Jump to content

Talk:12th man (football)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.183.113.3 (talk) at 10:52, 16 September 2013 (Removed the text of the memorandum by TAMU as a copyvio. A simple link to a reputable source would suffice to make the argument.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)

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)[reply]
-- 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)[reply]
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)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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!

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

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!

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

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!

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

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!

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

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!

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

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!

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:12th_man_(football)&oldid=573139401"