University of Texas and the fact that status has never been altered. That fact is at the core of the history of the institution and has defined the school for its entire existence. Anyone wanting to know of the history of Texas A&M University needs to understand this core relationship. Randolph Duke ( talk) 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I have referred the disagreement whether original source documents are appropriate for historical discussions to Wikipedia arbitration(arbcom-en@wikimedia.org). Please cease any revisions to my original source citations or edits on this page until the matter has been addressed by Wikipedia arbitration. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That's not how this works + user has been indef blocked + many other sources state otherwise. I consider this matter closed. Buffs ( talk) 18:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

20K

Huon Oldag07 This indeed was the production of the school, not "all alumni who participated in the war effort".

Additionally, the definition of alumni includes both graduates and non-graduates/former students. Ergo, it is accurate to call them that.

Buffs ( talk) 17:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I can understand Huon's concerns. To make the sentence less "promotional" sounding. How about:
"During World War II, Texas A&M produced 20,229 fighting men who served in combat; of these, 14,123 were officers, more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy and more than three times the totals of any other Senior Military College."
Oldag07 ( talk) 17:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I think it's highly probable that not all served in combat. I'm sure some were relegated to administrative/logistical support. How about:
"During World War II, Texas A&M produced 20,229 soldiers, sailors, and Marines for the United States' war effort; of these, 14,123 were officers, more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy and more than three times the totals of any other Senior Military College."
That work for everyone? Buffs ( talk) 18:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
What's the source for the claim that this is the wartime production as opposed to "all former students who served"? The Handbook says: "About 20,000 Texas A&M former students served in the armed forces during World War II". The Standard (which I'm not sure meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability) says: "Some 5,000 reserve officers who had been trained and commissioned at A&M, and another 7,000 who had received some military training here, were commissioned through Officers Candidate Schools, answering the call to arms during World War II. Six thousand more served effectively as the direct result of A&M training, most of them noncommissioned officers." Those reserve officers and those who "had received some military training" and then went to OCS clearly are not products of a dedicated wartime training programme at Texas A&M. The book source says that "Former students from the classes of '06 to '48 served" before giving the table (and the generals, given in the same table, can safely be assumed to not have received their initial military training only during the war). So in summary, two sources explicitly call those who served "former students", and two clarify explicitly that those are all former students that served, not just the ones trained during the war. As Buffs highlights, the sources also don't say that those people "served in combat" as our article claims. "Fighting men" is poetic language unsuitable for an encyclopedia. "More than three times the totals of any other Senior Military College" highlights a very peculiar tidbit not highlighted by the source itself. I'd call that a NPOV problem. We wouldn't highlight that officers from Texas A&M were signlificantly less likely to attain the rank of general than those from other Senior Military Colleges, although the data shows that, too.
I'd propose: "During World War II, 20,229 former students served in the armed forces, including 14,123 officers." Huon ( talk) 21:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I can live with that. Oldag07 ( talk) 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I disagree with that phrasing; it doesn't specify what country they served under. Likewise, more than 20,000 served. This is a figure of the school's production during the war, NOT participation (see above...you seem to be missing this point). Among the others, the source is Keepers of the Spirit, p. 160, by John A. Adams Jr. I personally own a copy. Buffs ( talk) 23:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The book is available online on Google Books. See also page 159: "McQuillen [...] estimated that of the nearly 40,000 living Aggies in 1945, more than 20,000 served in the armed services during the war. Of this number 14,000 were officers." That's clearly all living Aggies, not just those who went through special wartime courses. At no point does the book say that those figures only include officer production during the war instead of the totals. If you're concerned that people might think the Aggies joined some foreign armed forces, we can add an "American" in the relevant place, though technically the book also doesn't say what armed services they joined. Huon ( talk) 23:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Considering you’re quoting from the wrong page and you don’t have the entire book, let’s look at the entire context. This is in 1945, not “at the end of the war”, ergo, some production was still being made. Likewise, these are not the official tallies as listed on p160 (not visible in your view). The number isn’t “about 20,000” on that page. When able, I’ll get you the exact numbers. Buffs ( talk) 03:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Link to page 160, which I saw and quoted earlier. Nowhere does it say that those 20,229 totals and 14,123 officers are not the totals who served, and right above the table it says, "Former students from the classes of '06 to '48 served" - indicating that the table indeed does give the totals, not jusst wartime production. Of course, 20,229 and 14,123 correspond very well to "more than 20,000 served" and "Of this number 14,000 were officers" from the previous page, again providing the context we need to understand that these are not just those who were trained during the war but totals. Huon ( talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Then I (respectfully) question your ability to read (just as you should question mine...because I didn't see that reference earlier). Just because the text talks about all Aggies who served doesn't mean that the chart applies to all Aggies. In fact the title of the chart says it all: "World War II Officer Production". The information on page 159 was DURING the war and was an ESTIMATE. When this historian pulled the numbers from the official records and tallied them up, it was clearly above the estimate from 1945. It seems to me that you are ignoring the text of the book and instead synthesizing an answer. Buffs ( talk) 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Other sources corroborate this: [2] [3] Buffs ( talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I am well aware of the table's heading, but it's ambiguous. You read it as "production during WWII of officers", I read it as "total production of WWII officers". Since you likely aren't going to claim that the 29 generals that are given in the same table reached that rank within less than four years of entering the military, the latter interpretation is clearly the right one for the "General Officers" column, and for the "Killed or Died" column as well since there are multiple sources, including the text of Keepers of the Spirit, confirming that the total Aggie deaths were about 950. I see no reason to assume that some of the table's columns refer to A&M totals while others refer to only wartime trainees.

The Battallion appears to confirm the "wartime production" interpretation, but they got it wrong. They cite their sources, which include Keepers of the Spirit (discussed above), and then apparently misinterpret them. Another source they cite is myaggienation.com which says:

Approximately 20,000 A&M students and former students fought in World War II, 14,000 of them serving as officers. According to the Corps guidebook, more Aggies served as officers than any other school, “including the combined totals of the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy.”

There we are again: Approximately 20,000, thereof 14,000 officers, and those are all "students and former students", not just wartime trainees. For what it's worth, I have emailed the Cadet Corps, which gives the figures of 20,229 and 14,123 on their website, and asked them to clarify how those numbers should be read.

Keepers of the Spirit also mentions that there were non-cadet (other sources refer to them as "non-student") military trainees on the campus during WWII; of those about 15,000 were trained. They were trained by the military, however, and cannot be considered "produced by Texas A&M". Huon ( talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I must admit, I haven't actually looked into the sources that you both are discussing. 20,229 seems like a massive number. Reading this article it states that "At the time (1959), the college was still an all-male military school with a 7,500 student enrollment". (a class size of 1,875). US participation in the war was from 1942 to 1945. Earlier in the article, it also says that "In total, over 1,200 former students served as commissioned officers during World War I". I am willing to change my mind in the presence of more sources, but I find it more believable that the 20,229 number includes alumni. Oldag07 ( talk) 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:URFA/2020

@ Oldag07: with Karanacs mostly gone, might you do some minor tune-ups needed here? (And maybe Karanacs will pop back in, too!) Some issues have crept in since the article was featured in 2007, and sourcing standards have gotten stricter:

  • MOS:SANDWICH (for example, Sul Ross era)
  • Some examination for dated text might be useful, eg, Gates' leadership resulted in the largest academic expansion in the university's history. As of September 8, 2006, Vision 2020's progress includes ... how has that worked out?
  • Some uncited or dated text has crept in, eg Athletics.

This all looks doable with a quick tuneup. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • I will try to do some. @ Buffs: could you a second look? Oldag07 ( talk) 00:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have done some. I just don't have the energy I used to devote to wikipedia. I hope the changes I did are helpful. The page legitimately needs an update. I wouldn't be against demoting this page if this isn't done within a month or so. Oldag07 ( talk) 01:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'll take a crack at it when able. Buffs ( talk) 17:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I think we should remove "The Texas A&M University System formed in 1948, includes 11 campuses throughout the state of Texas. Schools that are part of this system, but not part of The Texas A&M University institution, thus the history of campuses outside of the system's flagship campus is beyond the scope of his article." but we could add it as a comment at the top of the article + a pinned note at the top of the talk page. Buffs ( talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:History_of_Texas_A%26M_University&oldid=1204852888"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHistory of Texas A&M University is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 14, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2007 Good article nomineeListed
August 14, 2007 Featured article candidatePromoted
January 11, 2009 Featured topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Featured article

older entries

If anyone has a photo of Rudder's statue, that would be a good addition to this page rather than Rudder Fountain - it was already uploaded, so I figured I might as well use it. - Texink 04:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Expansion

If anyone feels it necessary to expand this article a little more, here is a reliable source to use: [1] -- Blueag9 17:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vision 2020

Does anyone think we should include some info on Vision 2020 or on Gates's tenure? I'm torn. Karanacs 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Gates' tenure, yes (it is history now). Vision 2020: it's inception into the A&M planning, yes. It's progress, no; (not history yet). — BQZip01 — talk 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Should we include these things?

Here are other things I've thought might have a place in this article, but I'm not sure.

  • Formation of Aggie Band
  • Formation of Yell Leaders
  • Development of 12th Man tradition
  • Introduction of a mascot (first Reveille)
  • Milestones in athletic programs - e.g. 1939 football National Championship, 1982,1983, and 1987 softball national championships, 1957 Heisman winner John David Crow, Randy Matson as an Olympic Gold Medalist during his school years
  • 2001 Red-White-and-Blue Out
  • Aggies suing the Seattle Seahawks over 12th Man
  • Cloning

Does anyone else have an opinion? Karanacs 13:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

This is just my opinion, but I think it should be solely an academic history. Thus, only cloning would fit under that criteria. I think Texas A&M Aggies would be a better place to include historical athletic events, since that's where someone will first look if they want to know some aspect of A&M sports. Great job on the expansion of this article, by the way. - Texink 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Each of those things has its own article, so the history aspect of each would be suitable in its own respective article. -- Blueag9 ( Talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Karanacs. A non Aggie will not know about these events and will not look individual articles. before looking up at this page. i feel like a history textbook writer here. what is notable, and what isn't. we are living in history Oldag07 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
We need to add from the main article:
With strong support from Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin, the Association of American Universities inducted Texas A&M in May 2001, based on the depth of the university's research and academic programs. [1]
In 2004, the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa opened its 265th chapter at Texas A&M. [2] Oldag07 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Separate section, into the current status section? Oldag07 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
That's fine with me if you want to add these. Karanacs 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oldag, I doubt someone looking for a history on the band, yell leaders, 12th man, etc will find themselves on this article. Mentions of topics like that may be suitable, but anything longer than a couple sentences should saved for the topic's individual article. In my opinion, the main focus of this article should be academics and research - true university functions and a subject that does not have its own individual article. - Texink talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Texas A&M Selected For Membership In Association Of American Universities" (Press release). Texas A&M University. May 7, 2001. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{ cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)
  2. ^ "Texas A&M Joins Phi Beta Kappa Ranks" (Press release). Texas A&M University. February 17, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-01. {{ cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)

This sentence still way too long

The Morrill Act, signed into law July 2, 1862, granted states public lands to be sold at public auctions to establish a permanent fund to support colleges where the "leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanical arts...in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life".

How about: The Morrill Act, signed into law July 2, 1862, was created to establish colleges where the "leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanical arts...in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life". States were granted states public lands that were sold at public auctions that established permanent funds for these colleges ???

Your version is a lot nicer. I already made the change in the text :) Karanacs 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks Oldag07 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dead external links found

Three (3) links were detect as requiring assistance, Colleges and Achievements, Texas A&M Joins Phi Beta Kappa Ranks, and Texas A&M Selected For Membership In Association Of American Universities returned a HTTP 404 status message. — Dispenser 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I've fixed these. Karanacs 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Picture at the end

What do you think about having one more picture at the end for current status. something already in our commons should be more than adequate. ideas:

Be bold & just pick one!!! I say go with the Admin building. — BQZip01 — talk 05:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yep, one should be there. I agree with BQ; just pick one. → Wordbuilder 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I added an image to the Vision 2020 section. The Chemical Engineering building was added because of Vision 2020, so it fit. I don't think any of the other images we have really fit within current status. Of course, if you disagree, feel free to add one and we'll see how it looks. Karanacs 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Established date

See this conversation. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

"Agricultural and Mechanical College"

Wikipedia seems to have no content about the general history of the use of the term "Agricultural and Mechanical" in the names of colleges -- only articles about assorted individual US institutions, such as Texas A&M. It would be interesting to know when and where the term originated, how it spread, and how it is dying out. What most similar terms have been used in other countries?- 73.61.15.196 ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Texas A&M as a branch of The University of Texas

The Texas Constitution of 1876 unquestionably constituted A&M as a branch of UT. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.7.htm

Any claims that the state legislature separated the two institutions in 1875 are both untrue and, if true, immaterial, as the 1876 Constitution would have negated any act of the legislature in 1875.

In both 1915 and 1919, the voters of Texas defeated proposed Constitutional amendments to separate the two institutions. https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/billsearch/amendmentDetails.cfm?amendmentID=65&legSession=34-0&billTypedetail=HJR&billNumberDetail=34 https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/billsearch/amendmentDetails.cfm?amendmentID=76&legSession=36-0&billTypedetail=HJR&billNumberDetail=29

That the legislature passed proposed amendments after 1876 to separate the two institutions in both 1915 and 1919 and the proposed amendments were sent to voters should give some indication that the legislature (and Attorney General of Texas) believed A&M was in fact a branch of UT in 1915 and 1919.

Absent any indication that the information in the state archives (as cited above) Randolph Duke ( talk) 21:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)regarding the 1915 and 1919 proposed constitutional amendments is false, I will restore my edits that indicate the votes on the two amendments to terminate A&M's status as a branch of The University of Texas did in fact occur. Randolph Duke ( talk) 21:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

They are separate university systems. Yes, the source for the separation is source 18 (as of the time of this writing) https://web.archive.org/web/20070209164228/http://tamusystem.tamu.edu/overview/history.html While I want to assume good faith, your persistence in forcing down this fact leads me to a different opinion. Oldag07 ( talk) 22:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The citation you offer mentions nothing of any separation. Why did you even offer that as a citation?

The two systems are separate in function, but the fact that A&M was established as a branch of The University of Texas by the Constitution of 1876, and the fact that branch status has never been terminated, is important in any discussion of the History of Texas A&M.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1875, it was the representative of the Texas A&M Board of Directors (school Director Bennett Davis) who insisted that A&M be a branch of UT. Tomlinson, Marie Guy; The State Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, 1871-1879: the personalities, politics, and uncertainties; 1976 Thesis, Texas A&M University; p.168; http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1976-THESIS-T659/1976%20Thesis%20T659.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=n

This is information taken from a Texas A&M student's thesis, vetted by Texas A&M professors, and retrieved from a Texas A&M school website. Whatever motives you may choose to impute, the fact remains the information is both relevant and accurate. The readers are free to interpret the information as they choose.

We both know your assertion the state made the two institutions separate and distinct in 1875 is (at best) a misleading assertion, as the voters of Texas made A&M a branch of UT in 1876 when they passed the state constitution (Art 7, Sec 13, 1876 Constitution, previously cited). Your insistence that the branch status as set forth in the 1876 constitution not be mentioned quite frankly makes me question your motives. The fact you can offer no citation for the supposed 1875 "separation" casts doubt on why you believe that particular passage should be in this article. If can can find a citation for your 1875 "separation" and you feel it must be included, include your passage and cite it. Then I will add that that "separation" was made null and void, at the insistence of the A&M Board of Directors, in the 1876 Constitution. I will also post Tomlinson's thesis and the 1876 state Constitution to support my edits. Should this be satisfactory, cite your claim, I will post my edits, and we will be done with this.

Absent any objections other than your imputed motives, I will repost the information.

If it helps you understand the context of the proposed separation amendments in 1915 and 1919, here is the May 19, 1915 A&M school paper where the A&M school president advocates for the passage of the exact proposed separation amendment you believe should be hidden from individuals wishing to better understand the history of Texas A&M. Clearly, in 1915, the A&M school president was advocating for separation of the two schools. Yet you claim (but do not cite) that separation happened in 1875. https://newspaper.library.tamu.edu/lccn/sn86088544/1915-05-19/ed-1/seq-1/

The fact is that you are incorrect in your assertion the two schools were separated in 1875. In 1915, when the first separation (as recognized by the Texas A&M school president) amendment was put before the voters of Texas, Texas A&M was a branch college of The University of Texas (again, as recognized by the Texas A&M school president). If the separation amendment was important enough to draw the attention of the Texas A&M school president, the state legislature, and 125,000 Texas voters, I feel comfortable including a few words about it in a history of the history of Texas A&M on Wikipedia.

Randolph Duke ( talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

What you are saying is factually incorrect. Oldag07 ( talk) 14:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Lacking citations for your claims, and lacking any information that refutes the edits I have offered, I have to rely on the information and sources I found when developing my edits. Therefore, I have to revert to the cited revisions I posted.

Please do not edit the page without first discussing your proposed edits in the talk section.

Do you have any explanation why the president of Texas A&M, the entire state legislators and the voters of Texas would consider separation of Texas A&M from The University of Texas and termination of A&M's branch college status in 1915 if the two institutions, as you claim, were separated in 1875?

Again, without additional information and reputable citations, please do not alter this page again. A "reasonable compromise" to our disagreements would start with your offering reputable citations for your claims and your offering some reasonable explanation of why the proposed constitutional amendments to separate the two institutions in 1915 and 1919 should not be mentioned when you insist the spurious claim the two institutions were separated in 1875 should be mentioned. Randolph Duke ( talk) 14:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Not to get too deep into this, RD, but regardless of the legal statutes, A&M has always functioned as an independent school. I know how they were legally established, but these were treated as guidelines (that weren't followed). Updates to the law in 1915, 1919, 1948, and others better codified the relationship with the state and the other schools in the state. Moreover, no law actually gave authority for UT to run A&M. As such, it's accurate to state: "Though Texas A&M was originally established as a branch of the yet-to-be-created University of Texas, subsequent acts of the Texas Legislature never gave the University any authority over Texas A&M." Demand to "not edit the page without first discussing your proposed edits in the talk section." are in contradiction with Wikipedia policy. Buffs ( talk) 20:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I respect that Texas A&M has had separate governance from the main university, but if you are going to claim the separate governance structure was brought about by acts of the legislature, you need to provide citations for those claims. The acts of the Texas legislature are available online ( https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/GLT/). If evidence of your claims exists, you are obligated to produce it.

Governance and legal status are two distinct issues. I have offered abundant evidence that Texas A&M was established as a branch college of The University of Texas. I have also offered numerous citations supporting the fact that every effort to amend the Texas Constitution intended to terminate Texas A&M's branch college status have been resoundingly defeated. You are talking about daily governance. I am talking about legal status. The debate is about legal status. You have no support whatsoever for your claim that the constitution status of Texas A&M as a branch of the University of Texas has ever been altered. Therefore, the information that Texas A&M exists today as a branch of The University of Texas is not in question. Any article on the history of Texas A&M should reasonably include its origin as a branch of The University of Texas and the fact that status has never been altered. That fact is at the core of the history of the institution and has defined the school for its entire existence. Anyone wanting to know of the history of Texas A&M University needs to understand this core relationship. Randolph Duke ( talk) 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I have referred the disagreement whether original source documents are appropriate for historical discussions to Wikipedia arbitration(arbcom-en@wikimedia.org). Please cease any revisions to my original source citations or edits on this page until the matter has been addressed by Wikipedia arbitration. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That's not how this works + user has been indef blocked + many other sources state otherwise. I consider this matter closed. Buffs ( talk) 18:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

20K

Huon Oldag07 This indeed was the production of the school, not "all alumni who participated in the war effort".

Additionally, the definition of alumni includes both graduates and non-graduates/former students. Ergo, it is accurate to call them that.

Buffs ( talk) 17:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I can understand Huon's concerns. To make the sentence less "promotional" sounding. How about:
"During World War II, Texas A&M produced 20,229 fighting men who served in combat; of these, 14,123 were officers, more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy and more than three times the totals of any other Senior Military College."
Oldag07 ( talk) 17:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I think it's highly probable that not all served in combat. I'm sure some were relegated to administrative/logistical support. How about:
"During World War II, Texas A&M produced 20,229 soldiers, sailors, and Marines for the United States' war effort; of these, 14,123 were officers, more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy and more than three times the totals of any other Senior Military College."
That work for everyone? Buffs ( talk) 18:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
What's the source for the claim that this is the wartime production as opposed to "all former students who served"? The Handbook says: "About 20,000 Texas A&M former students served in the armed forces during World War II". The Standard (which I'm not sure meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability) says: "Some 5,000 reserve officers who had been trained and commissioned at A&M, and another 7,000 who had received some military training here, were commissioned through Officers Candidate Schools, answering the call to arms during World War II. Six thousand more served effectively as the direct result of A&M training, most of them noncommissioned officers." Those reserve officers and those who "had received some military training" and then went to OCS clearly are not products of a dedicated wartime training programme at Texas A&M. The book source says that "Former students from the classes of '06 to '48 served" before giving the table (and the generals, given in the same table, can safely be assumed to not have received their initial military training only during the war). So in summary, two sources explicitly call those who served "former students", and two clarify explicitly that those are all former students that served, not just the ones trained during the war. As Buffs highlights, the sources also don't say that those people "served in combat" as our article claims. "Fighting men" is poetic language unsuitable for an encyclopedia. "More than three times the totals of any other Senior Military College" highlights a very peculiar tidbit not highlighted by the source itself. I'd call that a NPOV problem. We wouldn't highlight that officers from Texas A&M were signlificantly less likely to attain the rank of general than those from other Senior Military Colleges, although the data shows that, too.
I'd propose: "During World War II, 20,229 former students served in the armed forces, including 14,123 officers." Huon ( talk) 21:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I can live with that. Oldag07 ( talk) 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I disagree with that phrasing; it doesn't specify what country they served under. Likewise, more than 20,000 served. This is a figure of the school's production during the war, NOT participation (see above...you seem to be missing this point). Among the others, the source is Keepers of the Spirit, p. 160, by John A. Adams Jr. I personally own a copy. Buffs ( talk) 23:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The book is available online on Google Books. See also page 159: "McQuillen [...] estimated that of the nearly 40,000 living Aggies in 1945, more than 20,000 served in the armed services during the war. Of this number 14,000 were officers." That's clearly all living Aggies, not just those who went through special wartime courses. At no point does the book say that those figures only include officer production during the war instead of the totals. If you're concerned that people might think the Aggies joined some foreign armed forces, we can add an "American" in the relevant place, though technically the book also doesn't say what armed services they joined. Huon ( talk) 23:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Considering you’re quoting from the wrong page and you don’t have the entire book, let’s look at the entire context. This is in 1945, not “at the end of the war”, ergo, some production was still being made. Likewise, these are not the official tallies as listed on p160 (not visible in your view). The number isn’t “about 20,000” on that page. When able, I’ll get you the exact numbers. Buffs ( talk) 03:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Link to page 160, which I saw and quoted earlier. Nowhere does it say that those 20,229 totals and 14,123 officers are not the totals who served, and right above the table it says, "Former students from the classes of '06 to '48 served" - indicating that the table indeed does give the totals, not jusst wartime production. Of course, 20,229 and 14,123 correspond very well to "more than 20,000 served" and "Of this number 14,000 were officers" from the previous page, again providing the context we need to understand that these are not just those who were trained during the war but totals. Huon ( talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Then I (respectfully) question your ability to read (just as you should question mine...because I didn't see that reference earlier). Just because the text talks about all Aggies who served doesn't mean that the chart applies to all Aggies. In fact the title of the chart says it all: "World War II Officer Production". The information on page 159 was DURING the war and was an ESTIMATE. When this historian pulled the numbers from the official records and tallied them up, it was clearly above the estimate from 1945. It seems to me that you are ignoring the text of the book and instead synthesizing an answer. Buffs ( talk) 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Other sources corroborate this: [2] [3] Buffs ( talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I am well aware of the table's heading, but it's ambiguous. You read it as "production during WWII of officers", I read it as "total production of WWII officers". Since you likely aren't going to claim that the 29 generals that are given in the same table reached that rank within less than four years of entering the military, the latter interpretation is clearly the right one for the "General Officers" column, and for the "Killed or Died" column as well since there are multiple sources, including the text of Keepers of the Spirit, confirming that the total Aggie deaths were about 950. I see no reason to assume that some of the table's columns refer to A&M totals while others refer to only wartime trainees.

The Battallion appears to confirm the "wartime production" interpretation, but they got it wrong. They cite their sources, which include Keepers of the Spirit (discussed above), and then apparently misinterpret them. Another source they cite is myaggienation.com which says:

Approximately 20,000 A&M students and former students fought in World War II, 14,000 of them serving as officers. According to the Corps guidebook, more Aggies served as officers than any other school, “including the combined totals of the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy.”

There we are again: Approximately 20,000, thereof 14,000 officers, and those are all "students and former students", not just wartime trainees. For what it's worth, I have emailed the Cadet Corps, which gives the figures of 20,229 and 14,123 on their website, and asked them to clarify how those numbers should be read.

Keepers of the Spirit also mentions that there were non-cadet (other sources refer to them as "non-student") military trainees on the campus during WWII; of those about 15,000 were trained. They were trained by the military, however, and cannot be considered "produced by Texas A&M". Huon ( talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I must admit, I haven't actually looked into the sources that you both are discussing. 20,229 seems like a massive number. Reading this article it states that "At the time (1959), the college was still an all-male military school with a 7,500 student enrollment". (a class size of 1,875). US participation in the war was from 1942 to 1945. Earlier in the article, it also says that "In total, over 1,200 former students served as commissioned officers during World War I". I am willing to change my mind in the presence of more sources, but I find it more believable that the 20,229 number includes alumni. Oldag07 ( talk) 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:URFA/2020

@ Oldag07: with Karanacs mostly gone, might you do some minor tune-ups needed here? (And maybe Karanacs will pop back in, too!) Some issues have crept in since the article was featured in 2007, and sourcing standards have gotten stricter:

  • MOS:SANDWICH (for example, Sul Ross era)
  • Some examination for dated text might be useful, eg, Gates' leadership resulted in the largest academic expansion in the university's history. As of September 8, 2006, Vision 2020's progress includes ... how has that worked out?
  • Some uncited or dated text has crept in, eg Athletics.

This all looks doable with a quick tuneup. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • I will try to do some. @ Buffs: could you a second look? Oldag07 ( talk) 00:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have done some. I just don't have the energy I used to devote to wikipedia. I hope the changes I did are helpful. The page legitimately needs an update. I wouldn't be against demoting this page if this isn't done within a month or so. Oldag07 ( talk) 01:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'll take a crack at it when able. Buffs ( talk) 17:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I think we should remove "The Texas A&M University System formed in 1948, includes 11 campuses throughout the state of Texas. Schools that are part of this system, but not part of The Texas A&M University institution, thus the history of campuses outside of the system's flagship campus is beyond the scope of his article." but we could add it as a comment at the top of the article + a pinned note at the top of the talk page. Buffs ( talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:History_of_Texas_A%26M_University&oldid=1204852888"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE