Talk:12th man (football)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Seahawks' use of the number 12

If you want to include a reference to the TAMU request to the Seahawks you have to allow a reference to the fact that the Seahawks are not using the trademarked term.

I realize that TAMU fans are upset that other teams fans are being refered to by the media as "12 man" but there is a concept in law called "fair use", and "common terms", which very much applies here.

The only thing that TAMU gained with the trademark is the commercial use of "12th man". They can not limit its use in conversation or for non-commercial uses. They can not trademark the number 12, they have not trademarked "the 12th man" or any other variation.

TAMU has asked the Seahawks to stop using their trademark but because the Seahawks have used the term "12th man" for commercial purposes there is a trademark infringement. They can stop doing something they are doing. It is the media and fans are the ones using the term and that falls within the common terms segment of the law. TAMU is shouting at the wind.

The bottom line is that fans of football teams nation wide are going to be refered to as the "12th man" and as much as TAMU wants to be the only group of fans ever refered to that way it is legally not possible and not going to happen in reality.

If anyone wants to work with me on a better way to write this I am open to suggestions.

-- Coz

Actually the Seahawks do use the term "The 12th Man" on memorabilia that they sell in their stadium store. It is very clear from an analysis of trademark law and precedent that at least some of the Seahawks' activities are in violation of the Texas A&M trademark, and at the very least, the Seahawks will need to stop making money off of the use of the phrase "The 12th Man" Just how much they are doing that violates the trademark is open to debate - for instance, their sale of jerseys with the number "12" and "Fan" on the back is a very close call.

As to your comment that "the seahawks are not using the trademarked term" - even when they are just using the number 12, if they give it the same meaning that "The 12th Man" has for A&M, i'm not sure that that is sufficiently different from the Texas A&M Trademark to be considered non-infringing. the primary difference between the two is that one has an ordinal number and one has a cardinal number - i have my doubts as to whether a court would find that difference to be meaningful in terms of making the Seahawks' use non-infringing

I added a bit to the article about the controversy, and i believe i treated it in a fair way. I didn't go through and add all the links.

-- Jay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.206.93 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What I didn't know before is that A&M did not file the trademark till the early 90's and the Seahawks had been using it for nearly a decade at that point. A judge would most likely rule that the trademark was invalid as it had become a part of common language at that point. The legal experts interviewed here this week used the legal version of the phrase commonly refering to the the chance of a frozen sphere surviving in a high temp location.  ;-)

The use of "12" isn't a debatable issue, that is one of the most clear cut issues in trademark law. You can not trademark a number. The use of the name "Fan" on the jersey also isn't debatable. It's a common word, not trademarkable, and even if it was A&M didn't trademark anything using the word fan.

This is a no win situation for A&M and if they are not careful Paul Allen might buy the school and make it a branch campus of WaZOO.  ;-)

-- Coz

I just did some research and discovered that the A&M trademark was issued in Sept 1990 for the use "organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events". I also have learned that the trademark has expired and has been registered by an Australian company for "Beer; non-alcoholic carbonated beverages".

Looks like A&M is S.O.L. on this one. -- Coz

regarding: "The 6 year term of this registration expired in 2002 (online records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office [1])." This information is not correct. I reviewed TESS and both trademark registrations were properly maintained (both had Section 8 and 15 Affidavits filed).Jurisnipper 19:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the CFL, the Saskatchewan Roughriders' marketing slogan is "The 13th man makes all the difference" (Canadian Football allows 12 players on the field). There should be some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.161.180 (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! Feel free to add and source that information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Spread beyond America

I have definately heard this term used in England with association football (same meaning too), so does anyone mind this article being moved to 12th Man (football) instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamajpeg (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that there are trademark claims over the name and it is being used in England as well - seeing as in England, 12th man is a generic term used in cricket. -- Chuq 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The trademark is only for within the US, so anyone in England is free to use it as they wish. 12th Man has also become generic within the US in reference to the fans of various spots. Probably more expensive for the Seahawks to fight than it was to settle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 May 2006.

When was it first used in cricket? or other sports? if it predates 1 January 1922, you have a case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It;s been used in Cricket sine the 1880s when the Ashes series between England and Australia began so in theory if the Seahawks had decided to fight the Aggies over this then the Aggies would probably have lost the case as 12th man was first used in Cricket. As for Association Football the term has been in the background of the game for decades but it's only in the last decade or so that teams have physically been designating their squad number 12 to the fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.9 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the term is used in Cricket to identify the substitute fielder who can neither bat or bowl. This useage is not the same as refered to by Texas A&M where the crowd itself is refered to as the 12th Man. In addition, the useage by Cricket teams overseas would not have impacted the Texas A&M - Seahawks case since the issue was being determined in United States courts to determine American ownership of the phrase. And since Cricket receives zero exposure in the USA, dilution of the term also could not have been claimed. Macae 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cricket did not have zero exposure in the USA in the 1880s, though. In those days, the Philadelphian cricket team was a major force in the world game; it continued to be so up until about the time of World War One. Admittedly not quite as late as 1922, though there are only a few years in it. It should also be mentioned that the United States national cricket team is still very much alive, and subject to the rules and regulations of the International Cricket Council. The phrase "twelfth man" is used in American cricket just as much as in any other (English-speaking) nation's cricket. Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They may exist and the term "12th man" may be used in other locales, but the origin is still Texas A&M. Moreover, the status of cricket is not really an issue here, only the origin of the term. Furthermore, Texas A&M has a trademark on it and has successfully defended their control of its use with the Seattle Seahawks and EA sports. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me there is much of a connection between 12th man in cricket and 12th man in American football since they mean completely different things. In any case the cricket term very likely predated the American football one. Also, I'm doubtful the Texas A&M trademark has any bearing on cricket, even in the US for this reason. The lawsuit seems to have been solely concerned with American football and has also apparently never been tested in court (since it was settled out of court). This is significant because we therefore have no bearing as to what the legal view of this is, and how wide the trademark may be. In any case, this is mostly irrelevant to the article since we have 12th Man. It would be interesting whether the term came to football (soccer for some) via cricket or American football though (or perhaps was completely independent) but I doubt that's been studied that well/referencable. In any case, the article doesn't talk about the origins in football so that's not an issue. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite nice what you can do with a full text searchable historic archive of papers. There's a reference to 12th man in "CRICKET PROSPECTS OF THE SEASON Birmingham Daily Post (Birmingham, England), Monday, April 14, 1884; Issue 8045." and twelfth man in "CRICKET NOTES The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post (Bristol, England), Monday, May 18, 1885; Issue 11547.", "YORKSHIRE CRICKET IN 1884 The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, England), Tuesday, September 9, 1884; Issue 14484.", "CRICKET The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post (Bristol, England), Monday, September 8, 1884; Issue 11332.", "SPORTING INTELLIGENCE Daily News (London, England), Friday, May 6, 1887; Issue 12815.", "SPORTING Liverpool Mercury etc (Liverpool, England), Friday, June 29, 1888; Issue 12627." "SPORTING NEWS Birmingham Daily Post (Birmingham, England), Thursday, August 30, 1888; Issue 9416." and "THE IRISH CRICKERTERS IN AMERICA Freeman's Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser (Dublin, Ireland), Saturday, September 29, 1888; Issue N/A." (this is referring to a match involving All Philadelphia who are I presume the Philadelphian cricket team referred to above which suggests to me even if this was an Irish paper the term was almost definitely used in the US as well). If you have access to [2] or some other database or archive of 19th century British newspapers you should be able to confirm this for yourself. So yeah, the term clearly existed in cricket way before in American football. Of course this is OR and largely OT but with due respect to all contributors, the idea the American football term from 1922 predated the cricket term was always going to sound nonsensical to anyone with even minor knowledge of cricket (as is the case for me). As I said above, I expect it's unlikely the American football term came from the cricket term, they mean different things. And while I'm not a lawyer, I doubt this has a great effect on the trademark (if it is valid) because of the difference in usage/meaning and field. The fact that I can show Apple or Sun or Windows are common words which have existed for a very long time doesn't stop Apple Computers, Sun (or Oracle soon probably) or Microsoft coming after me if I used them in a specific context. We're talking trademarks here not patents. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Date Format

Primary focus of this topic (and origin of phrase) is US, so according to Wikipedia style guidelines US date format is used. WP:DATE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal

12th Man (Texas A&M) should be merged into 12th Man (football). Most of the content on these articles are the same. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Approve - I don't see a problem with merging the A&M article into this one. Might get some Aggies protesting the change, but this article does a good job of noting that the Aggies appear to be the origin of the term and with a bit of expansion it can show the importance of the term to the Aggies. --Bobblehead 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Approve - I have to agree. TAMU may have been the school that filed for the trademark, and likely the first organized use of the term, but it has been a common term everywhere in football regardless of its roots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coz 11 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Swift 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove - The 12th man at A&M has its own history behind it, and I would suggest it be merged with, if anything, the Kyle Field article. Whereas Seattle and other teams just use "12th man" to describe the loudness of their fans, A&M has a tradition of actually letting the "12th man" play during a game, which dates back over 80 years (and the Seahawks, since the 1980's). I propose either leaving it, or adding it to Kyle Field. In addition, the article is too long to be added to one section, far too complex. Zchris87v 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  But the two articles already share most of their content. Merging would not lengthen the resulting page considerably.

  What do you mean by "play during the game"? I couldn't see it mentioned in the article. --Swift 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  "Currently one "walk-on" player represents the Texas A&M student body each game, and wears uniform number 12." That's what I mean, that one person actually dresses out in the number 12 jersey, one student. Their tradition is a little different than the traditional 12th man being loudness of the crowd. Zchris87v 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Interesting, could you put that in the article? (either one ;-))

  So the Aggies have this tradition, the Seahawks seem to have another (article(s) state(s) that their fans frequently dress in jerseys with the number 12) and for yet other American football teams the 12th is the sheer loudness. Here in Old Europe it refers rather to the atmosphere (psycology rather than sound distraction).

  It seems that the tradition of 12th Man appears in many different forms. All would benefit from comparison to each other but so far, none seems to warrant an article of its own. --Swift 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Could you comment on this ("would not lengthen [...] considerably")? Do you think there is too much unique material on either article that doesn't belong in an article with a more general scope? --Swift 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Well, now that I look at it, that's correct. As for that line I copied and pasted, that was from the A&M football article (just about the only section missing from the 12th man article). I think the 12th man article should focus more on the generic use of the 12th man, while the A&M article should focus more on just A&M's tradition. If this was one, there would be two separate articles, the A&M one with a link to the generic term, and the generic term's article stating that the tradition began at A&M. I know it is quite off-topic, but elaborating on each team's usage in this article would probably be helpful and more beneficial to users. Zchris87v 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  I just fail to see why these cannot be on the same page. They go well together for comparison and I don't see there being enough material for seperate articles. If kept apart, they would probably both reference the A&M vs. Seahawks lawsuit.

  Unless the page grows leaps and bounds, the article will be of well managable size covering a well defined concept. As per User:Bobblehead, I think we do no-one disservice by merging the articles. But, then again we may be coming down to the point-of-view part in this discussion... --Swift 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As nothing new has been added to this discussion for nine days, I've merged the two articles. --Swift 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the merger.;) It's short and concise. --Bobblehead 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I do see one flaw in the article. One section says "The Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks continue to use the phrase." while the next section says "Both the Bills and the Bears responded to the requests stating they would no longer use the phrase". I do not know which is the case. --Coz 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This existed in the article before the merger (see [3]). I've already been mentioned it here on the talk page in the hope that someone more knowledgeble will fix it.. --Swift 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another little flaw, Centre College wasn't the defending national champion as the title didn't then (and doesn't now) exist.--76.209.221.57 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly conflicting statements on the Buffalo Bills

The current revision says in 12th Man#Texas A&M trademark issues and Seattle Seahawks lawsuit that

the Bills and the Bears responded to the requests stating they would no longer use the phrase

but in 12th Man#Use in American football it says

The Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks continue to use the phrase.

What is the scoop on the Buffalo Bill's bill. --Swift 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be bad reporting at the time. They've cleaned up the website quite a bit during the offseason, but when I meandered over to the Bills and Bears official websites to find out when they stopped using the 12th Man and found an entire section called the 12th Man. Here's a link to their 12th man walkof fame. Either that or the Bills were just slow in cleaning up the references to 12th man. --Bobblehead 12:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They appear to STILL be slow in removing the trademarked term... BQZip01 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommend rephrasing opening sentence

In reference to The term has been claimed to be created by Texas A&M University in 1922. (see Origin and Texas A&M tradition below)

This is an awkward and inaccurate phrase. This sentence should open a history segment. "The term orignated in 1922 when..." I'm going to do a little rewrite and split the segment into two sections: History/Origins and Texas A&M Tradition. BQZip01 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh it was created in 1922. There isn't a dispute in facts here. Why not put "claims" in everything with a weblink? Everything is a claim. If there is a dispute, let's hear it. BQZip01 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademark year?

Dubious

> the official registration of the mark was not filed by Texas A&M (U.S. Reg. No. 1948306) until September of 1990, after passage by Congress of the Federal Dilution Trademark Act of 1995.

They filed in 1990 after passage of the 1995 act? Doesn't make sense TheHYPO (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some were allowed to be filed retroactively IAW the Act. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Soccer vs. Association Football

No objection to calling it football, but "association football" is relatively obscure and the term "soccer" is much more common, as mentioned on the association football article. In order to distinguish it from American football, soccer is appropriate here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://12thmanfoundation.com/mag/Vol5/vol5no05/aggieflashback.html
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-05-23 02:45:05, 404 Not Found
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-06-01 14:31:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061227/ai_n17077154
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-05-23 02:45:14, 404 This requested article does not exist.
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-06-01 14:31:27, 404 This requested article does not exist.

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060121/ai_n16024727
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-05-23 02:45:14, 404 This requested article does not exist.
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-06-01 14:31:40, 404 This requested article does not exist.

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/sports/seahawks/story/6109599p-5353332c.html
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-05-23 02:45:05, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-06-01 14:31:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tamu.edu/singing_cadets/schoolsongs.htm
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-05-23 02:45:05, 404 Not Found
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-06-01 14:32:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tamu.edu/singing_cadets/index.html
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-05-23 02:45:05, 404 Not Found
  • In 12th man (football) on 2011-06-01 14:32:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

First use

For the benefit of the IP accounts (presumable Aggies) who keep removing any reference to the University of Iowa, remember this article is about the general use of the term 12th man not just it's use by Texas A&M. There is reliable evidence that the first appearance in print of the term was in Iowa in 1912. Yes that was about the behaviour of the crowd in general but it still used the term 12th man. There is no taking away Gill's achievements nor the tradition that has grown up at A&M since but you can't airbrush Iowa out of the picture just because you want to lay outright and sole claim to the term. NtheP (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, pretty friggin' harsh. Buffs (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Effects

In discussing the crowd noise at QWest, the number of false starts is being used to imply that crowd noise is affecting the play on the field. If false start numbers by the visitors are being used, it seems reasonable to also include false start numbers by the home team in order to have a true, non-biased comparison. If using false starts by the home team is incorrectly implying that crowd noise is having an affect, then using visiting team false starts is also implying the same thing. I suggest that the appropriate action is to either include the stats for both teams or remove it for both teams.

--Macae (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Some with potential bias towards the Seahawks continue to delete any mention of the number of false starts being committed by the home team while keeping offsides stats from the visiting team. The fact that BOTH sides are committing above average numbers of offsides penalties at QWest, suggests that it is perhaps NOT crowd noise that is creating these offsides calls. Or, if it is, that both teams are being affected. I believe that the stats for BOTH sides should either be included in the article or deleted. To leave one set in but not the other suggests a biased position. Thoughts?

--Macae (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph regarding an alleged NFL investigation after checking the article. The article acknowledges that the allegations would serve the best interest of the Seattle Seahawks and provides no news source or person confirming the supposed investigation. As such, I believe that this allegation does not represent the level of evidence required to include in this article. Additionally, the article never states that the Giants were the team that even allegedly filed a complaint. Thoughts? Also, edits and deletions are being made to this section without any discussion or follow up on the talk page. It would be preferable if we could reach agreement here rather than engaging in any sort of edit war. Thanks. --Macae (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to include the current world record holder for loudest stadium in the world, when discussing crowd effects on a game. However I have removed the reference to the second loudest crowd as this information did not seem to add anything to the quality of the article. Thoughts? --Macae (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Texas A&M's trademark is still live

FOR: entertainment services, namely organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=8ibhbs.3.8 (Broken Link)

FOR: Hats, t-shirts, polo-type shirts, golf shirts, sweaters, shorts, and athletic uniforms. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=8ibhbs.3.12 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.206.93 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Broken link.

There is also the argument that you cannot legally trademark general terms. For example, if I created a robotic toy dog, I would not be able to trademark the name "dog." This was one of the main argument's in Microsoft's trademark lawsuit against Lindows. (The argument is that when Windows was introduced, that type of GUI was commonly referred to as a "windowed" GUI). In the same way, the Seahawks will likely argue that since "12th man" is a commonly used term, the trademark is invalid. They will also likely argue that they were using it back in 1984, and Texas A&M did not initally file the trademark until 1990. --209.182.101.246 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Also, shouldn't we write "12th Man (TM)"? After all, if they want to get technical about their trademark, it should be marked as such. But then, A&M doesn't write "12th Man (TM)".--209.182.101.246 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually you misread the web site. The file is still live, but the trademark registration is only good for 6 years and has to be renewed. That 6 year period ended in 2002 and they did not file to renew it.

A key to having a valid trademark is to defend it properly. TAMU has failed completly in this regard by waiting over 6 decades to file for a trademark, nearly a decade after the Seahawks starting using #12, and then allowed that use to continue for over another decade before they took any action. They are likely to get a local judge, especially one that is a TAMU grad, to grant a TRO but they stand little chance of winning at any higher level court.

Bottom line is that they are taking a shot at trying to extract licensing fees from the Seahawks even though they are not using the trademark.

-- Coz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coz 11 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently Texas A&M is claiming that they are not going after the use of 12 at all but at the use of "12th Man" in reference to the Seahawks magazine and the football given to a fan with 12th man on it.

http://www.thebatt.com/media/paper657/news/2006/02/02/News/Seahawks.Am.To.Appear.In.Hearing-1596341.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thebatt.com

-- Randy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.230.214 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article. However some things don't fit. The magazine and ball issue are recent and TAMU first took issue on this several years ago. Oops.

Also he betrays his own comment when he says that it would take a lot of work to reel this back in. If all they were concerned about is the magazine and ball then it is simple to fix.

They are wrong about the Seahawks figuring a trial is not worth it. If they are happy with the Seahawks not putting "12th man" on anything sold commercially then yes, they might let it go, but if they ask for ANYTHING more then the Seahawks will drive this to court and TAMU will very likely lose their trademark. They have done a horrible job protecting it and it looks like it isn't even legally in effect right now.

This is all downside and no upside for TAMU, they should leave it alone.

-- Coz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coz 11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 February 2014

There's a misconception on how the "12th Man" is used by Texas A&M. The 12th Man refers solely to the student body, not to any fan attending the game. The 12th Man is represented on the field by the non-scholarship player chosen to wear the number 12. NO SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYER AT A&M IS ALLOWED TO WEAR #12. Former Students and other fans at the game are not considered the 12th Man...only current students. This restriction does not apply to other sports on campus. Many of the "12th Man" representatives have gone on to receive scholarships, such as Rich Coady, Caleb Russell, and Travis Labhart.

50.132.44.241 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. We need to know what text you would like to be changed and what you would like it to be replaced with. Also, you need reliable sources to back up your claims - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Superbowl - a couple of refs to the use of 12 by Washington (state) fans

In case anyone here is inclined to document it here:

• http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2014/01/30/boeings-seahawks-747-traces-a-12-over-washington/</ref>
• http://www.seahawks.com/12th-Man

Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputes over edits to 'History" section

It is important when writing of history of a tradition or custom to speak of how it evolved over time. In the instance of the 12th Man, most of what has been written is reflective accounts, not contemporaneous accounts. For example, the Dallas Morning News doesn't even mention E. King Gill until an article in 1942. The sportswriters covering the game do not mention anything about the Aggie team being down to 11 men or Gill coming from the stands. Lacking a 3rd party account of the events prior to the DMN article in 1942, we must accept the events as set forth in the article as the historical record.

With respect to how the phrase was used over time, ignoring reflective accounts is intellectually dishonest. If an article was written in 2012 using interviews with individuals having first hand knowledge of past events, the accounts of those having first hand knowledge have to be accepted as historical record unless further research is discovered that indicates the events happened otherwise. Again, there are no rd party accounts to support any of the E.King Gill story prior to 1942. The reflective story of the 1918 football game (titled "12th Man") is illustrative, if for no other reason, to show how people who have been associated with various football teams have been referred to as their team's 12th Man. If necessary, I can change the section to mention a 1926 use of the term to refer to an individual connected with the Vanderbilt football team, but I found the story of the 1918 game more historically interesting.

For the record, I am not trying to take any digs at TAMU. I am merely trying to update an encyclopedic reference which, prior to my efforts, was factually incorrect in many aspects. Nothing I have presented has lacked reputable 3rd party support. What we seem to be differing on is how the information should be presented. Any assertion the information have added should not be presented must be rejected as failing to include various aspects of the historical record in an encyclopedic reference is intellectually dishonest. It is historical fact that the DMN referred to the fan bases of TAMU and UT as "12th Men" in 1938 this needs to be included to show the historical record of how the term was used. The fact that an individual who played in the 1918 football game was called the 12th Man also must be included to add context as to how the term has been applied through history.

The problem with the page when I first found it was that it was historically inaccurate and created a false impression that the term 12th Man was both originated by Texas A&M in 1922 and that it has been predominantly applied to Texas A&M from 1922 until today. Updating the historical record with respect to the origination of the phrase and the background/ actions of E. King Gill seems to have been settled by addition of earliest 3rd party accounts from reputable sources. The information on how the phrase has been applied over time is what seems to be in question. Any suggestions as to how the 1938 DMN article showing the term was applied to both Texas A&m and University of Texas are welcome, as are suggestions how the use of the "12th Man" article to describe the 1918 football game.

Randolph Duke (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke

Duke, it is disingenuous of you to suggest that you aren't attempting to take "digs" at Texas A&M. Your postings on other, rival school websites has made clear your contempt and disdain for the Aggies and to imply that your motivations aren't driven by that hatred or that you represent a non-biased source simply isn't believable or honest. macae —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

E. King Gill's 1964 speech

In 1964, E. King Gill game a speech to Texas A&M University where he unequivocally stated "The story of the 12th Man was originated by E.E. McQuillen in 1939." http://www.hornsports.com/docs/aggy/theoriginal12thman0001.pdf He goes on to say the school was asked to dramatize a football incident for a radio play and McQuillen chose to dramatize and fictionalize the events of the 1922 Dixie Classic. Gill was not alone as "the 12th Man" on the sideline at that game. Rather, he was one of 10 possible substitutes available to play. http://www.hornsports.com/texas-12th-man-story-21st-man

At the 1922 Dixie Classic, TAMU suited up 23 players. There were 3 Aggies injured during the game. Gill would have been the 21st Man, not the 12th Man. The citations offered that say Gill was the lone available substitute are all provided by TAMU. The Aggies using themselves as citations for the story that they created is intellectually dishonest. You can cite yourself without offering any third party sources. I fully understand the emotional investment many former Aggies have in the "12th Man" version of the story that says Gill was the lone substitute and that immediately after the game Gill was lauded as a hero for coming to save the day. The story simply isn't true.

The version of the story that says Gill was the lone substitute was, if we are to believe E. King Gill, created by E.E. McQuillen in 1939 as a radio drama. This is evidenced by Gill's own words and being an Aggie, must be accepted (you know, Aggies, don't lie....). Much of this Wiki entry was written based on the fictionalized version of events. Much of it needs to be corrected. Just as when it was proven that the term "12th Man" wasn't originated by Texas A&M University in 1922, many involved with this page have fought hard to prevent historical fact from being offered. Unless someone can provide a contemporaneous account of the origination of the "12th Man" story from 1922, we have to rely on Gill's version of events.

For the record, Gill himself said he was in the press box during the 1922 game spotting players for Jinx Tucker. Here is Tucker's article about the game published on Jan 3, 1922. http://www.hornsports.com/docs/aggy/Jinx_Tucker.pdf

Tucker mentions only 3 injuries for the Aggies during the game and mentions nothing about Gill being the only player on the sideline. Here is the game day program from the 1922 game. libraryasp.tamu.edu/cushing/collectn/univarch/football_programs/Centre%20College%201922/index.html The Aggies had more than 14 players suited up for the game. The best account of the total number of injuries would be Tucker's. Tucker doesn't say Gill was the lone available substitute. This is because he wasn't.

Three things we know. 1) TAMU did not originate the term "12th Man" in 1922 2) E. King Gill was not the only available substitute at the 1922 Dixie Classic Game 3) The tradition of the"12th Man" at TAMU was fabricated in 1939 by E.E. McQuillen as a radio drama.

Surprisingly, these are not only not evident in this Wikipedia entry, they are being fought over in favor of including a fictionalized version of the origins of the term "12th Man." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In 1964, E. King Gill also unequivocally states that the game was "the beginning of the 12th man tradition at A&M".

You claim that McQuillen was tasked with "dramatizing and fictionalizing" the events of 1922 and yet that is NOT what Gill stated. Instead he stated ONLY that McQullen chose to dramatize the events, without any mention of also fictionalizing the event.

Gill was perhaps not alone at the end of the game. But he doesn't claim that he was or was not in his speech and we do not have any evidence that such a claim was made in the 1939 radio broadcast either.

You misunderstand the concept of the 12th man if you believe that it somehow requires that Gill was the only man left on the sidelines. Such is irrelevant as it is the willingness to come down from the stands and play if needed that is the key concept behind the tradition.

You claim that "The version of the story that says Gill was the lone substitute was, if we are to believe E. King Gill, created by E.E. McQuillen in 1939 as a radio drama." And yet you haze zero evidence to suggest that such a claim was made in that radio dramatization. You are claiming that we must believe "Gill's own words", even though the claims you are making were NOT made by Gill in his speech.

--Macae (talk) 21:19, 08 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Gill's mention of the origination of the story occurring in the 1939 telecast... Since he also states in the same speech that the tradition began at the Dixie Classic game in 1922, we don't really know just what he meant when referencing the "story" and "originating". Does that mean that the event didn't have the same importance or notoriety prior to the radio dramatization perhaps? We simply don't know and it would be a disservice to attempt to mislead by including this statement while trying to avoid mentioning that Gill also stated that the tradition began in 1922. Perhaps there is a way to include both statements in order to provide some balance?

--Macae (talk) 21:19, 08 October 2013 (UTC)

How can you claim the event is fictionalized when there is a letter from an eye witness that corroborates the story?

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3917463/12thman.jpg Also, much of the Tucker article is unreadable. Could you please provide a better scan? You are using that article to point out that the Aggies only had 3 injuries, but I am not sure how this disproves the claim the Gill was asked to suit up for the game. A roster of 14 players doesn't leave the team with many warm bodies on the sideline. SimpsonsDidIt (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is another article that mentions the Aggies suffered many injuries during the game, further bolstering the story http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042345/1922-01-03/ed-1/seq-10/ Frankly I am getting tired of Duke's vandalism. Please reference the January 3, 1922 edition of the Fort Worth Star Telegram Page 11. SimpsonsDidIt (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Gill's statement that the story of the 12th Man was originated in 1939 by E.E. McQuillen cannot be omitted. It is Gill's plain statement as to when the story of him as the long standing substitute was created. This very version of the story is today being used by TAMU on its website.

Including Gill's claim that E.E. McQuillen originated the story of the lone substitute is certainly not a disservice that would mislead. Stating otherwise would mislead. The evidence shows Gill was one of 10 available substitutes available at the end of the game. We also know the sportswriter Gill claims he was spotting players for mentioned nothing of Gill being the only remaining substitute. There is no reasonable explanation for his being known as "The 12th Man" in 1922 when he was one of 10 available substitutes. Also, there is not a single citation (other from a TAMU website) in any publication that claims Gill was referred to as "The 12th Man" prior to 1939. ZERO exapmles.

The absence of a single citation from any paper between 1922 and 1939 that refers to Gill as "The 12th Man" draws into question when Gill was first referred to as "The 12th Man." The only account of how Gill came to be called "The 12th Man" comes from Gill himself stating it was McQuillen who started "The 12th Man" in 1939. Until and unless some citation can be provided (other than a TAMU website) that indicates Gill was referred to as "The 12th Man" prior to 1939, we cannot accept that he was. Again, what (other than a TAMU website) makes anyone believe Gill was ever referred to as "The 12th Man" prior to McQuillen doing so in 1939?

Deleting Gill's statement when the story was originated and instead inserting a statement about how he felt about being an Aggie doesn't clarify anything. It simply hides Gill's version of when the story was originated. The story of the 12th Man unquestionably goes back to 1922. However, the tradition of referring to E. King Gill as "The 12th Man" seems to date to 1939. Again, as he was one of 10 available substitutes on the sideline at the end of the game, why would anyone single Gill out as "The 12th Man?" Gill's contributions to the team were arguably less than the players who had been with the team all season (lets not forget that Gill never made it into any game during the entire season. He left the team, in part, because (as he states) he never thought he would be able to play). Claiming Gill was some sort of superhero who saved the day would have diminished the efforts of the other nine guys on the sideline. A guy who never played a single down all season and leaves the team mid-season to play basketball comes down from the stands to be one of 10 available substitutes but still doesn't play a single down during the game and then he is suddenly hailed as a hero? I don't think so. Not even at TAMU.

Gill became "The 12th Man" when he became the lone player on the sideline (as per the TAMU website http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/team/12thman.html ). That fictionalized version of events was created in 1939 and this must be made clear in the article if it is to be taken seriously. The 12th Man section on the TAMU wiki page can have the version the Aggies tell. On this page, Gill's statement that him being known as "The 12th Man" originated in 1939 must be prominently mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You state that Gill's comment that the story originated in 1939 cannot be ommitted. But it certainly can considering that we have no details suggesting the meaning of that statement in light of his contradictory statement in the same speech that the 12th Man tradition began in 1922 at the Dixie Classic game. But as I previously stated, I am fine if you can figure out a way to make mention of both statements so as to provide the proper balance and so that the reader can decide the meaning behind both statements.

You again try and claim that the radio dramatization is when the allegation that he was the lone substitute was made. Yet you have zero evidence from Gill's speech to support such a claim. Gill made no mention as to the content of that radio dramatization and also made no comment in his speech about whether or not he was the lone substitute left at the end of the game. You are trying to make an argument based on statements that you say Gill made which are not supported by the referenced document.

You claim that there is "no reasonable explanation for his being known as the 12th man in 1922" if he was one of multiple substitutes left. First, you are incorrect in that it was Gill's willingness to come down from the stands and suit up for the team that is the key element to this story, rather than how many others may or may not have been left on the bench. Second, you are trying to make educated guesses and assumptions in order to make claims on this wikipedia entry. Our role here isn't to make assumptions and reach conclusions but rather to report the facts and evidence only.

You claim that "Gill became "The 12th Man" when he became the lone player on the sideline". That too is incorrect. Gill became the "12th Man" when he came down from the stands, suited up, and was willing to enter the game if needed. The site you referenced makes this clear when they state: "He came to be thought of as the Twelfth Man because he stood ready for duty in the event that the eleven men on the gridiron needed assistance." If he was the lone player left on the sideline, it certainly makes for a more dramatic story, but it is his willingness to play rather than the number of players left on the bench that is key to the term "12th MAN".

And no one is claiming that Gill was some sort of "superhero" who "saved the day". There is no argument that Gill never played that day. He therefore had no impact on the result of the game and was certainly not a "superhero". It was his WILLINGNESS to come down from the press box and play, rather than the playing itself that is significant in this event.

Now is it possible that the label "12th Man" was not immediately used after the 1922 game and only became a common moniker later in time, be it 1939 or any other point? Of course it is possible. But we do NOT know if the first use of this term was this radio dramatization or not. I believe we have properly covered the uncertainty in the statement in the opening paragraph, where it is stated that "Tradition at Texas A&M says students began using the term as their moniker in the 1920s." And that certainly is the case while making the point that we don't have documentation to prove one way or the other when it first began to become a common term at A&M. I believe that it was perhaps you, Randolph Duke, who provided that statement in one of your previous edits and I think it is entirely acceptable.

--Macae (talk) 01:04, 09 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been properly pointed out by a third party that this has turned into an edit war. I agree and will refrain from making additional edits without first discussing and reaching consensus on this talk page. --Macae (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

An edit war started by a known troll with a history of hatred towards Texas A&M. His entire history of editing this article is based on the fact that he couldn't find a news article reporting that Gill was called from the press box. Not shockingly, such a record exists and easily found by calling the Cushing library as he suggests. I think it is very clear that this user is here to vandals a page of a former rival. http://www.scribd.com/doc/204635145/Fort-Worth-Star-Telegram-Jan-3-1922 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimpsonsDidIt (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to "History" section

Much of the information concerning the contribution of E. King Gill and the events of 2 January 1922 are not supported by 3rd party accounts. The earliest 3rd party account I know of is the July 16, 1942 Dallas Morning News article that speaks about Gill's military service. Edits to Gill's background and actions of Jan 2 1922 have been made to reflect info taken from the DMN.

As for additions made to establish the common use of the term as applied to both individuals and teams is important so readers do not get the false impression the term was used in the 1920s and 1930s predominantly to describe the fan base of Texas A&M College. Adding the examples of other individuals being referred to as their team's 12th Man is important. Especially enlightening is the Dallas Morning news article of December 18, 1938 that evidences the term was used to describe both the fan base of Texas A&M as well as that of University of Texas. The comment that Texas was the hated rival of Texas A&m is illustrative.Had the term been predominantly used to refer to the fan base of Texas A&M at the time, also applying it to refer to the fan base of University of Texas would have been incendiary. there is no indication that the use to describe both fan bases was anything other than normal and ordinary, thus establishing the widespread and common use of th term to describe college fan bases in the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you are drawing a conclusion. It isn't necessarily "incendiary". It doesn't establish anything other than the DMN used the term to describe the longhorns; anything else is synthesis, explicitly prohibited by WP. Buffs (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact the paper of record for the State of Texas in 1938 used the term 12th Man to describe the fan bases of both Texas A&M and University of Texas is important to show the term was applied to more than one school and how the term was applied through history and it must must be included. Failure to add how the term was applied to more than Texas A&M would create the false impression the term was applied predominantly or solely to Texas A&M throughout history. Please feel free to reinsert the part you deleted and we can discuss your edits.

Randolph Duke (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke

There's no such thing as "the paper of record for the State of Texas"

Let's go through this point by point:

• "While the term "12th Man" is today predominantly used by Texas A&M to refer to its fan base..."

  While I don't disagree with this statement, you don't cite a source to back up this claim...and it's one that would SUPPORT my school!

• "...in the 1920s and 1930s the term was not exclusively used to refer to any particular school's fan base."

  Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, but you don't provide any evidence of this. You cite a SINGLE example in a quote. That doesn't mean that other schools' fan bases were called the twelfth man.

• "<lengthy DMN quote>"

  Ok, so one paper calls the longhorn student body their 12th man. I don't disagree, but it doesn't support your entire conclusion.

I'm not saying you are actually wrong in anything you're saying. I'm saying that what you are claiming isn't being backed up by reliable sources within the paragraph. As such, I'm removing them. Buffs (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning news was the paper with the largest circulation if the state and the most influential newspaper in both the most poulus and influential city in the state in 1922 through 1942 (the period relevant to these edits). If there was a more influential paper of record during this period, please feel free to submit which one that was and we will discuss. Until then the DMN has to be considered as the paper of record in the State of Texas during this period. Mind you, neither The Battalion nor the Bryan/ College Station Eagle would qualify.

Whether "12th Man" is predominantly used by Texas A&M to refer to its fanbase today is an assertion made by the university in 1990 in its filings with the federal government to obtain its trademark on the term. This is discussed later on this Wiki entry, so it reasonable would not need to be cited. Whether I change the entry when I re-re-re-re edit to state the term was used to refer to the fan base of at least one other school (Texas) or add cites to show other schools,I will make sure my next edits take your comments into consideration.

As for requiring everything to be cited, I think if that were to be the standard, most of the E.King Gill references prior to the 1942 DMN article would need to be deleted as none of this is cited by a reputable third party source. Claiming portions supported by no citations are acceptable but items supported by citation must be removed due to lack of adequate citation is an interesting point of view, but not one with much of a following in compiling a scholarly reference. If the point can be supported by a citation, it sould be included. Those using the reference can decide for themselves if the point is adequately supported. After all, we aren't striving to find the "truth" here. We are presenting the historical record for those needing to have a reasonably reliable reference. As I pointed out earlier, when I firt started to work on these edits, this entry was a haigographic fairy tale that was so far from the historical record it was an embarrassment to those who knew anything about Texas history.

I am not trying to establish conclusions. Again, this is an encyclopedic reference. The user needs to be presented with the pieces of the historical record in as complete a manner as possible and then the user can draw their own conclusions. There is no "right" and there is no "wrong" in an encyclopedic reference. The value of any encyclopedic reference is the completeness, accuracy and reputable citation of the information presented. Items supported only by a single reference can be added to or refuted by others who wish to add additional pieces of the historical record at a later date. The fairy tale that the phrase was originated by Texas A&M in 1922, was used exclusively to refer to the fan base of Texas A&M, etc, etc etc is not wrong. It simply is not supported by the historic record. If that version of history wants to be presented, I believe there is a entire separate entry dealing with the phrase and the Texas A&M tradition.

On this entry, I am trying only to remove uncited items that are directly contradicted by reputable third party accounts of the events being discussed and to add cited parts of the historic record to develop a more complete picture of the historic record concerning the origins and past uses of the term 12th Man. If an item is supported by only one citation, it is still supported and should be presented so others can add or refute at a later date. Ignoring the historic record to promote an unsupported version which has been refuted in a number of instances isn't what Wikipedia is about. Neither is purposely concealing parts of the historic record supported by reputable sources. I will edit shortly and I look forward to your comments on those edits.

Randolph Duke (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke

While we are on the subject of whether information is properly supported by citation, I point out that the statement that the term 12th Man was first used by Texas A&m to refer to the events of E. King Gill on Jan 2, 1922 is not supported by any citation. We don't know what date Texas A&M first used the term 12th Man in connection to any member of its fan base. For all we know, the story of the 12th Man could have been created out of thin air many years later. I would argue as an unsupported statement, this should be removed until a date and the circumstances of the first use by Texas A&M can be cited, but I am not going to do so at this time. I would hope the willingness to allow this version of events to remain pending any citation whatsoever would be reciprocated with the willingness of others to recognize the value of adding cited elements of the historic record and the intellectual ability of the user to draw their own conclusions when presented with the historic record in as robust a format as possible at this time.

Randolph Duke (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke

I made two edits. First, I added information about Curry and Adamson being referred to as the 12th Man of their teams to show the term was used in a number of instances to refer to individuals as the 12th Man of their team. Second I re-inserted the instance where the phrase 12th Man was used to refer to more than just one team (Texas A&M). The inclusion of the example where the phrase was used to refer to the Univ of Texas fan base in 1938 has been repeatedly attacked by Buffs, but I maintain the inclusion of this is historically important as it is the last cited example where the term was freely used to refer to the fan base of a team other than Texas A&M. In 1990, Texas A&M made filings with the federal government asserting the phase was exclusive to the school. How the term was freely used to refer to various fan bases at one point in history and became exclusive to one school at another point in history has not been developed, but hopefully will be developed as myself and others are able to collect reputable citations for the the stages of this transformation. It is unquestioned that the term was exclusive to Texas A&M in 1990 and it is also unquestioned that the term was used by at least one sportswriter in 1938 to refer to fan bases other than Texas A&M. Possibly someone could help add to the historical record of just how prevalent the term was used to refer to various fan bases in 1938. As I am not connected with Texas A&M Univ and have not been able to have the archivist at the school return my calls, possibly someone who is could contact the archivist and have him help us add clarity to the history of the term through time.

Randolph Duke (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke

Please explain how including the discovery of a 1900 instance of the team as the first known use, along with a citation and direct link to the original source as well as an independently researched corroboration by a reputable third party (Wall Street Journal) is an instance of vandalism. We had this exact same problem back in 2012 when certain parties refused to allow the inclusion of the 1912 University of Iowa use of the term. To insist the 1900 instance of the term simply does not exist is intellectually dishonest. I understand certain people have a deep emotional tie to one particular version of the history of the phrase which is appropriate for inclusion on another page that discusses Texas A&M traditions. In this entry, however, a more researched and factually supported history of the term is appropriate. While some people wish to impugn my motives for offering information supported by citations, I do not believe any evidence can be shown for them to do so. Additionally, that a professional journalists whose profession is etymology or the editors of the Wall Street Journal can be shown to have any questionable motives for the article they published. The individuals wedded to the the factually unsupported history of the phrase cannot refute the information and citations I have offered, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to attempt to prevent historically correct information to make it to Wikipedia. Unless some rational explanation can be offered for deleting the 1900 instance of the term, I will again edit the document to include that information. ~~Randolph Duke~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am receiving messages that are closer to harassment than a response to my earlier comment regarding the relevance of inclusion of the 1900 Minnesota Magazine use of the term 12th Man. Additionally, the ad hominem attacks are baseless, off-topic and do not address whether the use of the term, considered by a professional etymologist writing for a reputable publication, Wall Street Journal, to be actually in existence is can also be considered by Wikipedia to also be actually in existence. There is a credibility issue for Wikipedia at stake here. Some time ago, individuals insisted the term originated in 1922. That was proven too be incorrect. We now know the phrase was in use at least as early as 1900. The only reason we know of for not including that is that persons who seem to be associated somehow with Texas A&M University's use of the phrase object to an accurate historical record being built within Wikipedia. The people associated with Texas A&M have ample outlets within Wikipedia to describe any alternative version of the history of the term they wish. However, on this page, the input of those associated with Texas A&M seem to be an obstacle to historical accuracy. The 1900 use by Minnesota Magazine has not been shown to lack credibility. It's inclusion seems to be reasonable and unless someone cares to discuss the matter in this forum so a consensus on it's inclusion can be reached, I will edit the page in short order to include the reference. Randolph Duke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused by your motives to change this section of Wikipedia. It may be your clear hatred of TAMU, and it may just be a personal interest (my money is on the first option). It seems as though you are trying to unravel some mystery in the history of the 12th man regarding TAMU, when there is nothing further to know. The phrase was first used to describe Gill in 1939 who played in a game in 1922, and the only historical evidence we have of this is his own speech, which I believe can be trusted, and must be trusted due to the lack of other sources. (On another note, you seem to be trying to push that the lack of sources is an indicator of an inaccuracy, which we cannot assume.) Sure, other people had used the phrases "12th Man" or "Twelfth Man" before this 1922, or even 1939, but that is not really the point. There is a clear difference between saying something and actively promoting it. Just because one person at Minnesota said it one time doesn't really mean anything, nor the person at Iowa, nor the DMN person. From 1939 onward, TAMU actively used the phrase while other schools did not, and TAMU was the first to trademark the phrase. Just because Mike Mesco (or whoever) might have been referred to as the "Twelfth Dartmouth Man" does not imply that 'many' schools used the phrase. (I have referenced your personal talk page here and there, Duke). You stated that you were confused as to how a phrase that was used by multiple sources was able to be trademarked by one, and the answer is pretty simple: they (TAMU) actually use the phrase. If Minnesota had been calling their fan base, or their students, or whoever the "12th Man" since 1900, they would clearly have the right to the phrase; however, they didn't, and thus, they don't. The same applies to the Seahawks, in a slightly different manner: TAMU began using the phrase in 1939, the Seahawks didn't exist in 1939. At this point, nobody else really has a claim as strong as TAMU's to the phrase, based on origin of usage and the prevalence of the phrase with the institution. In other news...I found this quote from you very interesting:

"In short, the phrase was in use by a number of schools, including aggy, well before their famous 1922 game. No one thought much about calling their fans their "12th Man." Here is a pdf of a Dallas Morning News article from 1938 written just before the Thanksgiving Day game that refers to the fans of both UT and aggy as their team's "twelfth Men." http://www.hornsports.com/docs/aggy/DMN_Dec_18_1938.pdf How could a writer refer to the fans of Texas as the Longhorns' "twelfth man?"Because the aggy fairy tale of E. King Gill being the only substitute left on the sideline wasn't written until 1939 when it was written as a fictitious radio play during the hype of their national championship season. The term "12th Man" was a generic term used in 1938 and wasn't in any way used only to describe the aggy fans. The aggys didn't even have the E. King Gill "12th Man" tradition between 1922 and 1939. Gill was certainly not their "12th Man" if they mean he was the only substitute available to go on the field. There were a number of aggy substitutes available in addition to Gill. What is hilarious is that although the story is a much a fairy tale as the story of Santa Claus, the aggys are so stupid they actually believe their version to be true. Read the researched version of the history of the "12th Man" and next time you hear an aggy talk about their 12th Man, just laugh in their face. Aggys telling lies is nothing new to anyone. Its sad that they are so dumb they believe their own lies."

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/141664-aggy-spreads-their-cheeks-on-the-national-stage/page2

I don't understand why you should ever be allowed to edit anything related to Texas A&M University. You make assumptions on other websites, yet here you try to be 'intellectual' and back up your claims with a lack of sources. I was going to try to make this response a bit longer, but the above quote speaks for itself, along with the numerous other things you stated within that same thread. Doctothorpe (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment The Doctothorpe account was created a day after after an edit war by anon IPs pushed the article into protected status. It has made a single contribution to Wikipedia to date, the above. These uncivil comments have resulted in an admin warning, see User talk:Doctothorpe‎. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is independent research on the history of the term "12th Man" done by a professional etymologist who has written for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe and New York Times. He is also worked as editor for American dictionaries at Oxford University Press and as a consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary and is currently Chair of the New Words Committee of the American Dialect Society. He has no attachment to TAMU or myself. His work has been independently edited and fact checked. You are free to contact him should you wish to discuss his work or his motivations. Your ad hominem attacks against me do not in any way address whether the research is accurate. The term "12th Man" is tangentially related to Texas A&M and TAMU is absolutely free to write about it as the school wishes in the wikipedia page describing their traditions. As for this page, much of the information seemingly offered by people related to TAMU and citing documents produced by TAMU is both lacking third party research support and proving to be wrong. Please read the researcher's independent piece and then we can discuss how to rewrite much of the history of this section to remove unattributed statements or statements solely attributed to TAMU's marketing department and include the wealth of independently produced information that is not yet included. I forsee the edits to the History section of this page being quite extensive. http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-twelfth-man-a-football-phrase-with-disputed-roots/ Randolph Duke —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite For the record, based on the independent research referenced in my earlier comment, I suggest re-writing the opening paragraph to read as follows:

The 12th man or 12th player is a term for the fans within a stadium during American football and association football games. As most football leagues allow a maximum of eleven players per team on the playing field at a time, referring to a team's fans as the 12th man implies that they have a potentially helpful role in the game. The first known use of the term "12th Man" in connection with a sports team occurred in 1900 and is attributed to a publication of the University of Minnesota in referring to its football team. The first confirmed use of the word to refer to an individual occurred in 1922 and its attributed to University of Minnesota cheerleader Bud Bohnen. In the mid-1930s, The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now known as Texas A&M) and its Aggie Cadet Corps became closely linked to the phrase and the school formally trademarked the term in 1990. The term has a different meaning in cricket, referring instead to the first substitute player who fields when a member of the fielding side is injured.

I am open to discussion and suggestions as to where to place citations. Randolph Duke

I'd suggest modifying the opening sentence of the second paragraph to say "The first recorded instance of the term "12th Man" referring to an individual player" This was clearly a significant event in the history of this phrase and should remain in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.1.42 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested rewrite for several reasons. First, as one time only references in two literary journals, the Iowa or Minnesota uses of the phrase never appeared to catch on or ever have any significane to the two schools. As such, I think it is reasonable to mention them within the history section, but there is not enough relevance to include them in the introduction portion of the article. Second, I don't believe that the Minnesota article refers to an individual as the 12th Man as is suggested. Instead it appears that the reference is instead to a group... that group being the cheerleader. This is different from the usage by A&M in 1922 when it was used to reference a specific individual, E. King Gill. Finally, I believe that the current phrasing regarding A&M's use is more proper than the suggested rewrite, as the rewrtie does not include Texas A&M being the first to use the "12th Man" as opposed to "Twelfth Man" term, because it does not mention that Texas A&M was the first to use the term to reference a single individual, and because it does not note that Texas A&M has used that term to reference it's students since that game in 1922. Macae —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Source for first individual recognized as the "12th Man." We unquestionably can point to the Los Angeles Times for the passage as quoted in the Ben Zimmer Vocabulary.com piece I have repeatedly cited that says:

Sometimes it was not the cheering section but the team's cheerleaders who were singled out for "twelfth man" status. Here is another example referring to the University of Minnesota: "The school cheerleader," says Bud Bohnen, "Rooter King" of the University of Minnesota, who is ranked as one of the two or three greatest cheerleaders in the country, "is the twelfth man on the football team. Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 1922

We can verify through an independent, reliable, third party publication that Red Bohnen was called the twelfth man in October 1922. Your claim is that E. King Gill was called the "12th Man" in print on or about January 2, 1922. Please provide a citation to an independent, verifiable, third-party publication on or about January 2, 1922 that evidences your claim. If we had such a source, much of this may be cleared up. A link to the first known instance of E. King Gill being referred to as "the twelfth man" would be in order. From my understanding, this document may well be the January 6, 1922 or the January 13, 1922 edition of the Battalion (The TAMU school paper). You may have some other contemporaneous document indicating the first known use of the term to refer to Gill. The earliest I know of the Gill's own 1964 muster speech. Without any supporting documentation, I will ask that we go with the Los Angeles Times citation from October 1922. Randolph Duke —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not yet verified that Red Bohnen himself was called the twelfth man in that article as opposed to simply referring to the position as cheerleader as being the twelfth man. In fact, your previous paragraphs mentioning "the team's cheerleaders..." seems to suggest as well that it was not a specific individual but instead a position that the label was being applied to.Macae (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if my words came across as an "attack" to you Duke, but I am merely trying to point out that for an unbiased encyclopedia (Wikipedia), the editors of the information should probably be unbiased, and as Buffs (I believe) previously stated on your talk page: "There is also a strong undertone here where you seem to be digging at the Aggies at every turn. It isn't necessary or appropriate." Regarding the actual information on this entry, I find your rewrite to be a bit confusing when mentioning the first individual to have the phrase applied to him/her. I have not checked the actual Minnesota article, but based on the date, the TAMU game with Gill happened before that Minnesota game - however, the Minnesotans actually used the phrase before TAMU. I just thought that little section could be confusing and misleading. Regarding the "History" section, which you stated will be edited quite extensively, every usage of the phrase is not necessary. As Macae stated, most of those usages don't actually have any relevance with regard to the development of the phrase. I find that the inclusion of the 1900 Minnesota reference is fitting as it was the first recorded use about which we know, but beyond that only TAMU seems to have actually assisted in developing the phrase as it is today, along with the Seahawks much later on. Doctothorpe (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What we are missing is a contemporaneous third party publication dated on or about January 2, 1922 that refers to E. King Gill as the "12th Man." Wikipedia is an encyclopedic work that requires verifiable, reputable documentation of claims. As it stands, the claim that Gill was called "12th Man" on or about January 2, 1922 is lore, and is not in any way supported by any contemporaneous documentation.

It certainly would be helpful if we had information from that time, such as copies of The Battalion, where such information would have been most likely found. Unfortunately, those documents were not saved and archived to my knowledge. It appears, based on comments made by you in non-wikipedia web sites, that you are already aware that The Battalion was not archived until the 50s or 60s. Does that lack of archiving not suggest or support the theory that the absence of written documentation is due simply to a lack of preservation of the relevant material rather than the statements never having been documented to begin with? As a result, we rely on accounts and claims from later times that DO state that E. King Gill was the source of the 12th Man term at A&M and that students have used that term continuously as their moniker from that time. We have no sources contradicting such statements. However, since the direct evidence from 1922 is not availalbe, I do agree that it would be reasonable to word the phrase along the lines of "According to tradition, the student body has used "12th Man" as their moniker since that 1922 game." This way we capture the statements made by a variety of sources, while also acknowledging that the evidence during the earliest time periods is not available. macae

This will most likely go through wikipedia's dispute resolution process and they will want what documentation from 1922 you have to support your claim concerning Gill. If you provide a citation to that document now, it will make the dispute resolution much more efficient. I will get a link to the October 1922 Los Angeles Times citation offered by Mr. Zimmer in his research on the history of the term "12th Man." My point is that unless there is some written document dated prior to 1939 indicating E. King Gill was considered the "12th Man", I believe we have to go with Gill's own words from his 1964 speech that indicates he wasn't considered the "12th Man" prior to 1939. All we have at the current time to indicate he was considered the "12th Man" in 1922 is documentation produced in the 1980s, and after. The documents relied upon to make that claim conflict with Gill's 1964 speech. This conflict will need to be resolved. If we don't have any documents from before 1939 referring to Gill as the "12th Man", then the only individual we can document as being called that in 1922 was the gentleman from Minnesota referred to by the L.A. Times.--Randolph Duke (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken in your claim that Gill stated that he wasn't considered the "12th Man" prior to 1939. Nothing from his speech that day contains such a statement. In fact E. King Gill unequivocally states in his speech that the game was "the beginning of the 12th man tradition at A&M". Macae

May I suggest you contact the Cushing Library and tell them you are working to document the history of E. King Gill as the "12th Man" and you need the first known written reference to him as such. Let them know we have his 1964 Muster speech, but the passage where he indicated the tradition began with the E.E. McQuillen radio play in 1939 seems to be confusing and we are looking for written references to Gill in The Battalion or any other known reference to indicate the first written instance of Gill being know specifically as "the 12th Man." In his work published recently, Zimmer indicates there are no contemporaneous accounts whatsoever of Gill being called "the 12th Man" in 1922 and none known of dated prior to 1939. Let the Cushing librarians know you need to clear this up. Also, ask them if they have the documents one one of their servers so we can access them. If not, ask them if they could scan the document(s) and host them in pdf format on their server. --Randolph Duke (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Macae - It is fine with me if you want to go to dispute resolution claiming word of mouth passed down and tradition as the basis for your suggested edits. We know TAMU relied on some documentation when they asserted the first use was in 1922 and first use in commerce was 1922 in their USPTO filings. We know both of these claims are not factually correct, so your reliance on word of mouth or "lore" will be an issue for other to decide if they outweigh written contemporaneous documentation supporting the L.A. Times suggesting Bud Bohnen was the first verified instance of an individual being identified as the "12th Man." In light of the factually incorrect information in the TAMU trademark filings, I will suggest the lore passed down by TAMU cannot be depended on for its accuracy and that the story of E. King Gill be reserved for the Traditions of Texas A&M University wikipedia page. I will offer multiple contemporaneous newspaper accounts from January 3, 1922 about the Dixie Classic game that fail to mention E. King Gill in any way and push for all subsequent mentions of E. King Gill to be removed from the "History" section, suggesting them be reserved for appropriate sections covering solely TAMU traditions.

We have multiple first hand accounts referencing E. King Gill coming down from the stands and suiting up in case he was needed on the field. The fact that he did not actually play nor was on the roster makes it reasonable that he would not have been mentioned in articles discussing the football game itself.Macae (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the newspaper accounts of the various high schools discussing their 12th Man from 1926 and 1927 as part of the history and make the first mention of the Texas A&M use of the term as substantiated in 1935, 1936 and 1937 to refer to the school's fans and use E. King Gill's 1964 speech as documentation for the beginning of the TAMU tradition, unless you have documented accounts from publications of the time. If you choose to counter and again rely on lore passed down, let me know and we should be able to offer suggested text with my documentation and your lore and get this matter sent to dispute resolution rather quickly. I don't really care to weigh in on any edits to the TAMU traditions or the TAMU trademark, unless the trademark section attempts to circumvent anything established in the History section. Also, I will suggest if the editors choose to accept Bud Bohnen as the first individual to be recognized as the 12th Man, I will suggest the pictures of E.King Gill be moved from History to Texas A&M traditions.

As additional documentation, please also reference the letter written by Red Thompson (http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3917463/12thman.jpg) which I know you have seen, in which Red states that he presented the concept of the "12th Man" on January 5th, 1922 to apply to the cadet corps's willingness to step in and serve as an additional player if needed.Macae (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest you contact Cushing Library and ask them for the early documentation on E. King Gill. I will mention to the editors I asked you to contact the TAMU library for assistance. Randolph Duke (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Duke, You claim that the statements made by Texas A&M in their trademark filings are "not factually correct" but you have no evidence that such is actually the case. An absence of written documentation does not require that the claims are therefore not correct. Instead, it may simply mean that we don't have enough documentation to verify the claims with 100% certainty. Which is why I have no problem including the term "According to legend", "According to the Texas A&M trademark filing", or some other similarly worded phrasing that references Texas A&M's assertions while also recognizing that written documentation from that time period hasn't yet been identified.

You again claim that the referenced L.A. Times source suggested Bud Bohnen was the first verified instance of an individual being identified as the "12th Man." Such is not the case. Instead Bohnen stated that the "cheeleader" was the 12th Man. This is pointing to a group rather than a specific individual as the "12th Man" and is not equivalent to Texas A&M's first use of the "12th Man" to refer to a SPECIFIC individual, that being E. King Gill.

Your stated desire to eliminate all mention of E. King Gill from a Wikipedia entry article for the "12th Man" once more illustrates the bias of your position. To argue that E. King Gill has no role in this term goes well beyond any claimed attempt to improve the accuracy of an article. Macae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macae (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Beginning dispute resolution I understand your position. I believe "cheerleader" is singular and with the inclusion of an individual name, that would be sufficient to determine just which "cheerleader" the L. A. Times was considering to the "12th Man," I am not saying TAMU did not use the term to refer to a specific individual. My question is what documentary evidence is there to show the first date he was considered as the "12th Man." Absent a document other than Gill's 1964 speech, I believe the documented use by the L.A. Times in 1922 will suffice to establish a firm date and a specific individual for the term's first application to an individual. I understand you believe I am biased in this matter,however I am relying at this point on the research of Ben Zimmer in writing his WSJ article over this past weekend. I will use the facts established by Mr. Zimmer in his follow-up piece as the basis of my positions so as to remove any potential bias that you perceive might exist.

Also, I am in the process of initiating the dispute resolution process and have contacted Guy Macon, one of the volunteers who handles dispute resolution, to assist in how this process should be formally initiated and to guide the process. I believe my relying on the third party research of Mr. Zimmer and the third party dispute resolution process will remove any perceived bias from this process. I would suggest you contact the Cushing Library and let them know you are seeking documentary sources to establish the history and development of E. King Gill as the "12th Man." Keep in mind, wikipedia is an encyclopedic work and one would generally expect documented sources to be a more reliable basis than lore or traditions passed down in unwritten fashion. The actual best source of evidence is for dispute resolution to handle. At this point, I am trying to simply ensure dispute resolution has a record of our discussions in resolving the matter and has sufficient basis to guide the dispute resolution process.--Randolph Duke (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The person making mention of the cheerleader being the 12th Man was Bhonen himself and nothing in his statement suggests that he was only referring to himself as opposed to the position of a cheerleader. As such, E. King Gill remains as the earliest specific individual given the 12th Man label.

I DO believe that you are biased in this matter as your postings on other websites confirm. You have stated a desire to eliminate all references to E. King Gill in this article, and I do not believe that such would ever be something considered by a non-biased source.

Yes the more documented sources, the more reliable basis for a statement to be made. I have no disagreement with such thought. However, recognizing that such documents may have not been archived during that particular time period over 90 years ago, such absence does not mean that the statements are therefore "fictional" or invalid. In the absence of documented written evidence, it is permissible to consider oral history, later claims, etc. But again, when relying upon such evidence, it would be entirely appropriate to include the "according to the texas A&M trademark filing" or "according to A&M legend," terminology in order to identify claims that might be lacking in written documentation. macae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macae (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments from Feb 4

Macae - If we keep the comments sequential, adding each one below the last and not posting up earlier in this section, it will be more efficient during the dispute resolution process. I am not denying E.King Gill came from the stands on Jan 2, 1922, suited up in Heine Weir's uniform and stood on the sideline during the rest of the game. We have many accounts of Gill coming from the stands for an "emergency," that emergency being the fact that TAMU had suffered three injuries and only had 9 available substitutes, none of them backfield players. What we are trying to document is what happened next.

The Red Thompson article you offered has a number of errors. Until we have another source to corroborate the the facts as he sets out in that letter, I tend to wonder what is correct and what is a failed memory. He states the ags scored on the opening drive, but the Jinx Tucker article from the Waco tribune, dated Jan 3, 1922 (Jinx Tucker being the sportswriter Gill was sitting next to in the press box prior to coming on the field) indicated TAMU didn't score its first points until the second half. He also states after TAMU scored on the opening drive, Centre College got mad, "quit playing and started fighting." Thompson then tells how Heine Weir, the quarterback had his leg broken. Jinx Tucker's third party contemporaneous account of Jan 3, 1922 indicated Weir broke his leg on the opening drive, on which TAMU didn't score. He also states on the train ride on the way home, he came up with the idea of the 12th Man and that is where it was born. The problem is, we know the term 12th Man had been used by TAMU to refer to its fanbase as early as Nov 25, 1921, because we have the Battalion copy from that day. So, Thompson was wrong about his recollection about the opening drive, wrong about when Weir broke his leg and was very likely aware of TAMU's tradition of "the 12th Man" well before the Dixie Classic game was ever played.

Now, we can ignore all the factual errors in the Red Thompson (undated) letter, but still take him at his word that he brought the idea of calling E. King Gill "the 12th Man" to the Cadets at yell practice that week and how the idea was overwhelmingly accepted if we had a written account of him having done so. Back in those days, the Battalion was published once a week, on Friday. If you can get the Cushing Library to give you a copy of the Jan 6, and Jan 13, 1922 Battalion, we might be able to corroborate the one part of Red Thompson's letter.

The problem with accounts written decades after the actual events is that memories fade over time, just as Red Thompson's seems to have faded with respect to TAMU having scored on the opening drive and when Heine Weir broke his leg. Having three elements of his letter cast in extreme doubt, we can't really accept the part of him taking the idea to yell practice unless we have some way of corroborating that fact, presumably the school paper from the dates I listed. Again, we are still at the point of looking for the earliest known documented example of E. King Gill being called "the 12th Man." If you wish to go to dispute resolution with that document, I understand. Just be aware my argument against it will be exactly as I have set out just now. Ask the Cushing Library for the earliest dated documentary example of E. King Gill being called "the 12th Man." If they have nothing earlier than 1939, just say so, so that the dispute resolution process can include that fact.

I believe Gill should be referred to as "the 12th Man." I simply believe in referring to him as such in the TAMU Traditions areas. Here we are talking specifically about the "History" section. There is nothing giving the first date Gill was called "the 12th Man" that contradicts Gill's 1964 speech that indicated that the TAMU tradition of calling him the 12th Man began in 1939-1940 when E.E. McQuillen wrote the radio play that also started the tradition that Gill was standing as the only remaining substitute and the tradition of TAMU students standing during games. To have the Gill attachment to the story occurring between 1922 and 1939 considered as verified fact in an encyclopedic work, it would need to be documented somehow. Usually documented contemporaneous accounts from reputable sources have more weight than lore and traditional recitations of events.--Randolph Duke (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Duke - Yes there are some errors in Red Thompson's recall of when the first Aggie score happened. I think that is probably understandable as I likely could make similar mistakes when discussing games I have watched from even no more than the past year or two. And yet, even if I occasionally confuse the stats and scoring order, doesn't mean that I can't still remember with clarity certain occurrences that might have happened during or after that game occurred. I think it becomes nothing but speculation on your part that, because Red was in error on a few details of the game, that he therefore must be in error with regards to the events that happened after the game. Especially when we consider that, as a Yell Leader, he was the one who would have LED that yell practice on the steps of the YMCA. Again, when you say "I tend to wonder" I would suggest that you are relying on speculation and drawing conclusions, which I don't believe is intended or desired when editing wiki articles.

You state that "we can't really accept the part of him taking the idea to yell practice..." and I suggest that we most certainly can. As a documented first hand account, I believe it entirely reasonable to consider that as evidence, especially when there is no evidence suggesting that Red's account of that yell practice is not correct. Now I have no problem including a phrase such as "Yell Leader at the time, Red Thompson, stated in a later letter that it was on Jan. 6th, on the steps of the YMCA....etc." That way, we can properly include that first known reference to E. King Gill with the 12th Man tradition, while still acknowledging that the statement is based primarily on Red's letter. You had stated on this Talk page back in November the following - " If the point can be supported by a citation, it sould be included. Those using the reference can decide for themselves if the point is adequately supported." Why is that suddenly not an acceptable position when referencing both Gill's and Thompson's first hand accounts as to when the "12th Man" tradition began?

You suggest that Gill indicated in his 1964 speech that the tradition of calling him the 12th Man didn't begin until 1939. I see nothing in his speech making any such statement. Instead he states that the story of the 12th Man originated in 1939. That is not the equivalent of not being called the 12th man prior to that time but instead appears to suggest that his story didn't receive national attention and focus until the story was told on national radio. He also mentions during that same speech that the 1922 game was where the "12th Man" tradition began. I believe that that statement, along with Red Thompson's statement both serve as adequate documentation when considering that there is no evidence disputing the statements of either.

Finally, you suggest that Red Thompson couldn't have come up with the "12th Man" idea after the 1922 game since it had been used previously in the 1921 Battalion. However I believe it is entirely possible that a single reference from 1921 doesn't mean that the cadets were therefore referring to themselves as the "12th Man". It seems entirely feasible in fact that Red might have even recalled that phrase when he chose to reference E. King Gill as the "12th Man" on the steps of that YMCA building in 1922.Macae (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the Cushing Library has the Battalion on microfilm for January 1922 and for the late 1939-early 1940 time periods. It should be easy to pull the Jan 6 and Jan 13, 1922 editions to see if at yell practice Red Thompson actually did bring the suggestion to the cadets that E. King Gill be acknowledged at the school's "12th Man." I also understand from Ben Zimmer that copies of the Battalion from 1923 have surfaced mentioning the school's 12th Man in reference the fans, but no mention whatsoever of E. King Gill is mentioned even though he was playing on the team and supposedly was THE 12th Man of the school. If the term was used to reference the fans (which had been happening since 1921) and the term was inseparable from E. King Gill starting in January 1922, how could there by no mention of E. King Gill as THE 12th Man if he in fact was playing in the game that was being discussed in the 1923 Battalion article? Again, this doesn't show E. King Gill was THE 12th Man in 1923, it adds evidence that he wasn't and, in fact, wasn't THE 12th Man until the 1939 radio play.

The edits I am suggesting to the History section are to establish the first use ever, that it was used by many schools generically at least through the late 1930s and to show the first documented use of the term to reference a specific individual was either William Hardin Sanders during the 1918 Great Lakes/ Navy football (this account is undated, so its use presents problems in an encyclopedic work) or to Bud Bohnen in October 1922. I would then state the term was used by a number of high schools and colleges at least through the late 1930s. After we get to the late 1930s, I am totally open to the history of the term. I have not looked into the history of the phrase in the post-war years.

As for the pictures of Gill and the TAMU tradition it is entirely proper to include that info in the TAMU traditions sections, just as the those involved in the matter might want to include similar edits to the Seattle Seahawks' tradition of the term. However, no one has offered any documentation showing how the history of the term was affected by TAMU's use of the term between 1921 and 1939 differs in any way from the use of the term by the various high schools and colleges as described by Mr. Zimmer's research. What you are offering is the development of the TAMU tradition of using the term, not how the history of the term was uniquely affected by TAMU. The term seems to be completely generic between 1921 and 1939 as it was used indistinguishably by a number of high schools and colleges. TAMU didn't originate the term and TAMU's use of the term didn't begin in 1922. What started in 1922 and how the term was developed by any incidents in 1922 *(other than Bud Bohnen) seems to be entirely attached to the TAMU tradition and not to the overall history of the term.

If you can pull the Battalion articles from Jan 6 and Jan 13, 1922, we can tell is any of the Red Thompson article is salvageable. Also, if you can find the Battalion that discusses the 1939 radio play, that would be quite helpful. If possible, see if either texags or the Cushing library can host them on a server so others may see. Thanks. --Randolph Duke (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Macae- On a personal note, at the end of all this, at the very least, you will probably end up being one of the leading authorities on the history of the 12th Man tradition in aggieland which would seem to be significant. After all, if anyone else knew the answers to the issues we are trying to sort out, they would have jumped into all this long ago. Most ags I know of had never seen Gill's handwriting, never read his Muster speech, had no idea the Red Thompson letter even existed and had never seen Jinx Tucker's description of the game, let alone had the ability to discuss it all in detail. I'm glad someone decided to put aside the ad hominem attacks and talk about the outstanding questions. If I'm wrong, I will admit I am wrong. And, if I am wrong, you are going to deserve the credit for making the 12th Man tradition more fully known by anyone since E.E. McQuillen. See if you can find the Battalion editions and get them up on a server and we will see where things go from there. --Randolph Duke (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Duke - I am comfortable with Gill's and Thompson's first hand accounts claiming that Gill's actions in 1992 were the start of the "12th Man" tradition. But if you want to pull up The Battalion for that time period, certainly let us know if you discover any statements that contradict the first hand claims of those two gentlemen.

I think you are mistaken in your assumption that anyone is claiming that the term is "inseperable" from E. King Gill. Based on the available documents, the tradition of the 12th Man started with E. King Gill and that 1922 football game. But that does not mean that, just because Gill was the original 12th Man, that the term wasn't therefore used soon after to represent ANY A&M cadet member who was willing to not only stand and yell for the team, but actually willing to step in and participate if called upon. As a result, it seems perfectly reasonable and feasible that an article talking about the entire 12th Man would not require additional reference to the original 12th Man. I agree with your statement that the 1923 article doesn't indicate that Gill was THE 12th Man in 1923 and no one is claiming that or suggesting that such a statement should be included in the article. However for you to then proceed to claim that the 1923 article is any sort of evidence that Gill wasn't referenced to as the 12th Man in 1922 and that he wasn't the 12th Man until 1939, is nothing but pure speculation on your part.

I have no problem using the Minnesota or Iowa references and even the 1921 Battalion reference to show that the term had been used sporadically prior to 1922. The difference however is that we have no documentation suggesting that at Minnesota, Iowa or any other school was the term used continuously or by the student body themselves. We DO however have several documents (and more being presented daily) showing a consistent usage of the term by the Texas A&M student body.

I will again dispute your claim that Bud Bohnen referenced himself as the 12th Man in that 1922 article. Instead he said that The CHEERLEADER is the 12th Man. In using the position title rather than his own name, it appears clear that he wasn't referencing a specific individual as the 12th Man, as was done with Gill, but instead was referencing the position.

With regards to Gill's picture and placement within the article, as the first individual specifically referenced as the 12th Man, and as the man who started the tradition at the school who has continuously used the term since that 1922 game, and which owns the trademark, it seems entirely relevant to include his information in the History portion of the article.

Finally, with regards to who "deserves credit" for documenting and verifying both Gill's role and A&M's continual usage of the term, I think that credit needs to go to you since you are the one who began the process. Although you have continued to express your hatred and disdain for Texas A&M, the Aggies probably need to still extend a thank you for allowing the University and its 12th Man to so much better document and verify Gill's and the University's early usage of the term. This information will only prove even more helpful to Texas A&M in properly protecting it's trademark and the story itself! Macae (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if we are making some progress on getting this to the point the dispute resolution process can help get the content of the opening paragraphs and the History section sorted out. If we can agree those are the only two sections we are discussing that may help define the scope of the dispute to be resolved. Also, I think we should also mention part of the dispute to be resolved is what content would best be included in the History section and which should be limited to the Texas A&M Traditions section on this page and the Texas A&m Traditions page as a whole.

If you want to use the 1922 Red Thompson letter in the TAMU traditions section, I have no issue with that. Again, I am not trying to define the TAMU tradition, only refine the history of the term. If you want the Red Thompson letter content included in the History of the term, without the Jan 6 and Jan 13, 1922 Battalion copies, I will ask the entire contents of the letter be kept out of the History section and relegated to the TAMU traditions due to the letter's unquestionably inaccurate content. I will base by claim of inaccuracy on the points I discussed a few days ago. As for the Gill speech, I think we should agree we have differing opinions on the importance of that content. Gill says the tradition originated in 1939 and it dates back to 1922. Again, this speaks to the TAMU tradition and not the origination of the term. The only way it would be connected to the History of the term is if it could be documented that Gill (not Bohnen) was the first individual specifically referred to as their team's 12th Man. It would be nice to see the Jan 6 and Jan 13 Battalion copies before discussing the Red Thompson letter and Gill speech further.

As for the history of the term between 1921 and 1939, I have questions how TAMU's 12th man (their fans) differed in any way from Baylor's 12th Man, Univ of Texas' 12th Man, Minnesota's 12th Man, or the 12th Man of any of the large number of schools who were using the term generically at the time to refer to their fans. Yelling it 4% louder or mentioning the term 2% more often in the school paper would not, in my mind, show convincingly how TAMU took a generic term and substantially altered the history of it. Again, how the TAMU tradition was altered sould be relegated to the TAMU traditions sections. What remains to be documented is how TAMU altered the history of a generic term between 1921 and 199. I use the 1939 date not to note the history of the term was altered by the fictionalized 1939 radio play, but rather because I believe we have defined the era of 1939 and prior as the period of time in the development of the term we are discussing at this point.

Thanks again for your work on this. I am stunned the work we are doing has not been done by the Cushing Library and included in the E. King Gill display I believe TAMU has on campus. Also, I am just as stunned the attorneys filing the trademark application failed to find the documents we are discussing and the others we are looking for since it was their job to look for these and they would have been able to be aware of their existence prior to the google books entries and it seems every one of the documents (Red Thompson letter, Jinx Tucker story of the game, Gill's speech and the Jan 6/ Jan 13 Battalion copies would have been readily available in the school's on-campus library in 1990 when (I believe) the trademark was filed.

As for any comments regarding archiving discussions prior to Jan 15, 2014, I have no objection to doing so.--Randolph Duke (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the Red Thompson letter details the first reference to a specific individual as the 12th Man, I think it appropriate to include in the History portion of this article. Your desire to eliminate the inclusion of the letter is based on your suggestion that his statements at the YMCA were inaccurate simply because his recollection about some of the in game statistics might be off. To reach such a conclusion, you are using speculation which is not the function of wikipedia. As suggested previously, rather than eliminate a citation simply because you have drawn a personal conclusion, I suggest instead that we include it and allow the reader to decide what level of weight he/she wishes to apply to that first hand account. Additionally, there is no need to obtain additional documentation in order for it to be connected to the history of the term. Additional documentation would certainly provide even further verification but is not a requirement. Again, it makes more sense to allow the reader to draw their own conclusion as to the reliability of any evidence cited here.

Regarding differences between A&M's use of the term and other colleges... First, with Iowa, and Minnesota, and the Longhorns we only have a singular media reference from each and no evidence that the students at those schools were actually referring to themselves with that term. The Simmons article mentions the use of the Twelfth man at other colleges in Texas had become popular and it is probably reasonable to state that use of the term spread to other schools in Texas by the mid 1920s.

With regards to the trademark, A&M apparently DID perform the necessary level of research since the trademark was granted. For all we know, some of the documentation discussed WAS available to the attorneys but ended up being unnecessary. Certainly there is nothing discovered to date that would lead to invalidation of the trademark.

As far as your thanks for my working on this, all I really have done is pointed out areas in which I believe that you are attempting to speculate or draw conclusions in an attempt to reach some desired and biased conclusions. You have done the research and made the postings that have in turn resulted in the multiple additional source documents that have been provided in the last few days which do so much to strengthen A&M's position with regards to Gill's involvement, and A&M's connection, growth, and usage of the term. So a big Gig'Em to you, Duke! Macae (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most famous interloper in college football history made his appearance in the 1935 Princeton-Dartmouth game before 56,000 fans who braved the snow and cold to attend.[7] Mike Mesco, a spectator at the Princeton-Dartmouth game was initially reported to have left his seat from the stands to join the Dartmouth defensive line and was referred to in a local newspaper as the "Twelfth Dartmouth Man." Perhaps? Is this encyclopedic? What evidence do we have this is the most famous? I am removing this as it is opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.23.9 (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 February 2014

Change spelling of Cinncinnati to Cincinnati 184.57.244.55 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: The correct spelling is indeed Cincinnati, but the incorrectly-spelled Cinncinnati is in a quote. Therefore, we need to establish if the original contains the misspelling: if it's spelled correctly, we should correct it here; but if it's spelled Cinncinnati, we should leave it alone but add the {{sic}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page Auto-archival

Per the WP guidelines at WP:ARCHIVE, this Talk page is over the archival threshold of "75 KB or has more than 10 main topics." Archival simply automates the movement of old and stale discussions from the default Talk page into a linked archive of Talk page(s). Archival is not a tool used to stifle current and ongoing discussions, it simply keeps the most active discussion on the default Talk page. Per the same guidelines, automatic archival should be done with consensus. Thoughts? Objections? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No objection to archiving of older topics Macae (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable first known use claims

The following types (or similar variations, feel free to add bullets) of distinctions seem to be of particular importance based on the existing callouts within the article. Perhaps as a baseline, we could reach some inline consensus with WP:Verifiability on each.

• First known/recorded use of the term "12th man"
• First known/recorded use of the term "twelfth man"
• First known/recorded use of the term "12th man" in regards to an individual
• First known/recorded use of the term "twelfth man" in regards to an individual
• First known/recorded use of the term "12th man" in regards to a crowd, game spectators, fanbase, or similar
• First known/recorded use of the term "twelfth man" in regards to a crowd, game spectators, fanbase, or similar

Comment For the sake of housekeeping, note that it is appropriate to indent (: Your reply, :: Your re-reply, ::: etc), reply inline/split bullets, and sign (~~~~) comments within the above bullets. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)