Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

January 30 Extensive Edits

Over the past three days, I have worked to update and expand the sections on the Establishment and Growth sections of the page. I fully anticipate this to draw objections from those with a close attachment to Texas A&M University, as much of it is inconsistent with the version of Texas history they have been lead to believe, including that Texas A&M was established prior to the University of Texas. I have no question most of those with emotional attachments to Texas A&M University had no understanding or knowledge the act that established the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas specifically referred to the establishment of the University of Texas some 13 years earlier. The initial objections to the edits I have made have been surrounding the control of the Permanent University Fund. Pursuant to the Constitution of 1876 the PUF was placed under the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents. The Agricultural and Mechanical College was in 1876, and constitutionally remains today, a branch of the university and not a legally separate entity. There was one public university in 1876, therefore the was one university fund. Any edits need to be supported with citations. If anyone believes the PUF is not under still the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents, there needs to be some citation supporting how control was supposedly transferred to the Texas A&M Board of Regents. ~~Randolph Duke~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Good edits overall. However some of the information appears to be better included in the wiki entries for the PUF or for the University of Texas System, rather than being included in the entry for the individual university. Some of the comments due not appear to have much significance or relevance to the University of Texas - Austin. Additionally, some additions appear to include original research which is not allowed by Wiki. For example, the claim was made that Texas A&M is still a branch of the University of Texas System is not supported by citation and also appears to be incorrect, based on the Texas Legislatures creation of the Texas A&M University System in 1948. Macae (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

With regards to control of the PUF, ownership is not the same as control, and therefore it would be improper to imply that the University of Texas - Austin OWNS the PUF. Article has been revised to remove this implication. Also, control of the PUF is by the regents of the University of Texas System, rather than by the University of Texas - Austin. Therefore, such mention is better suited for the PUF and UT System entries rather than the entry of a single school in the UT system. Macae (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The agricultural and mechanical college was constituted as a branch of the university in the Constitution of 1876. As shown by the failed attempts to amend the constitution in 1915 and 1919, only a constitutional amendment can amend the constitution. Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution has never been amended. When the legislature created the Texas A&M System in 1948, it did not amend Article 7, Section 13 of the constitution because it was powerless to do so. The assertion that Texas A&M is still a branch of UT is a direct reading of the 1876 Constitution and not "original research." As an aside, I have confirmed with the State legislative Library that Article 7, Section13 of the Constitution of 1876 has never been amended. Stating the agricultural and mechanical college is a still branch of the university is material to this wiki entry as it is a quirk in Texas law that is not widely discussed and its inclusion here adds to the depth of the overall wiki entry. I have revered to the wording prior to your edits.

The PUF is owned by the people of the state of Texas, not by any one subdivision of the state. There was no wording in the prior version that asserted ownership of the PUF by the UT System. The PUF was created under Article 7, Section 11 of the 1876 Constitution and by law is under the direct and exclusive supervision of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System. The 1931 legislative act that granted the agricultural and mechanical college an interest in the UT endowment granted only an interest in the Available University Fund and not the Permanent University Fund. This was supported by the direct citation to the 1931 act in question. Any further discussion of the division of the PUF (such as the 1956 constitutional amendment affirming the legislature's 1931 division of the AUF) would be best included in the PUF wiki page, so I did not include it here. I have restored the wording prior to your edits. Randolph Duke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

First, it is redundant and unnecessary to mention the original statement regarding Texas A&M as such has already been stated previously in an earlier portion of an already lengthy article. Inclusion here provides little to no benefit. Second, the Constitution of Texas also lists the institutions of the University of Texas System which does NOT include Texas A&M. The Constitution also lists the institutions in the Texas A&M University System which includes Texas A&M. Therefore, the Constitution is conflicting and at odds with itself. I would suggest that the earlier mention of Texas A&M being a branch of the University of Texas is OK, but does not need to be repeated and that it also is important to make mention of the 1948 split and Constitutional removal of Texas A&M from the University of Texas System. Rather then engage in an edit war, I certainly would welcome input from other wiki editors as to this question... Macae (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I see where you drew your objection to the inference there was an ownership interest in the PUF and I agree that was in error. I corrected the wording to clarify as you suggested. Apologies. Also, to expand on my earlier comments regarding the fact that Article 7, Section 13 of the 1876 Constitution has never been amended, it would be original research on your part to state the 1948 act that established the TAMU System in any way amended the Constitution to alter Article 7, Section 13. I have read the 1948 Act establishing the TAMU system and it doesn't mention anything about altering Article 7, Section 13 because the legislature has no unilateral power to amend the constitution. Article 7, Section 13 has never been amended. It is just one of those historical quirks that resources such as Wikipedia offer opportunities to discuss. Randolph Duke (talk)

Yes, it was the "onwership" term which I thought was problematic and welcome the change. Saying that the PUF is controlled by the University of Texas System regents seems to be a reasonable solution. However I believe that such information is more suitable for either the PUF wiki entry or the University of Texas System entry. The University of Texas - Austin has no more control over the PUF than does Texas A&M. The original research comment is based upon your assertion that A&M is still a branch is based upon your choosing to only mention that portion of the Texas Constitution while not including the other part of the Constitution that indicates that Texas A&M is no longer an institutional member of either the University of Texas or the University of Texas System. Again, it seems to make more sense to keep the previous mention of the original act declaring the branch designation, while also including the 1948 splitMacae (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the article mentions A&M's being a branch of the University of Texas on two separate occasions. Do you really think that such a trivial issue merits a THIRD mention? Or is that overkill? A single mention is also made of the 1948 split of Texas A&M from the University of Texas System. As a result, it appears that we have covered both events properly and I am fine leaving as it without additional edits on that issue. Does that work for you Randolph? Macae (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment discussing the 1931 law should remain in the Wikipedia entry discussing the University of Texas at Austin because in 1931 there was no UT system. The actual law being discussed refers the the University of Texas which, in 1931 was the legal name of the entity being discussed here. There was no UT System in 1931 and the legislative act being discussed did not grant anything to the UT System. When the UT System was created by the legislature, specific powers and authorities was granted that entity by the legislature. Prior to the creation of the UT System, The Board of Directors of what is now known as The University of Texas at Austin controlled the university's endowment. Therefore, when discussing the facts extant in 1931, the correct name to use would be legal name of the entity in 1931 which was The University of Texas, just as the proper name to use when referring to the agricultural branch was the Agricultural and Mechanical College, which is what has been used. Using proper names existing at the time being discussed is the correct style.

As for your assertion that Article 7, Section 13 of the 1876 Constitution was amended in 1948, and that Texas A&M was split from the University of Texas System, is simply untrue (for one reason, there was such entity as the "University of Texas System" in 1948. The UT System did not come into existence until 1950). I have a request into the State Archives to get a copy of the 1948 legislative act and will post it as soon as I receive it.

Possibly a quick lesson on government and history is in store. The State Constitution (the 1876 version is the one currently in force) is a document between the people and the government where the people grant specific powers to the government. It is the foundation of our system of government where the power of government comes from the people. The legislature is powerless to unilaterally amend the grant of power from the people. As was noted in 1915 and 1919, to change Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution of 1876 (the specific section that designated the agricultural college as a branch of the university), an amendment had to be proposed by the legislature and put before the people for ratification. Earlier attempts to do this have been unsuccessful. Your claim that the legislature unilaterally amended Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution in 1948 are simply incorrect.

As Wikipedia is a encyclopedia work, it would be absurd to use a legal and historical fiction as the basis for any Wikipedia entry, so your claim that assuming the legislature unilaterally amended the constitution in 1948 is most certainly not covering things properly. The reality is that Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution has never been amended and it should be included in this work, so people such as yourself can benefit. There are currently efforts to again have the 1915 proposed amendment to legally separate the University of Texas from TAMU. Discussions have been ongoing, but it is my understanding they are being met with strong resistance from the TAMU Board or Regents, specifically from Tony Buzbee. You may want to discuss this among TAMU alumni and with your state legislator. I will refrain from undoing your edits until I obtain the 1948 Act that created the TAMU System and show conclusively that no such split did occur.Randolph Duke (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you have misread my comments. I have not claimed that the 1876 Constitution was amended in 1948, and you are incorrect in claiming that I did so. Rather I have pointed out that the Texas A&M University System, which split Texas A&M from the University of Texas was enacted by the legislature in 1948. Furthermore, I have pointed out that the Texas Constitution conflicts with itself in stating that A&M is a branch of the University of Texas while also stating that it is no longer a member institution of the University of Texas System, and is instead a member of the Texas A&M University System. Again, the statement regarding A&M being a branch of the University of Texas has already been made twice in the article, and a third time is unnecessary and does not provide benefit to the article. Macae (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Without comment on the substantive issues discussed above, I strongly caution editors against using primary sources to draw conclusions that are then inserted into Wikipedia articles with only the primary source(s) as a reference. That falls afoul of our core policy that forbids us from engaging in original research. From another point of view, if the information is important enough to include in an encyclopedia then surely you can find it in other reliable sources without having to interpret primary sources and draw your own conclusions. ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the claims (dare I say "original research") claiming the legislature split the agricultural college from the University of Texas, I offer the following response received today from the texas legislative Reference Library. The short version is the texas A&M System was created by the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as part of the measures necessary to deal with a hazing scandal at the college. As the Board of Directors of the college did not have the power or authority to unilaterally amend the state Constitution, we can safely assume the Constitution was not amended as claimed by user Maece. The edits removing the information regarding Texas A&M still legally being a branch of the University of Texas at Austin should be restored as they document facts that were unknown to even highly learned individuals such as user Maece and ore of great value to wiki readers.

I offer the following response from the state researcher: The Texas A & M University System was not created by the Texas Legislature in 1948 since the Legislature was not in session that year. It seems it was created by the Texas A & M Board of Directors in response to recommendations provided by a Joint Senate legislative investigation committee set up to address a hazing controversy at the Texas A & M College in 1947.

Below are materials that discuss the hazing controversy and the establishment of the Texas A & M College System (now the Texas A & M University System).

Special Joint Student Activities at A. and M. College, Investigation Committee suggests the that the Board of Directors create an Office of Chancellor of the College System. See June 6, 1947, p.3339 (pdf page 13); See also Recommendation 1 on pp. 3341-3342, includes copy of SCR21, 50th RS (1947). http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/50/50_TAMU.pdf

Gilchrest Gibb (university president 1944-1953), Texas State Historical Association http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgi14 “The board of directors responded in May 1948 by establishing the Texas A & M College System (now the Texas A & M University System) and naming Gilchrist as its first chancellor, effective on September 1, 1948.” Randolph Duke (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research Randolph. It does indeed appear that the removal of TAMC from the governance of the University of Texas Board of Regents occured prior to 1948 as per the revised Texas Statutes of 1925. I have edited the previous statements to reflect this new information. Macae (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To directly respond to the comments of Maece of 22:15, 4 February 2015, The reason the third comment is necessary is that it delivers the information that the agricultural college has never been legally separated from the University of Texas. If you object to the passage that states the ag college is still a branch of the university, possible we could agree to wording such as "to this day, no action has ever been made to alter the status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the university and that status remains in effect to this day." The fact remains that the Agricultural and Mechanical college was a branch of the University of Texas in 1948 and it was the board of directors of the college who created the AMC System, not the legislature. This is something that clarifies the erroneous assertion made by others that the legislature split off the ag college in 1948. Therefore, the information is of great educational value and should be included. I look forward to your comments and will wait a few hours before restoring the important passage that was deleted. Randolph Duke (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the erroneous information claiming the state legislature created a separate Texas A&M System in 1948. The mechanism that created the separate control of the Agricultural and Mechanical College was Article IV, Section 12, Art 2610, R.C.S Texas (1925) ( http://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925civ13.pdf , http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/50/50_TAMU.pdf { page numbered page 3333} ). While control was vested in a separate board of directors, the fact remains Article 7, Sec 13 that constituted the A and M college as a branch of the University of Texas was not then and still today has not be amended.

Additionally, apologies to user Macae for wrongly citing his name in previous edits Randolph Duke (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed comments from "Expansion and Growth" section regarding the governance of the Agricultural and Mechanical branch college as inappropriate as they deal more with the development of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college than the governance of the university. Also, the information offered cited the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes. The paragraph where the deleted passage was inserted discussed the failed 1915 and 1919 constitutional amendments. There was no discussion how the failed 1919 amendment proposal lead to the changes set forth in the 1925 law in the citation. Any such discussion of those changes between 1919 ans 1925 would have also been inappropriate for this Wikipedia entry as they would exclusively discuss the development of the Agricultural branch college, not the university itself. The only connection that exists is fact the Agricultural branch college (now known as Texas A&M University) is still constitutionally a branch of the University of Texas at Austin (specifically the Austin branch, not the UT System as the Agricultural branch college's status as a branch of the Austin campus and it was never deemed a separate member of the UT System by the UT System Board of Regents). Other than to note the Agricultural branch college was constituted as a branch of the University of Texas (before the name change to University of Texas at Austin) and that the branch college status has never been altered by a constitutional amendment, there is no need to discuss in detail the development of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college in this Wikipedia page. It is more a part of the development of teh Agricultural branch college (now called Texas A&M University after the 1963 name change enacted by the legislature). Randolph Duke (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The comments regarding the governance of the A&M are entirely appropriate for this article since it involves the removal of governance by the subject of this article. Going forward, please do not arbitrarily remove valid information that has been posted without first discussing and obtaining some sort of agreement from other editors. Macae (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Matters involving the governance of the Agricultural branch college are not germane to the expansion and growth of the University, just as matters involving the governance of the Medical branch college are not. Both the Medical branch college and the Agricultural branch college have their own independent Wikipedia pages for such subjects. The information regarding the 1915 and 1919 proposed constitutional amendments are included only because any attempted restructuring of the university is part of the story of the grown and expansion of the university. That both the Medical branch college and the Agricultural branch college remained branches after attempted restructuring of the university is noteworthy. Discussions pertinent to the growth and development of either branch college are unique to those branch colleges and independent of the growth and expansion of the university and therefore discussion of the growth and development of either the Medical or Agricultural branch colleges are best left to their individual Wikipedia pages. Randolph Duke (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The governance of A&M IS relevant when it involves a change in the governance authority of the subject of the article. Again, please do not delete relevant and factual information from this article without first getting some sort of consensus from other editors. This is now the second time in a row that you have done so. Macae (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To add to my earlier comment regarding the insistence by user Macae that information regarding the 1881 and 1913 legislative acts be included in the information in Growth section, the 1881 legislative act is directly linked as footnote 35 in the Establishment section of this page and not only does it not reference the governance of the Agricultural branch college, it does not even contain the word "Agricultural" nor does contain the words "branch college." Claiming that act somehow mandated a separate governance structure for the Agricultural college is not only specious, it borders on dishonesty. The passage as written cannot be allowed to be included. As for the 1913 legislative act, it contains no mandate of any governance structure whatsoever. It merely sets the number of individuals on the various boards of the university and the branch colleges. This, when added to the questionable attempts of user Macae to make the reader wrongly believe the legislature separated the Agricultural branch college from the university in 1948 when the Agricultural branch college board created the Agricultural and Mechanical College System (see earlier comments of 4 February) calls into question the quality and objectivity of the suggested edits user Macae has been offering for inclusion in this Wikipedia page. I suggest he offer his suggestions for verification and discussion prior to continuing to insert information that has repeatedly been shown to be of questionable foundation. His latest suggested edit wasn't factual the first time he offered it and it was no more factual the second time he offered it. I dare say his offering it a third time will not change its lack of factual foundation. 2602:306:CD57:5360:221:E9FF:FEE2:C39A (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have again (for the third time) removed the information user Macae insists on inserting into this section. As previously stated, the information regarding the governance of the Medical and Agricultural branch colleges is inappropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the university. Both the Medical and Agricultural branches have their own independent Wikipedia pages and information regarding their governance systems should be included in those pages. I understand user Macae's emotional attachment to the Agricultural branch college, but his demand that factually incorrect information regarding the governance of the Agricultural branch and his exclusion of any consideration of the governance of the Medical branch draws his objectivity into balance. Unquestionably, the information he is insisting be included is specious and misleading. He is attempting to claim acts of the legislature in 1881 and in 1913 mandated a specific governance structure for the Agricultural branch college. While he does not care to offer citations for either act, the 1881 act he references is footnote 35 in the Establishment section of this page and it mentions nothing about the Agricultural branch college, so his claim the act mandated any governance structure for the Agricultural college is simply a lie. It cannot be included in this page. Additionally, the 1913 act he also claims mandated a specific governance structure for the agricultural college does no such thing. Macae tried on February 4 to demand false and misleading information regarding the Agricultural branch college be included in this section. At that time, he fabricated a claim that in 1948 the Texas legislature legally separated the Agricultural branch college from the university. This was an entire fabrication because in Texas, the legislature meets on odd years. There was no legislative session in 1948 and therefore it is an absolute impossibility that what he claimed to have happened actually did happen. My comments of February 4 detail this. I understand user Macae has a strong emotional attachment to the Agricultural branch college, but that emotional attachment does not entitle him to fabricate passages and demand their inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the university. Hos claims and fabrications would be more appropriate for inclusion on the Wikipedia page for the Agricultural branch college. Randolph Duke (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You have indeed deleted my entry three times in a row with zero consensus or even support from another editor of this article. Again, the information that I have posted IS valid, factual, and relevant. In stating that A&M was originally established as a branch of the University of Texas, the impression is made that A&M therefore is controlled by the subject university of this article. Such is not the case as supported by my statement and the citation included with that statement. If you believe that there is a better way to phrase the statement, I have no problem discussing and finding agreement regarding such possible revisions. With regards to your again mentioning the 1948 citation, I agreed with your revision and thanked you for making the correction. It is dishonest for you however to claim that this statement was "fabricated" by myself, as I provided a citation supporting the statement. There is a difference between using a citation that turns out to be incorrect, and "fabricating" a claim, Randolph. Please try and keep your bias in check. Macae (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For benefit of user Macae, I am posting the link to the 1913 act he claims establishes a separate board (SB 203). In fact, it merely sets the number of individuals on the board of the various institutions and fixes the terms of office. The 1913 act in no was mentions a separate board or any structure under which any board reports to any other entity. Finally, user Macae claims the 1881 and 1913 acts I have located asserts "Texas A&M already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas System's Board of Regents." This is a legal impossibility as in 1919, after the proposed amendments, there was no entity known as "Texas A&M" and there was no "University of Texas System's Board of Regents" so the acts could not have possibly mandated the structure he has incorrectly represented (the UT System did not even exist until 1950, "Texas A&M" didn't come into existence until 1963). In fact, Article 2607 of the document he offers as citation 41 (the 1925 Texas Restatement of Civil Statutes) begins its discussion of the Agricultural branch college by stating "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, located in Brazos County, and by the Constitution made and constituted a branch of the University of Texas..." indicating that as of 1925, the legislature realized that while functionally separate from the university, the Agricultural branch college was still legally a branch of the university. The fact remains the governing structure of the Agricultural branch college is a matter for the separate Wikipedia page of the Agricultural branch college. Further, the material and misleading statements of user Macae have no place in this Wikipedia entry and must be excluded. SM 203 (1913) http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/BillSearch/text.cfm?legSession=33-0&billtypeDetail=SB&billNumberDetail=203&billSuffixDetail=&startRow=1&IDlist=&unClicklist=&number=50 1925 RCS http://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925civ13.pdf Randolph Duke (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As user Macae has now, for the fourth time, tried to insert a particular passage that is not germane to this page and factually inaccurate on multiple points. He has refused to discuss this matter in the talk section (see my earlier comments of 24 February above). His activities at this point can only be considered vandalism and I ask that he be barred from again altering this Wikipedia page. On February 4 he also attempted to insert materially false information on this page. The passages he is continually attempting to insert on this page are not germane, not factual, not helpful and his refusal to discuss the misleading content he keeps trying to add suggests ill motive. It is time he be banned from this page. (edited to include signature) Randolph Duke (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And for the fourth time, Randolph Duke has deleted a valid, factual, and relevant statement from this article without any agreement or support from a single other wiki editor. The statement is not factually inaccurate as he claims, and as seen above, I HAVE discussed this following every deletion that he makes of this statement. This isn't vandalism, Randolph, but rather an edit war begun by yourself into which I also admittedly have become a participant. Please cease in deleting this valid statement until we can have a third party evaluate the article and potentially suggest revisions that satisfy all. Macae (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Memo entry to note the fifth time user Macae has vandalized this page by attempting to insert intentionally false and misleading statements and has refused repeated attempts to discuss his suggested changes prior to posting. he is turning this into an edit war and he must refrain from such activities. Randolph Duke (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism, but rather an edit war that you have initiated which has led to these multiple revisions. No one disputes the statement that I have added to the article, and a citation has been added in support of it. Please do not continue to delete until we can get a third party wiki editor to evaluate and suggest revisions that are acceptable to all. At this rate, you and I are both going to get banned as editors, and I can't say that we both might not deserve it. Do you not acknowledge that you have made much more than three reverts to the same portion of the article in the last 24 hours?Macae (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you for finally deciding to discuss your suggested edits. Had you doneso earlier, you would have saved me a lot of unnecessary effort. I again reoffermy posting from above "For benefit of user Macae, I am posting the link to the 1913 act he claims establishes a separate board (SB 203). In fact, it merely sets the number of individuals on the board of the various institutions and fixes the terms of office. The 1913 act in no was mentions a separate board or any structure under which any board reports to any other entity. Finally, user Macae claims the 1881 and 1913 acts I have located asserts "Texas A&M already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas System's Board of Regents." This is a legal impossibility as in 1919, after the proposed amendments, there was no entity known as "Texas A&M" and there was no "University of Texas System's Board of Regents" so the acts could not have possibly mandated the structure he has incorrectly represented (the UT System did not even exist until 1950, "Texas A&M" didn't come into existence until 1963)." Aside from those factual problems, the 881 act you claim addressed the Agricultural college did not such thing. Likewise the 1913 legislative act. You are posting factually incorrect information. Finally, information regarding the governance structure, tuition rate, entrance requirements or any other mundane facts about the Business college, College of Law, College of Engineering, Fine Arts, Agriculture or any other college are not germane to any discussion of the university. Why you feel one college should be discussed to the detriment of all the others shows a lack of objectivity. Regardless, the information you are attempting to post if factually inaccurate and not germane to the subject. Your continued attempts to knowingly post false information can. at this point, only be considered vandalism. Randolph Duke (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Feb 27 edits to "Growth" section and directed to user Macae: Ok, for what is now something like the tenth time, I am going to try to explain why the passage you insist on including has no place on this Wikipedia page.

1) The time frame being discussed in the passage is the immediate period after the 1919 failed constitutional amendment. You claim the legislature had mandated a separate governance structure for “Texas A&M.” There was no legal entity in 1919 known as “Texas A&M.” Texas A&M University was not a name that existed prior to 1963. If the legislature had mandated a separate governance structure for any entity, it was not “Texas A&M.” Therefore, please refer to the entity by the name the legislature referred to, not any successor-in-interest or successor-in-name. Jumping from historical era to historical era is not appropriate.

2) Neither the 1881 legislative act you refer to nor the 1919 legislative act mandate any governance structure for “Texas A&M” or any predecessor-in-interest or predecessor-in-name. If you believe otherwise, please cut and paste THE EXACT WORDING from the legislative act you believe mandates any particular governance structure for “Texas A&M” any predecessor-in-interest or predecessor-in-name. Citations for both the 1881 and 1913 legislative acts are provided above in sections where a discussion on this was attempted. You have failed to show where the passages you claim to be controlling actually originated. You seem to have just cut and past the legislative references from the 1925 RCS that refers to The University of Texas and, without reading them, have fabricated language in them that does not exist.

3) Please explain why the Agricultural branch college governance structure is a meaningful aspect of the growth of the university when the governance structure of no other college of the university is similarly treated. This mundane material regarding one branch of the college seems to be more appropriate for inclusion in the separate Wikipedia entry for that institution.

4) The governance structure of the Agricultural college is discussed in pgh 4 of the “Establishment” section, along with the history of its development. You claim a separate governance structure of the Agricultural branch was mandated by the legislature, yet you point to no actual legislative act that mandated it. In fact, the separate structure of the Agricultural college was a result of the federal Morrill Act that mandated separate accounting for the monies granted the state to establish the college. You are absolutely wrong stating the legislature mandated the governance of the Agricultural college was to be wholly separate from the university. In fact, the very act that established the Agricultural college specifically mentions the Agricultural college was to be subject to the act that established the university. This directly contradicts your belief that a separate governance structure was created in the act that organized the university (the 1881 act) and the act that set the numbers and terms of services for the various state educational boards (the 1913 act) (Act establishing the Ag college: Footnote 28 of Establishment Section, link provided here: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth6734/m1/928/ )

I look forward to your responses to these points and will refrain from any further edits for 24 hours in order to give you time to respond and to offer some evidence to support your statements where the citations you have offered have been proven to be without foundation. Randolph Duke (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First, you just incurred a 24 hour block for engaging in an edit war, and as soon as the block is removed, you immediately wish to start the edit war back up again?

Regarding point #1 - As I have already stated, I am fine using the official, but much longer name that was used at the time "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas". However to shorten the statement, I will use the abreviation TAMC that was also being used at the time. If you would prefer to use the longer name however, feel free to edit accordingly, but that does not require a deletion of the information.

Regarding point #2 - The citation I provided specifically states that the governance originates in the Legislative acts of 1881 and 1913.

Regarding point #3 - It is necessary to point out the governance structure of A&M due to the earlier language stating that A&M was a branch of the University of Texas. In making that statement, it provides the impression that A&M was under the governance of the University of Texas which is not the case. The statement is therefore providing clarifying information that is valid and relevant to the article. The governance structure of no other college need be included in this article, since no other college is listed as a branch of the University of Texas in this article.

Regarding point #4 - The portion of Texas civil statutes code listed in the citation I provided specifically states that governance of the school is vested in an independent board of directors.

You continue to delete valid and relevant information from this page, Randolph, without asking for or receiving support or consensus from ANY other wiki editors. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. I will make the change in Point #1 that we agree on and have already removed the "System" phrase from the statement based on previous conversations. With regards to the relevance of the statement, even if you disagree, please follow wiki procedure and leave in place until other editors have had the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the information. Macae (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the passage you are offering is that: 1) Information regarding the governance structure of the various colleges of the university is not germane to the University of Texas. The governance structure of the Medical branch, the School of Law, the Business college, the Agricultural college, the College of Engineering or any of the other colleges of the university is not certainly germane to the growth of the university. The information is germane only to the individual colleges and should be included on the separate Wikipedia pages for those colleges, not the university.

2) You insist on using the legislative act of 1881 that organized the university and contains not a word about the Agricultural branch college as a citation showing the Agricultural branch college was governed by a board of directors and that that board of directors was wholly independent of the UT Board of Regents. It is intellectually dishonest to use a citation you know full well does not address the Agricultural college in any way shape or form to assert the citation evidences a change in the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college. Use of the 1881 legislative act that mandates the governance structure of the university only. It does not speak to the Ag college. Wikipedia is only cheapened by false citations and fabrication of facts as you are doing.

3) Your use of the 1913 legislative act that sets the size and terms of the various education boards in the state, and mentions nothing of the reporting structure of the various boards, to assert the various boards are wholly independent of each other is intellectually dishonest. The Medical branch college, as the Agricultural branch college, was governed by a Board of Directors. The creation of a board of directors does not evidence the Board of Directors is independent of the Board of Regents. Only a direct mandate by the legislature that the Board of Directors would be wholly independent would make the Board of Directors wholly independent (I can't believe this your understanding of basic law has not already lead you to this understanding).

4) In the very 1876 act that established the Agricultural branch college, it states unequivocally the college shall be under the control of the university. This was reaffirmed by the 1876 Constitution when the Agricultural college was established as a branch of the university. The Medical branch college and the medical branch college were both given individual boards of governors and both remained branches of the university. Neither the 1881 nor the 1913 acts in any way mandated wholly independent Board of Directors for either the medical branch or the Agricultural branch. You need to show a legitimate legislative act that mandated an independent board for the Ag college. If you want to discuss the mundane governance matters of the Ag college, you have to explain how it came to be that the Ag college was both a branch of the university (as clearly stated in Sec 2607 of the 1925 RCS you used as a citation) and was supposedly also wholly independent. Basic logic seems to question how the same entity could be both at the same time, so the actual wording of the act that established such an arrangement is called for. In point "4" above you claim "The portion of Texas civil statutes code listed in the citation I provided specifically states that governance of the school is vested in an independent board of directors." I assume you mean Sec 2610. Please point to where Sec 2610 (or any other section discussing the Board of the Ag college) contains the word "independent." You have intentionally fabricated the existence of the word in the passage to create meaning the act does not contain. Your creation of words that do not exist in the original in an attempt to change the meaning of the cited legislative act is the nexus of your intellectual (and outright) dishonesty. The federal Morrill Act mandated a separate accounting structure for the Ag college, but you fail in spectacular fashion to show us where the "independent" board governing the ag college was created by the legislature. Outright and intellectually dishonest fabrications aside, you offer no evidence of such a board.

I propose some compromise language such as:

"In the aftermath of the failed attempts to separate the Agricultural college from the university, confusion reigned as to the actual governance structure of the ag college with respect to the university Board of Regents. This confusion continues to this day. In 1925, the legislature reaffirmed the Ag college to be a branch of the university (Sec 2610 RCS 1925) and affirmed the governance of the Ag college was to be handled by its Board of Directors (2610 RCS 1925). This structure was identical to that of the university's medical branch college. Supporters of the Ag college have relied on tradition and legend to assert at some unknown time in the immediate aftermath of the Ag college's creation, the college was separated in all manners from the university and that Art 7, Sec 13 of the Constitution was just a humorous aside without meaning. Ag college tradition also says the repeated incidences of the legislature referring to the Ag college as a branch of the university was just repeated instances of "sips trying to hold the great giant down" and that those references have no meaning. Historians, on the other hand, dismissing the Ag college traditions and legends, rely on the historical record to assert both the Agricultural branch college and medical branch college were established as branches of the university and, while the Ag college and the Medical college were given separate Boards of Directors which established functional independence, both colleges legally remained branches of the university."

Randolph Duke (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1) I believe that mention of the governance structure of A&M IS germane to this article, since it clarifies the level of control that the University of Texas has over A&M. As we both agree and as you have posted in this article, the 1876 act states that A&M shall be a "branch" of the University of Texas. It does NOT unequivocally state that A&M will be under control of the University. However that is certainly the assumption and implication presented. Which is why there is value in this article to therefore point out that A&M is NOT controlled by the University of Texas and instead has its own board of directors. So.... if you believe that mentioning A&M as a branch of the University of Texas is important, then mentioning the level of (or lack thereof) governance over A&M is also important. Alternately, we could delete both mentions if you would prefer, if you believe that the information isn't valuable enough to remain in an already long article. My personal opinion is that it probably makes sense to leave both in place.

2) I have NOT cited legislative act of 1881 and have not read that act. Instead my citation points to the revised civil statutes of 1925 which in turn references past acts in support of the statute cited in this official state document/act. If you wish to revise the statement in the article to refer only to this revised civil statute of 1925, I have no problem with such a revision. I do take issue however with your continued insistence and claims that I am fabricating and/or being dishonest with my statements and citations, and claiming to have knowledge of what I "know". That is a bad assumption being made on your part, Randolph, and an unfair attack. Again, I am citing an OFFICIAL state document which is recognized as part of our statutes in this state. I believe that such IS accepted as a valid citation by Wiki.

Additional information - Please see Chapter LXXII of the 1881 Legislative Session - http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth6729/m1/169/ - You are absolutely incorrect when you claim that the legislative acts of 1881 does not contain a word about the governance or Board of Directors of A&M. Macae (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

3) Your assumption that the Board of Directors for A&M reported to the University of Texas Board of Regents is yet more reason that we need to include mention of the governance structure of the College. And since there appears to be confusion regarding that reporting structure, we can probably agree that an additional citation would be beneficial in explaining that reporting structure. Take a look at http://www.tamus.edu/regents/history/ which specifically states that the Board of Directors originally consisted of several executive members along with members elected by the Texas Legislature. The citation also mentions that the 1881 act changed the process so that the A&M Board of Directors were all appointed by the Governor of Texas. The citation makes it unequivocally clear that the Board of Directors for A&M was independent of the University of Texas Board of Regents. Rather than add this citation myself, I will wait for your agreement as to the benefit of this clarifying citation, or we can include it when we add the compromise statement.

4) With regards to your claiming that I fabricated the independent nature of the A&M Board with regards to the University of Texas Board of Regents.... See 3) above. It was NOT a fabrication as you erroneously have claimed, but simply a situation where an additional citation supporting that independence is probably of benefit.

Regarding your proposed compromise statement - It appears that you have included much language that is opinion based and loaded with your own personal bias against Texas A&M University. You claim that confusion regarding the governance structure existed following the 1919 failed amendment and continues to this day. I don't believe that such is the case and you have provided no citation supporting such confusion. Just because A&M remained a branch of the University of Texas does not mean that there was any confusion as to the governance or reporting structure of the College. Your suggestion that supporters of A&M have claimed that the College was "separated in all manners" and believe that Art 7, sec 13 was just "a humerous aside without meaning", has not been claimed in this article nor have you provided any citations supporting such assertions. You then continue to offer additional claims that you do not support with citations and which have not been stated in this article. I therefore fail to see the relevance in making such statements, other than in support of your own personal opinions and biases. As an example - No one (other than yourself) to my knowledge has attempted to use in this article the derogatory word "sips" to reference supporters of the University of Texas; Is that a term that you really believe is appropriate for this article? Finally, in your last few proposed sentences talk about dismissal of Aggie traditions and legends and stating once more that A&M was a branch of the University of Texas. Why are you continuing to argue the statement about being a branch of the University when that particular fact has been agreed upon and is not in dispute? And why do you believe that such a statement needs to be made yet again, considering how many times (3 time previously?) it has already been made in the article? Such multiple inclusions of a single fact in this article are extremely redundant and not in the least bit necessary. Macae (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of user Macae, and in support of the proposed compromise language above, I offer the following:

You wrongly claim I agree the 1876 act establishing the Ag college constituted it as a branch of the university. The Constitution established the Ag college as a branch of the university. The 1876 act (Sec 5) mandated "control, management and supervision" of the college and "care and preservation of its property" would be under the university. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth6734/m1/928/

I refer to the Biennial Report of the Board of Directors of the A&M College of Texas (1909-1010) [ https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofag1906agri#page/n87/mode/2up ].

This document outlines both the 1913 legislative changes in the board of directors of the ag college (that Macae somehow interprets to have mandated an "independent" board of directors) and the overall relationship between the university and the Ag college. The errors in Macae's understanding are both numerous and substantive. Nowhere in the 1909-1910 report (a document written by the AMC Board, not written by "sips") is there any representation that the Ag college is anything other than a branch of the university. Nowhere in the report is there any representation that the legislative mandate asserting control of the Ag college under the university had been altered. Nowhere in the report does the AMC board assert it is independent of the UT Board of Regents. Rather, the AMC board clearly states its functions were "separate and distinct." (page 5, pgh 1). This is entirely consistent with the explanation offered for the separate reporting structure set forth in the "Establishment" section of this Wiki page. As this clearly sets forth the AMC board was "separate and distinct" the use of the word "independent" must be removed as specious and misleading. As the separate reporting structure of the AMC board was fully discussed in the "Establishment" section, there is no need to repeat it unchanged in any form, in the "Growth" section. Macae's passage should be removed as it is not germane and repetitive. In support of this, I offer user Macae's wording "Such multiple inclusions of a single fact in this article are extremely redundant and not in the least bit necessary."

The report (pages 4-5) also goes into detail describing various financial arrangements in which the university partially funded the operations of the Ag college out of its operating budget and that the ag college received those funds as "Branch of the University" (quotes in the original). This passage negates any claim that the Ag college was always an entirely independent entity from the beginning of its existence. Claiming the Ag college was independent of the university would materially mislead the reader.

The report goes on to request the legislature to adjust the term of the board of directors of the college to eight years (p 5, item 2 under pgh 2). This was effected in the 1913 legislative act user Macae claims established the "independent" board (that the board itself characterized and merely "separate and distinct.)" Accordingly, The use of the 1913 act to support Macae's specious claim that the legislature mandates an "independent" AMC board of directors must not be allowed as it is intellectually dishonest to use a fraudulent citation to support a fabricated set of facts.

User Macae might want to avail himself of the Source Book of The University of Texas (1917) where all legislative acts relevant to the establishment of the university (and its branches) can be found in one volume. (Available free via Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=G50aAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=source+book+university+of+texas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zYT0VOP-HoaUNsSKgoAJ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=source%20book%20university%20of%20texas&f=false )

Again, the Ag college had a board that was separate and distinct of the university Board of Regents in 1910 (not independent) and the college was unequivocally a branch of the university in 1910. The neither the 1881 nor the 1913 legislative acts mandated an independent Ag college board and the reporting structure of the ag college was thoroughly discussed in the "Establishment" section of this Wiki entry. Can we now dispose of user Macae's specious claims about the control of the Ag college in the same manner we disposed of his specious claims the legislature created a separate AMC System in 1948? Both claims have been thoroughly and extensively discredited as false, disingenuous and misleading. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited to correct typos in earlier comments Randolph Duke (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We both agree that the 1876 Constitution states that A&M is to be set up as a branch of the University of Texas. No one is disputing that fact and to continue to try and claim otherwise is unproductive. With regards to the 1909 report, the reference "separate and distinct" governance, makes it clear that the Board of Directors for A&M operated independently of the Board of Regents for the University of Texas. Including this in the article clarifies, rather than misleads, with respect to the governance and reporting structure of the College.

Nowhere in the "Establishment" portion of this article is it mentioned that the governance of A&M is independent of the University of Texas Board of Regents and is selected instead by the governor. It is certainly not therefore repetitive to include it in the expansion portion of the article, and it certainly is relevant to the article and section.

You mention various funding arrangements in which A&M received funds as a result of being a branch of the University of Texas. Again that relationship is not being challenged. However that relationship and funding does not mean that the College did not therefore operate independently of the University of Texas Board of Regents. Instead it simply suggests that the legislature was using the relationship as a means to provide funding for the College.

The statement that I made to the article did NOT say that A&M was independent of the University as you are claiming. Instead the statement says that A&M is controlled independently of the University of Texas Board of Regents. You have yet to provide a citation showing that such is not the case, while I have provided citations showing that it was indeed the case.

Macae (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An earlier edit of mine is not showing, so I will offer it again. The point of contention here is the fabrication of the word "independent" to describe the relationship of the Ag college Board of Directors. The Board itself in 1910 recognized its relationship to be "separate and distinct" not "independent." The words of the board should be kept in the original unless some legislative act can be produced to better define the relationship.

The missing edit: I have read the act of the legislature dated March 30,1881 and now see where user Macae is referring to the setting of terms of the Ag college Board of Directors. As he failed to offer any citation earlier and simply referred to "1881" it was unclear just which legislative act was being referred to. No reasonable reading of the March 30, 1881 act can lead one to arrive at a conclusion that the intent of the legislature at that time was to alter reporting responsibilities of the board of directors. A reading of the act indicates the legislature mandated the board would consist of five members, that they would be appointed by the governor and then the legislature addressed other miscellaneous matters of business. Keeping in mind in 1910, the Ag college board recognized its activities with respect to the university Board of Regents to be "separate and distinct" and not "independent," please copy and paste where the March 30, 1881 act is believed to modify the board of directors to be "independent." Unless some clear legal construct can be produced that established the Ag college to be anything other than "separate and distinct" (as the Ag board of directors saw itself in 1910), "separate and distinct" are the words that should be used to describe the relationship between the Ag college Board of Directors and the university Board of Regents. Also, to avoid confusion, as there seems to be no identifiable difference in the "separate and distinct" nature of the Ag college Board of Directors and "separate and distinct" nature of the Medical college Board of Directors, I suggest the following compromise language (unless someone wants to include the "independent" description of the board of directors which would necessitate also including the descriptor "according to tradition and legend."):

"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to separate the Agricultural branch college, both the Agricultural college and Medical college remained branch colleges of the university, each with their own separate and distinct boards of directors." Randolph Duke (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We are getting closer to a compromise statement it appears. I would suggest that there is no need to include reference to the Medical College since it doesn't appear that either amendment sought to create such independence. I believe that using the term "independence" is, by definition, a valid term to use as it clarifies the Board's relationship to the University of Texas Board of Regents. To use such term in no way relies upon "tradition or legend", but instead relies upon definition of the term. However, I also am OK to use the "separate and distinct" language. However in doing so, I believe that we also need to clarify that this "separate and distinct" status resulted in the Board of Directors being under the control of the Governor of Texas rather than reporting to the University of Texas Board of Regents. I would therefore suggest as a compromise, the following -

"In the aftermath of these failed amendments, the Agricultural college remained a branch college of the University of Texas, with each school continuing to maintain a separate and distinct governing Board of Directors."

Macae (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Of all the words I have known to be used to describe the leaders of the Agricultural branch college, "overly reserved," "shy" and "understated" are not what come to mind. If the Ag college Board of Directors, all esteemed academics, saw fit to best describe their relationship to the university Board of Regents as "separate and distinct" it is inappropriate of us laymen today to posit a set of facts under which their words need to be modified. "Separate and distinct" were the words the Board of Directors purposely chose to describe their relationship to the university Regents and those words, in their original, are most proper to use today to describe the relationship at that time unless some legislative act that specifically uses the word "independent" to describe the relationship can be produced. Had the Board of Directors wanted to use the word "independent" it would have.

As for specifying the Agricultural college to the exclusion of the medical college, which had the identical governance structure as the Ag college, save an except the need for segregation of funds pursuant to the federal Morrill Act, I still maintain mundane facts such as the governance structure of any individual college of the university is not germane to this section. Nothing about a particular branch college directly related to the growth of the main university, save and except the efforts in 1915 and 1919 to reorganize the university. In recapping the structure of the university in the aftermath of the failed attempts to reorganize the university in 1919, the structure of the Ag college differed in no material way (save and except the Morrill Act provisions) from the governance of the Medical college. To mention one to the exclusion of the other makes no sense. Discussion of one is no more, nor no less, germane than the other. Inclusion of both clarifies the governance of neither differed from the other. Inclusion of one infers that college has some special significance with respect to the other. Again, discussion of the governance structure of the colleges is appropriate for their individual Wikipedia pages, not for inclusion on the Wikipedia page of the university. From the perspective of the university, one was no more nor less significant than the other and therefore either both should be mentioned to recap the overall structure of the university at the time or neither should be mentioned at all. The phrase "each school" you suggest is misleading in that the University of Texas did not have a Board of Directors. Each college (the Ag and the Medical) had a separate and distinct Board of Directors. The university had a Board of Regents. Randolph Duke (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You continue to make assumptions and opinions a base for your position. In this case, you are making assumptions as to the frame of mind of the A&M Board of Directors. Further, you are basing that assumption on a single document. But it would seem to be a moot point anyway, as I have already stated my willingness to use the "separate and distinct" verbiage, as long as we qualify who they are separate and distinct from.

I continue to disagree with your claim that a statement on the governance of A&M is not germane to the article, given that the article in multiple places states the branch college relationship. As such, it is important to therefore distinguish in some greater detail what "branch college" entails.

With regards to A&M and the Medical College, the difference is that A&M, unlike the Medical School, opened prior to the Austin branch of the University of Texas opening; it was funded in a different manner using federal funds; it was proposed to become a separate institution with the mentioned amendments, whereas the Medical school was not; and A&M unlike the Medical School is mentioned multiple times as being a branch of the University of Texas. As a result of all of those dissimilarities, the governance of A&M merits a much greater need for clarification in this article than does the Medical School.

Regarding your your Board of Regents versus Board of Directors concern - the terms are equivalent in function. But with different names, perhaps we can simply rephrase the statement to read ".....with each school continuing to maintain a separate and distinct governing Board."

Macae (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Any discussion that exclusively discusses the status Agricultural branch college needs to be removed to the separate page concerning that institution. When a given branch college opened, how it was funded or any other details particular to the individual branch college is a matter for the separate Wikipedia page for that institution. After the failed amendments to restructure the university in 1919, what the reader will want to know is the structure of the university at that time, not details concerning the governance structure of one individual branch college with no mention whatsoever of other, similarly suited branch colleges. Either the governance structure of all the branch colleges or none of the branch colleges would be germane to a reader wanting to know more about the university. Selectively choosing one branch college doesn't help the reader understand the overall structure of the university after the failed restructuring. Emphasizing one branch college must be avoided unless the emphasis of the branch college directly affects the Growth of the university (the sub-section of the overall Wikipedia page we are discussing). The governance of one branch college did not directly affect the growth of the university and therefore should be moved from the UT Austin Wiki page to the individual page for the branch college. Again, from the perspective of the university, the separate and distinct nature of the Boards of Directors both branch colleges makes one indistinguishable from the other. At most, the section at issue should discuss the attempt to restructure the university, the structure of the university after the failed restructuring (without selective highlighting of one branch college) and that should be the end of the discussion of the branch colleges. The medical college arguably had greater significance to the university in 1920. To selectively highlight the Ag college to the exclusion of the more significant Medical branch college seems unwarranted. Either both or neither should be discussed. Randolph Duke (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment to address the statement concerning the university Board of Regents being indistinguishable from the branch college's Board of Directors. The reader should be left to determine for themselves the relevant significance and meaning of the two terms. At no point in the historical record were the two terms used interchangeably. In 1975 the Ag College (then called "Texas A&M University") saw its "Board of Directors" restyled to a "Board of Regents." Obviously, the Board of Directors of Texas A&M disagree with you that there was no differentiation between the two designations as there is no reason to believe the TAMU Board of Directors would have effected a change that had no meaning or justification. As there is a contemporaneous differentiation in the use of the terms at the times being discussed in this page, the specific terms should be uniformly used in this page. To simply claim "each school had a board" is misleading and inaccurate. The university wasn't characterized as a "school." It was characterized as a "university." Likewise, the Ag branch college wasn't referred to as a "school," it was referred to as a "college." At the times being discussed, the state of Texas had a "Permanent University Fund" to fund the university. It also had a "Permanent School Fund" to fund public schools. Unquestionably, "school," "university" and "college" all had recognized separate meanings at the time being discussed and those terms should be used in their original, without conflating the terms. Therefore, the wording of the description of the structure of the university after the failed restructuring attempt should read:

"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, both the Agricultural college and Medical college remained branch colleges of the university, each with their own separate and distinct boards of directors." (edit to add signature) Randolph Duke (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In seeking to include the fact that A&M was designated as a branch of the University of Texas, discussion of that College is therefore relevant to an article on the University of Texas. The only question is to how much text and discussion of the branch college is appropriate. We haven't discussed it yet, but since A&M is officially a part of the University of Texas, we probably need to add a statement noting when A&M first opened its doors to students. With regard to our previous discussions, to not point out the "separate and distinct" nature of the governing boards for each school, could lead to a lack of understanding of the actual relationship between the two. With regards to why it is more appropriate to mention the governance of A&M and not the Medical school, please see previous comments. Regarding the terminology between a Board of Regents and a Board of Directors - a Board of Regents tends to govern a University System with multiple campuses, whereas a Board of Directors typically governs a single college or university. Which is yet another reason that the separate but distinct governance of A&M merits inclusion in this article, since the use of the University of Texas Board of Regents could imply governing control over A&M which does not exist. However with regard to the two terms, I have no problem if you want to use the official term for each school. I used the more generic "governing board" because I believed that it provided the necessary description, while not making the sentence overly wordy. But I am fine if you can figure out a way to utilize the other terms in that sentence. In the same manner, I used "schools" instead of University and College in order to cut down on the wordiness of the statement. But again, I have no problem with you using those other, more specific terms if it doesn't overly complicate the sentence. I did replace the Agricultural and Mechanical College with it's shortened TAMC designation at one point. But if you would prefer to use the complete name, I am fine with that as well. With the above discussions in mind, how about the following statement -

"In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Macae (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The information regarding the establishment of the Agricultural branch college is already included, including a link to the act establishing it, a through explanation of the reason for the separate reporting structure, the fact it had a separate endowment and even the sources of its separate endowment. The Medical school has also been sufficiently discussed, down to the number of votes responsible for its establishment in Galveston. The Agricultural branch college has its own individual Wikipedia page which has been linked to this page. Details you are asking for that are specific to that college should be on the page of that college. Those wanting to know of the governance structure of a either branch college in 1920 are going to go to the Wikipedia page for that institution. Save and except for the information pertaining to the establishment of the university and its subordinate branch colleges, the less said about either branch college on this page, the better. Anything that might need to be said should be said on the individual Wikipedia pages for those institutions.

The justification of the mention of the Ag branch college with respect to the attempted restructuring is because mentioning an attempted restructuring without mentioning the nature of the restructuring would have been incomplete. I understand you feel it important to go into detail concerning the governance structure one only one of the university's branch colleges to prevent "a lack of understanding of the actual relationship between the two." The subject in the paragraph at issue is the attempted restructuring of the university and the structure of the university in its aftermath. I doubt any reader would find the specific relationship between the university and only its Agricultural branch college to be of primary importance on this page. The importance (if any) would be the relationship between the university and its branch colleges in total. The relationship from the perspective of the Ag college is wholly unimportant as this is the page about the university. What would be important would be the relationship between the university and its subordinate branch colleges. As the two colleges had identical governance structures (remotely located with separate and distinct Boards of Directors), discussion of only one of two co-equals arguably risks creating the very "lack of understanding of the actual relationship" you deem so important to avoid (that the significance of one branch college was greater than the significance of the other). Perhaps you would be better served directing your energies to editing the Wikipedia page of Texas A&M University, so those wanting to more fully understand the development governance structure of that institution might more readily find that information where they are most likely to look for it. As I have said, that page is linked to this page and those needing to learn more the the minutiae of that institution would reasonably look to that page.

The relationship between the university and its branch Agricultural and Mechanical department has been fully developed from the 1876 establishment of the Ag college under the "control, management and supervision" of the University of Texas (words in quotes taken from the original), through the federally mandated separated accounting structure to its separate and distinct board of directors. Anything more that might be said would be a stylistic interpretation of the facts already established and such interpretations must be left up to the reader. The words "control, management and supervision," "college," "university" and "separate and distinct" are purposely taken from the original. It is not up to us, as writers, to interpret, embellish, translate, stylize or nuance. The original authors were intelligent enough to understand the plain meaning of the words when they chose them and it is our responsibility to transmit those words, unaltered in any way, shape or fashion, for the reader to interpret as they see appropriate and certainly without modern "more generic" applications of alternate terms. Had the authors believed alternate terms to be more appropriate, they would have used them. It is wholly inappropriate under any circumstances for us to intentionally alter their writings.

The passage under discussion should read :

"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, both the Agricultural college and Medical college remained branch colleges of the university, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." or

"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Randolph Duke (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, since there IS a relationship between the University of Texas Austin and A&M and such relationship is mentioned in detail in this article, it is therefore logical and reasonable to explain and clarify the nature of that relationship in this article. Such is done when mentioning the separate governing board of each institution. Further, you are claiming that no one would find the separate governance structure of primary importance. First, I never claimed it was of "primary" importance. I don't think that the governance structure, nor that branch college of A&M to be of primary importance in this article. That does not however, mean that either of those statements doesn't still merit mention, even if of secondary importance. Second, you are making an assumption that no one cares about the governance relationship between the two schools, although you have nothing but your own personal opinion supporting such an assumption. I could make a similar assumption about the mention of A&M being a branch college.

You complain about alternate words being used, even though I have already agreed to the use of "College", "University" and "Separate and Distinct". I didn't make up those words, Randolph. I even invited you to try and construct the statement that utilized those terms while not becoming unwieldy.

With regards to the Medical College, neither Constitutional Amendment tried to separate the Medical campus from the University of Texas, nor is there any indication in this article that the Medical Campus has a separate and distinct governance structure as does A&M. For these reasons, along with the others previously sited, it does not make sense, nor is it required to include the Medical campus in the statement related to the A&M governance structure.

As such, I propose that the statement should read -

"In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."

Hopefully we can find some unbiased third party editors to provide some input and support for one of these statements, or is willing to provide a further compromise statement. Until then, it probably is not appropriate for either of us to make any changes that we have not agreed on. Agreed?

Thanks. Macae (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The best option is to avoid the mention of either of the branch colleges by name in discussing the structure of the university in the aftermath of the failed restructuring. Specific mention of the branch colleges adds nothing to an understanding of the growth of the main university. This way, no impressions regarding any one of the branch colleges is made. As of 1919, both branch colleges had the same governance structure and moving forward from 1919, neither of the branch colleges had any particular significance to the growth and development of the main university. Therefore, the best option is to state:

"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."

Should any detailed discussion of the governance structure of either branch college be called for, it can be included on the independent Wikipedia page of the institution, along with a detailed section addressing any perceived misperceptions individuals believe exist concerning the importance a particular governance structure had on the growth and/or development of that particular institution. As the separate and distinct governance structure of the branch colleges had no direct impact on the main university after 1919 (or before, to be honest), mentioning either branch college by name (save and except to discuss their eventual separation from the main university) is wholly unwarranted. Although the Medical branch college was separated from the main university by the Board of Regents in the early 1950s as part of the development of the UT System that separation, although highly significant to the Medical branch college, has not been mentioned in on the UT Austin Wikipedia page because its impact is specific only to the medical branch college, and not to the growth of the main university. One should not be surprised if mentions of matters that draw the primary focus on either of the branch colleges is left out of this Wikipedia page for the main university as the overwhelming focus of this page is the main university. The inclusion of the individual Agricultural branch college in the statement you are suggesting places a focus on the Agricultural college, not the main university (just as the information regarding the severance of the Medical college places an unwarranted focus on the Medical college and therefore is more appropriate for inclusion on that institution's page and/or the UT System's page) Any mention of a specific aspect of either branch college that is not germane specifically to the main university should be left off the page for the main university. Hence, the specific mention of the Agricultural college you are asking for is best suited for the Wikipedia page for that institution, not on the Wikipedia page for the main university.

To include a specific mention of the Agricultural branch in 1919 would necessitate further specific clarification of the Agricultural branch's relationship to the main university here, as a matter of continuity, it would necessitate similar mentions of the status in other instances and on other Wikipedia pages such as the TAMU Wikipedia page and TAMU System pages discussing the 1948 creation of the TAMU System, the 1963 name change and the 1975 re-designation of the TAMU Board of Directors to the TAMU Board of Regents. If the specific relationship with the Agricultural branch college after the 1919 attempted restructuring were to be included here, style consistency would require that same relationship would need to be clarified at every other instance where the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college was at issue. The break has to be made somewhere and I dare say neither of us wants to have this exact same discussion when editing the TAMU College Station and TAMU System Wikipedia pages. Let's go with the non-name specific wording offered above and be done with this. If you want to carry this over to the other TAMU specific Wikipedia pages, in the interest of historical clarity and editorial integrity I will reluctantly honor your request. Randolph Duke (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, since the article spends several paragraphs discussing the relationship Between A&M and UT, it is therefore logical and relevant to include mention of the governance relationship between the two schools. If you would prefer to include this mention in the previous paragraphs discussing A&M, I am fine with that.

Also as previously mentioned, since much more discussion is made in the article regarding the A&M structure as compared to the medical school structure, it becomes more necessary and relevant to properly cover the governance structure. Further, since the Constitutional amendments involved the separation of A&M and did not involve the separation of the Medical school, it makes sense that A&M's governance is mentioned while the medical school does not. Also, you claim that making a mention of the governance structure of A&M places primary focus on A&M. I don't believe that a single clarifying statement does that, and certainly not anywhere as much as the multiple paragraphs you have already created concerning A&M. And, since A&M is a branch college of the University of Texas, discussion of the school IS part of and relevant to this article since it IS part of the main university.

Regarding the merit of including the "separate and distinct" governance structure of A&M in that particular wiki article, such may be a reasonable inclusion. But I am not an editor on that article page so it is probably something that needs to be discussed with the editors over there.

In light of the above comments, I believe that the most appropriate way to make the article statement remains -

"In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."

Macae (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User, Macae: Can you condense the guidelines that you are applying for the inclusion of information specific to the ag college that is not the subject of this page, we can bring other editors into this debate, pls. You believe the post-1919 governance structure of the Ag college was of particular importance to the growth of the main university. I can't fathom how that particulars of the structure, as opposed to any alternative structure, has significance to the growth of the main university. Since we are now working to agree on the guidelines for inclusion of information not specific to the topic of the page, we should make sure they are applied to all associated pages, primarily the TAMU College Station page and the TAMU System page. I believe it would be best to begin updating those pages to include the guidelines you are trying to have applied to this page. Possibly we can get some feedback from individuals involved with those pages to get agreement on some general guidelines. Would you like to be the one to begin altering those pages to specifically mention the establishment of TAMU as a branch of The University of Texas, that after the failed restructuring the Ag college remained a branch, that the relationship wasn't altered in 1948, 1963, 1975 or at any time and that both TAMU College Station and the entire TAMU System are still legally branches of UT Austin? If not, I will handle it. Should you wish, I could refer them to you to discuss the proper guidelines for information of the type you feel is so important to establish an understanding of the post-1919 growth of The University of Texas at Austin. If we are going to involve other editors, for the sake of consistency, we should apply the same treatment of such material to all related pages. I feel those involved with editing the TAMU-specific pages will be more closely aligned with my belief that if it is not germane to the subject of the page and only serves to place a focus on an extraneous subject, it should not be included. However, I look forward to your support on those pages that material specific to the University of Texas at Austin be richly included.

As for the time being, I believe it best to rely on the less specific version and wait for others to opine on whether the governance structure of only one branch college adds to an understanding of the growth of the university or simply adds bias to the article by implying the governance structure of one branch college was instrumental in the growth the the university. Moving to a comprehensive and non-biased statement seems best and I will effect the change as follows, awaiting further discussion involving other editors as to proper guidelines before making any additional changes to the passage:

"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."

Randolph Duke (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The change was made to the non-specific mention of the branch colleges and clarifying "separate and distinct." The information asserting the legislature mandated the separate reporting structure was removed as it was misleading and incorrect. As mentioned earlier, while the legislature unquestionably set the number of directors for the branch colleges and their terms of office, it was the federal Morrill act that mandated the separate reporting structure for the Ag college board, not the state legislature, therefore asserting the state legislature did so in either 1881, or 1913 was incorrect. Randolph Duke (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As a state college, it was up to the Texas legislature not, not the Federal government, to define the roles, responsibility and governance structure of A&M. And such was done and cited. Now if you wish to include additional notation and citation stating that A&M has always had a separate reporting structure as a result of the federal Morrill Act, then I am fine with that.

You stated that information specific to A&M is not the subject of this page. First, in choosing to make so many mentions of A&M being a branch college of the University of Texas, you are the one who made the initial decision that information regarding A&M was relevant to this page. Second, information regarding the governance relationship between A&M and the University of Texas IS most relevant to this page since it provides clarifying information as to the nature of the relationship that the subject of this article has with another university which, as a branch college, is also part of the subject of this article.

As I mentioned previously, I have not recently read, nor have I made any edits in articles on other universities in Texas or elsewhere. If you believe that adding additional information to those pages is needed, it is probably an issue that you need to take up with the editors on those pages, rather than trying to have that discussion here. This talk page is specific to this particular University.

You continue to wish to refer to the medical school in the compromise statement, but have not yet addressed the fact that the two Consitutional amendments proposed did not attempt to break away the medical school from the University of Texas as they attempted to do with A&M. For that and other reasons previously discussed, it is not logical and does not make sense to lump that school in with A&M following a discussion of those two failed amendment attempts.

You again have attempted to make an edit to this article without first reaching a compromise between us, and without the support of any other editors of this article. I have therefore reverted to the statement that was in place before you and I were both called out for our edit warring. Please do not change this statement until we either reach a compromise agreement, or until other third party editors weigh in on the matter. Otherwise, we risk starting up another edit war.

15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me also make another suggestion to you and other editors of this article. This article is titled "The University of Texas - Austin". It is my belief that this article should therefore be confined to discussion of the University of Texas campus located in Austin. There is a separate article page for the University of Texas System, which would seem to be a more appropriate place for inclusion of any other campuses that might have a relationship to the University of Texas. As currently written, there is much information that doesn't relate to the Austin campus, is much better suited for the University System page and which could easily be removed without impacting the value of this article.

Macae (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User Macae: I believe your bias toward Texas A&M University or your lack of command of the subject matter is interfering with your objectivity in attempting to edit this page. We may all be better served if you would recuse yourself from further edits. If you remember, on Feb 4, you attempted to include erroneous information concerning an entirely fabricated act of the Texas legislature in 1948 you claimed created a separate TAMU system. You followed that up by insisting that the state legislature, in either 1881 or 1913, created an independent Board of Directors for Agricultural college. The words of the Board of Directors dispelled that myth. You have attempted to nuance and outright change the words from their original to seemingly create an impression that, in 1919, the Agricultural college was legally other than still under the "control, management ans supervision" of the Board of Regents of the university. Now, you have embarked on yet another attempt to mislead.

This is again becoming an instance of vandalism on your part for knowingly inserting false and misleading information. For the past weeks, we have been discussing the relationship of the university's Board of Regents to the Agricultural branch college's Board of Directors. I offered the exact words of the Ag college's Board of Directors from 1910 that described the relationship as "separate and distinct." Therefore, you are unquestionably aware the 1881 citation you offer could not have created any relationship other than one that can be describes at "separate and distinct." The fact remains that the 1881 legislative act you cited in no way mandates the Board of Directors of the Agricultural college to be "separate." Please sit somewhere quiet, carefully read the words of the act you have cited and take in their substance. the act merely organized the structure of the Ag college board. It in no way addresses whether the Board reports to the UT Regents, the Legislature, the Governor, the Speaker of the Senate or any individual or entity. If you are to be continued to be allowed to edit this page, you must cease offering false, fraudulent and intentionally misleading information and false, fraudulent and intentionally misleading citation references. The fact is the state legislature has never mandated any reporting structure for the Ag college Board other than that the college (and by extension the college's Board) would be under the "control, management and supervision" of the Board of Regents of the university. As those words are taken from the act that established the Ag college, any discussion of the change of that relationship must clearly assert an alternate legal entity that would assume the under the "control, management ans supervision" of the college. Your assertion that "TAMC already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas's Board of Regents" is fraudulent. You purposely replace the words "separate and distinct" purposely chosen by the Board itself with the fraudulent and misleading "independently." Such continued intentional misrepresentations at this point can only be considered as malicious vandalism.

The 1925 Restatement of Civil Statues did not in any way "consolidate" any previous legislative acts. The restatement simply restated the legislative acts. Again, your intentional misrepresentation of facts at this point can only be considered as malicious vandalism.

So, in 1881, the Texas legislature absolutely did not mandate the Agricultural branch college's board to be separate. You know this, yet you intentionally and maliciously assert otherwise. In 1913, the Texas legislature absolutely did not mandate the Agricultural branch college's board to be separate. in 1913, the legislature merely acted to set the size and terms of office of the members of the Board. No mention whatsoever was made of changing the nature of the Board of Directors from "separate and distinct" to "independent." You know this, yet you intentionally and maliciously assert otherwise. The TAMU Board of Directors (by the Board's own admission in 1910) has never been "independently controlled." Through its entire existence, the Board of Directors was "separate and distinct." The constitutionally mandated branch status of the relationship of the Ag college to the university would preclude a legislative mandate that would make the Ag college "independent." You know this, yet you intentionally and maliciously assert otherwise.

You must cease and desist in maliciously editing this page to include information you know to be untrue and misleading. You have been doing this for well over a month and it is well past time you cease and desist. There are other edits in this page that, with the assistance of university officials, need to be made. Your vandalism is interfering with the work of others. Please cease and desist. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Randolph - You accuse me of bias and yet your own bias against A&M is well documented and I believe is driving many of the edits that you wish to make in this article. Are you suggesting that your viewpoint is subjective and that you have no bias against A&M or towards the University of Texas?

You have accused me of "fabricating" the 1948 referenced statement, while ignoring that I provided a citation supporting that statement. Once additional information was provided indicating that citation was incorrect, I agreed to the change in language and thanked you for the correction. I have zero problem with providing accurate information and correcting that information that is shown to be invalid; whether supplied by you, I, or another editor.

Additionally, you have attempted to use a comment from the A&M board of directors to determine legal roles and governance in this article. A single opinion statement from that board does NOT make for legislative statute, as you should be aware, nor does it dispel any "myths". But in the interest of compromise, I have agreed to your desire to use the "separate and distinct" language offered by that board statement. The previous entry that I reverted to uses the word "independent". But I am fine with replacing it with our agreed upon language. I did not do so at this time, because I believe that we should not be making ANY changes to the statement unless you and I agree with the new statement or other editors weigh in first. But if we can agree to make this sole and solitary change for now, I have no problem with you doing so.

You are claiming that A&M was, in 1919, was legally under the "control, management, and supervision" of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas. Yet the Texas statutes do not state that such is not the case, nor have you provided any citations showing that such is the case. But what I have provided is a citation from the 1925 statute that encompasses previous acts and clarifies the roles, responsibility and structure of A&M. It specifically includes the statement that government of the College will be done by a board of directors, and goes on to state that the board of directors is selected by and reports to the Governor. Nowhere in the statute is any mention that governance or even reporting of these board of directors goes through the University of Texas Board of Regents. In providing this citation, and using the "separate and distinct" language that you yourself suggested, I am providing information that is neither false, fraudulent, nor misleading. It is your desire to NOT make any mention of A&M's governance being separate from the University of Texas's that is an attempt to mislead the readers of this article.

You state that the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes did not in any way consolidate any previous acts. And yet the act itself from that year references two separate previous acts. Such previous acts would not be referenced if they did not lead to the act being mentioned, and the fact that TWO acts are mentioned is evidence that the resulting 1925 act is a consolidation of those previous acts from different years.

You continue to claim that I "know" what is stated in the 1881 act and that I am intentionally claiming something untrue about that act. Such is simply an untrue statement on your part, Randolph. First, you are making a huge assumption in claiming to know what I know or do not know. Secondly, I have NEVER claimed that the 1881 act says or does not say anything. Instead, I have cited the 1925 statute as my source which consolidates acts from 1881 and 1913. However it does NOT specify which portion of the 1925 act originated in 1881 and which originated in 1913, and I have never made any claims as to the specific content of either of those acts. So please do not continue to erroneously claim that I have done so.

You further claim that being a branch campus of the University of Texas prevents a legislative mandate that would lead to independent governance of A&M. Such is nothing more than an assumption on your part, based on your own personal opinion as to the legal definition of the term "branch campus". I believe such assumption on your part to be invalid.

You continue to claim that my attempt to edit this article is nothing more than vandalism. Such is not the case and my edit does not fall anywhere close to the definition of vandalism. Instead, it is a factual statement, that you simply disagree with and wish to eliminate without any support or consensus from any other, non-biased wiki editors. As requested previously, please cease and desist in your efforts to arbitrarily edit information that you don't wish to see in this article, without first reaching either a compromise solution as we are attempting to do, or at least getting some agreement from other editors. To continue to try and delete the statement is putting you (and myself) at risk of starting up yet another edit war on this same topic. I would much prefer that we avoid this and let more objective editors help guide us in this editing issue. Thanks.

Macae (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke - Our continued edit war has led the administrators to place yet another 10 day protection on this article. Given that we do not appear able to reach a compromise beyond what has already been achieved, and being that neither of us can claim to be unbiased with regards to this issue.... I propose that, for the sake of this article, that we both agree to refrain from making any additional edits to this article, now or at any time in the future, with respect to this one particular statement or any other in the article. Instead we can leave it up to other editors who may be able to provide a more objective, non-biased analysis of the article. I am willing to make such an agreement if you are. What say you Randolph? Macae (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User Macae - "Our" continued edit war does not exist. Your intentional vandalism of this site if the problem. This is not the proper venue for your attempted perpetuation of the legends and fairy tales of TAMU "Fish Camp." You need to cease and desist with your intentional and malicious defacing of this page.

You claim "You are claiming that A&M was, in 1919, was legally under the "control, management, and supervision" of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas. Yet the Texas statutes do not state that such is not the case, nor have you provided any citations showing that such is the case." The words "control, management, and supervision" are original from the 1871 statute that established the Ag college. No act of the legislature has ever changed that.

You claim "But what I have provided is a citation from the 1925 statute that encompasses previous acts and clarifies the roles, responsibility and structure of A&M. It specifically includes the statement that government of the College will be done by a board of directors, and goes on to state that the board of directors is selected by and reports to the Governor." You unequivocally are aware nothing in the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes, Articles 2607- 2615 states the AMC Board of Director reports to the Governor or anyone else. You have entirely fabricated that in the most dishonest fashion possible.

You claim "You state that the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes did not in any way consolidate any previous acts." The 1925 Restatement of Civil Statues did nothing, save and except to RESTATE CIVIL STATUTES. That is why it is called a RESTATEMENT OF CIVIL STATUTES. Your use of the word "consolidate" is a creation of your own mind.

You claim "First, you are making a huge assumption in claiming to know what I know or do not know. Secondly, I have NEVER claimed that the 1881 act says or does not say anything. Instead, I have cited the 1925 statute as my source which consolidates acts from 1881 and 1913. However it does NOT specify which portion of the 1925 act originated in 1881 and which originated in 1913, and I have never made any claims as to the specific content of either of those acts." By using the 1881 act as a citation to support your claim the legislature mandated an independent Board of Directors for the Ag college, you are directly asserting you know the act does exactly what you represent. I am assuming nothing here. you are making a direct assertion the legislative act supports your statement, which it unquestionably does not. You have fraudulently fabricated the claim the 1881 mandated an "independent" (your choice of words) Board of directors. Neither the 1881 nor the 1913 act even contains the word "independent."

I fully understand your personal need to have the legends and lore of TAMU Fish Camp perpetuated on this page and to represent the AMC Board of Directors to be "independent" of the UT Board of Regents as of 1948, 1919 and, by your version of history, 1881. Possibly the TAMU centric pages would be a more appropriate forum for the perpetuation of such myths. In each and every one of the citations you have offered, the word "independent" is missing. There is no need to interpret words such as "branch college," "independent," "restatement," "separate and distinct" or any other terms used by authors in the original that are being referred to in citations on this page.

To clarify, I have not asserted "that being a branch campus of the University of Texas prevents a legislative mandate that would lead to independent governance of A&M." What I have asserted is the constitutionally mandated status of the ag college as a subordinate branch of the main university precludes a unilateral action on the part of the legislature to alter that subordinate relationship. NOTHING, save an except a constitutional amendment, can alter the subordinate relationship of the ag college to the main university. There is no question the ag college was functionally independent of the main college, as was the medical college. Unequivocally, neither subordinate branch college was constitutionally "independent" of the UT Board of Regents.

Again, I fully understand your emotional attachment to TAMU and your need to see the legends and fairy tales taught to TAMU freshmen at TAMU Fish Camp be perpetuated. This is not the forum for such legends and fairy tales. Please cease and desist in your continued vandalism so that other needed edits can be included and so that intentionally false and misleading information can be permanently removed. Randolph Duke (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Randolph - You show a complete lack of understanding of the wiki phrase "edit war" if you do not believe that you are guilty of such behavior. Again, repeatedly deleting information without any support from a single other wiki editor, simply because you have arbitrarily decided it isn't relevant enough ---- IS an example of edit war behavior.

You falsely claim that Texas A&M is still under the "control, management, and supervision" of the University of Texas Board of Regents, even though such is most obviously not the case. And the reason that it is not is because of the legislative acts referenced in the 1925 statute that created a board of directors for A&M College. Going back to the Revised Civil Statutes of the 16th Legislature - it states that A&M will be "managed and controlled as herein provided" and then proceeds to state that a Board of Directors shall be selected by the Legislature with the Governor as the President of the Board. NOWHERE in that legislative act does it mention the University of Texas Board of Regents, so obviously that Board of Regents is not part of the "as herein provided" statutory role from that point onward.

You are falsely claiming that I am dishonest and have fabricated the reporting of the A&M Board of Directors to the Governor. I absolutely disagree with your opinion and also your continual desire to turn this into a personal attack. As per the previously mentioned act, the Governor is the "ex oficio" President of that Board of Directors, and as such the members of the Board did in fact report to him, just as any other organization's members ultimately report to the head of their organization. The reason that the statute doesn't specifically state that the Board reported to the Governor is because it was implicit since the Governor was the head of the Board of Directors.

You falsely claim that my use of the word "consolidate" is a creation of my own mind. As stated previously, the 1925 revised act references two separate legislative acts from different years. In combining those separate acts into a single statute, consolidation IS occurring.

You continue to argue against the use of the word "independent" in the statement. Why since I have already agreed to use the "separate and distinct" language instead, AND have already made that change to the article. Why do you insist on arguing a point that we have already reached agreement on???

You state that "What I have asserted is the constitutionally mandated status of the ag college as a subordinate branch of the main university precludes a unilateral action on the part of the legislature to alter that subordinate relationship." First, no one is arguing that A&M is not technically a branch college of the University of Texas. Secondly, you are offering a legal OPINION as to whether or not the Texas Legislature has the authority to determine how A&M is run. Wiki really isn't the place for your personal opinions and assumptions, Randolph. You may believe that the Texas Legislature doesn't have the authorization, however they DID pass the statutes setting up the Board of Directors AND empirical evidence from today provides conclusive evidence that acts of the Legislature HAVE altered the nature of that "branch college" relationship.

In again referencing "legends and fairy tales", you are again demonstrating a tendency towards personal attacks rather than trying to objectively discuss our disagreements on this portion of the article. I have cited sources for my edit, and I have made changes when errors have been pointed out and/or in the spirit of compromise with you. And yet you continue to refer to my edits as "vandalism". Such a claim shows that you don't understand the wiki definition of this term any more than you understand the definition of "edit war". Your bias against Texas A&M is again coloring your opinions and word choices both in the main article and on this talk page.

Macae (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User Macae: I am fully aware your objective here is to have a specific reference on the page of the University of Texas as Austin's Wiki page that asserts Texas A&M University (or its predecessor in name) was wholly independent of the UT Board of regents as far back as 1881. I believe it is your obligation to clearly state your conflicts, including a full disclosure of your relationships, past or present, to Texas A&M University.

In referencing the 1925 Texas Restatement of Civil Statutes you AGAIN intentionally fabricate details to create a blatant misrepresentation of the historical record. NOWHERE in the 1881 legislative act you reference are the words "independent," "ex-officio" or "control, management and supervision." Likewise, none of those words were included in the 1913 statute. Therefore, the 1925 RCS could not have restated anything that was not stated in the original. You have entirely fabricated an "ex-officio" status of the governor on the Board of Board of Directors of the Ag college. The legislature granting the governor powers of appointment for positions within the executive branch does not create a separate and distinct "ex-officio president" status for the governor on any aspect of the executive branch. In the 1871 act that established the Ag college, the legislature unequivocally stated "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college was to be subject to the 1858 act that established the university. The wording and intent could not have been more clear. there is no statute that either of us have located that clearly and unequivocally amends the 1871 act in such a way to alter the "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college. To create the mis-perception such an act was passed, you offer a nuanced interpretation of the intent of the legislature by interpreting the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes to have meaning that does not appear in the original. You fully understand you are creating an impression that does not appear in the original. In intentionally offering information you know to be false and misleading, you are unquestionably acting in bad faith and the repetitive nature of such bad faith acts constitutes vandalism.

You again are intentionally fabricating facts when you offer your opinion that I am offering an opinion that in a constitutional government, the constitution is amended by a vote of the people and not by unilateral action by the legislature. If correcting your misunderstanding that our federal and state constitutions are legitimately amended by unilateral action of the legislature is necessary to absolve you of your misunderstanding of the status of the branch colleges of the university in1919, maybe we need to write that down for the dispute resolution people to explain to you. I am not seeking to have my interpretations of statutes included in this Wikipedia page. If one were wanting to offer opinion and interpretation to manipulate the the reader's understanding of the material, one would fabricate words such as "independent" when words such as "separate and distinct" were used in the original or create 'ex-officio president" status where no such status was conferred in anywhere the historical record.

You rightfully claim "First, no one is arguing that A&M is not technically a branch college of the University of Texas." All that we are entrusted to do here is offer the technical relationship of the main university and its subordinate branch colleges. It is wholly inappropriate to offer interpretations of what the status meant then or how we interpret the meaning of that status through the lens of history. Interpretations and added meanings must be left for the reader. Hence, my suggestion that the statement read: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." We should include no alterations such as fabricating the existence of "independent" status or your latest fabrication, that the legislature created the status of "ex-officio president" and bestowed the title upon the governor.

The statement: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors" offers factual information, without interpretations of the meaning of any legislative acts and without fabrication or nuance. It is wholly neutral to either of the branch colleges so as to not create a false impression that one branch college had greater significance than the other. Any assumption one college had greater significance over the other would be a fabrication of an opinion that is not supported by any document. What is being discussed is the governance structure of the university, not the governance structure of either of the branch colleges. The governance structure of the Ag college, or the Medical college, is not germane to this page. That information is best left to the separate pages of the respective colleges. You correctly assert "no one is arguing that A&M is not technically a branch college of the University of Texas." The matter should be left there, with recognition that the Ag college's branch status was identical to that of the medical college and that each college had a "separate and distinct" Board of Directors.

We essentially have two issues, the first being "what was the status of the branch colleges after the failed restructuring" and "what is the meaning and significance of that status." You are trying to offer your interpretation and nuance of what the Ag college's branch status meant then or means today. Offering any such interpretation is inappropriate. We need to leave the nuance, interpretations, fabrications, legends and fairy tales out of things. You correctly state "A&M is technically a branch college of the University of Texas." The reader should be left to interpret the meaning of that factual statement. The passage should read "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Any additional information can be included on the separate Wikipedia pages for those individual colleges. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Randolph, you are incorrect in claiming that "your objective here is to have a specific reference on the page of the University of Texas as Austin's Wiki page that asserts Texas A&M University (or its predecessor in name) was wholly independent of the UT Board of regents as far back as 1881." First, I have already removed the "independent" term and replaced it with "separate and distinct" as you and I had previously agreed. Second, I have not claimed in the article that such separate and distinct governance existed in 1881. Instead I have stated (and provided citation) that, based on previous legislative acts, A&M would continue to be ruled separately and distinctly from the University of Texas.

In demanding a full disclosure of my potential relationships with Texas A&M, you seem to be implying that the possibility of such relationship makes it impossible to objectively and factually provide edits regarding another university. First, I reject such an assumption on your part. Second, my editing on this or any other article should be judged by its content, rather than on any relationship that I may or may not have with the article subject.

You claim that I am referencing the 1881 legislative act with regards to the term "ex oficio". I do not. You are incorrect in stating that I have "entirely fabricated an "ex-officio" status of the governor on the Board of Board of Directors of the Ag college". Such is simply not true. Section 4 of Article LVII of the 14th Legislature specifically states "The Governor shall be EX-OFFICIO President of the Board..." For you to continue to incorrectly use "fabricate" and other inflamatory language against me continues to constitute a personal attack on me, Randolph, and I yet again request that you cease with such. If you believe that such status is not correct, state so and we can discuss. There is no need to try and falsely claim that I "fabricated" that term.

Again, you attempt to argue about the use of the word "independent", even though I have already agreed to replace that term with the phrase "separate and distinct" which you and I both agreed upon. So what is your point in continuing to argue a term that no one is disagreeing with?

You claim (assume), that "there is no statute that either of us have located that clearly and unequivocally amends the 1871 act in such a way to alter the "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college." I disagree with this assumption and have already provided the statute that I believe DOES indicate a legislative act regarding the governance of A&M.

You further claim that "You fully understand you are creating an impression that does not appear in the original." First, you are again resorting to a personal attack in claiming that I am intentionally trying to create an incorrect impression. Second, I do not believe that stating that "each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." is in the least bit incorrect or misleading. The Revised Civil Statute of 1925 supports the reality of those governance structures and you yourself provided the citation mentioning the "separate and distinct" nature of the governance of those two schools.

You again suggest that the Texas legislature is incapable of specifying the governance structure of A&M without a constitutional amendment. I disagree with your opinion. Specifying such a structure does not alter the "branch college" status as called for in the Constitution. And again, no one is arguing that such relationship has been altered. Instead the discussion is with regards to the definition and nature of that term. And the state legislature HAS weighed in on that with the various acts that have been put in place. And again, the fact/reality that A&M today does NOT report to nor is governed or controlled by the University of Texas Board of Regents provide empirical proof that either the state and legislature are incorrectly neglecting constitutional requirements, or that your interpretation of that portion of the Constitution is flawed.

You again suggest that A&M and the Medical School be lumped together in the statement, even though the Constitutional amendments did not attempt to split the medical school from the University of Texas. For this and the other reasons previously mentioned in our discussions, it makes less sense to try and lump both schools together in this statement.

You claim that the governance structure of A&M is not germane to this article, while at the same trying wanting to state multiple (and probably excessive) times in the article that A&M is a PART of the University of Texas. As such, the governance structure IS germane to this article.

I suggested previously, and will suggest again, that this article should confine itself to discussion of the University of Texas at Austin since that is the title of the article. Discussions related to A&M and its "branch college" status should probably more logically be confined to the University of Texas SYSTEM page which already exists. Your desire to spend so much time discussing the relationship between A&M and the University of Texas at Austin on this page takes some of the focus off of the University itself in my opinion. However, if you insist on including that information and believe it to be relevant, then I believe that it is important that we also include mention of the nature of the relationship between the schools which would include the separate and distinct governance structure of each school.

Macae (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User Macae:

To begin with, it is noted you are refusing to disclose any conflicts that may cloud your objectivity. I believe your refusal to do so should disqualify you from any involvement with this page and will have the subject considered by those handling the dispute resolution.

Secondly, you are again trying to interpret and nuance discussions by taking words out of their original. You have fabricated the term "ruled" to replace the word "governed" that was used in the original. Your refusal to use words from the original and your insistence in using your own fabrications, interpretations and modifications is wholly improper. You do this repeatedly and for the improper purpose of imposing your agenda of forcing the historical record to your predetermined conclusion that is consistent with the hidden biases and conflicts that you refuse to disclose.

Thirdly, you have fabricated an interpretation that because the activities of the Boards of Directors of the branch colleges were "separate and distinct" one of the branch colleges would be "ruled" (word not in the original) in a manner in which you interpret.

Your argument concerning whether the governor is the "ex-officio president' of the Ag college's Board of Directors is meaningless. You bring that up because you need to be able to add your interpretation of the rights, duties and powers of such an "ex-officio president." I also point out that the 1874 act that established the governor as "ex-0fficio president" of the Ag college was amended other subsequent legislative acts, including the 1881 act you earlier claimed established an "independent" Board of Directors. In the 1881 act, the composition of the board was clearly set forth, which is why the 1925 restatement of Civil Statutes used the 1881 act as the initial reference for the composition of the Ag college board. After 1881, the governor was no longer the "ex-officio president" and you are fully aware of this. In 1881, the University of Texas was organized and the governance structure of the Ag college would have been required to be amended to recognize the fact that Ag college was then under the "control, management, and supervision"of the university's Board of regents. Regardless of yet another instance where your bias, fabrications, personal interpretations and nuance, any discussion to the composition of the board of the Ag college is meaningless as it would constitute an interpretation of any statute and such interpretations MUST be left to the reader. It is not up to individuals who refuse to disclose conflicts and biases to make interpretations for the reader. It is a great frustration getting you to accept the meaning and significance of any individual fact MUST be left to the reader. Including the passage "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors" offers facts with none of your forced interpretations, nuance or fabrications.

Your suggestion that discussion of the Agricultural branch college's status be confined to the UT System page should be rejected as the UT System never incorporate that Agricultural branch college into the UT system structure. rather, the UT System left the branch college designation unchanged and the Agricultural branch college remains today a branch of the University of Texas at Austin.

You quote my words and offer the following:

You claim (assume), that "there is no statute that either of us have located that clearly and unequivocally amends the 1871 act in such a way to alter the "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college." I disagree with this assumption and have already provided the statute that I believe...."

What you believe is wholly inappropriate for inclusion. The entire problem here is you are trying to force what you believe upon the reader. That is not our mission here. Your personal beliefs do not matter one bit. Our mission is to set forth basic facts, supported by citations offered in their original, for readers to decide what THEY believe. Statutes and references MUST be allowed to speak for themselves in their original wording. You refuse to disclose your biases, conflicts or your personal agenda and you insist on forcing your beliefs and interpretation onto this page. You insist on changing words of citations to alter the intent of the original authors, all the while seeking to highlight an aspect of an institution that is not even the main subject of this page.

As long as you continue to try to force your unwarranted personal beliefs, your biases, personal interpretations and your hidden agenda on this page, my attempts to prevent you from doing so will continue. I suggest you either recuse yourself from further editing this page or push this matter to dispute resolution so others do not continue from editing the page due to what can only be considered your continued vandalism of this page. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Randolph, I have no conflict of interest with regards to this article. Additionally, you appear to be implying that any relationship to any of the subjects mentioned in this article therefore represents a conflict of interest. Such is simply not the case according to Wiki policy on COI. Further, I am under NO obligation to disclose the full nature of my relationship to any subject mentioned in this article, nor are you. This does not preclude us from continuing to edit this article as you have claimed, and I welcome any objective third party editor to investigate and comment as they feel appropriate regarding this issue.

With regards to the terms "ruled" and "governed". I believe that the two phrases are interchangeable and do not alter the meaning of any statement by using one as opposed to the other. Especially when using those terms on this discussion page rather than the article itself. Further, I have not proposed that the term "ruled" be used in the article itself and am fine with the continued use of the current phrasing.

You originally falsely claimed that my use of the term "ex-officio" was fabricated by myself. Now that I have proven that your claim is wrong, you are shifting the goalposts and claiming that it is meaningless. I disagree with your opinion and your claim that my statement was needed to support an "interpretation". Instead I used that phrase and cited that source in order to confirm to you that the A&M Board of Directors DID report to the governor, which you had disputed. Our discussion was regarding why the original statute didn't specifically state that the board would report to the Governor. I provided the "ex-officio" status, on this discussion page, to demonstrate why such a statement would not have been necessary. I have not claimed that the following the 1881 Act, that the Governor is still the President of the Board. Instead, a President is selected amongst the members.

You mention the 1881 Act establishing the University of Texas and claim that the Act required that the A&M governance be changed so that A&M was under the "control, supervision, and management" of the University of Texas Board of Regents. Nowhere in that Act is such language used, nor is there any requirement that the A&M governance be changed. It would appear that your opinion is simply an interepretation. Additionally, empirical evidence up to and including present time shows that the A&M Board of Directors does NOT report to the University of Texas Board of Regents and that your interpretation that such is required, is simply not valid. You have yet to provide any evidence that A&M's Board of Directors reports or is governed by the Board of Regents.

You suggest that A&M is not a member of the University of Texas System and therefore doesn't need to be included in that article. On a non-technical basis I agree with you, just as on a non-technical basis, A&M is also not a branch of the University of Texas. HOWEVER, from a purely technical standpoint, the University of Texas at Austin IS a member of the University of Texas System. And since A&M is technically a part of the University of Texas, it also therefore is a part of the University of Texas System. This is just an example of the real world ignoring a portion of an extremely long and complex Texas Constitution. Additionally, this article, as per title, concerns the University of Texas at AUSTIN. Again, since this article is focused on a specific campus, discussion of A&M is more appropriate for the University of Texas System page rather than this article page. Having said that, I am not going to insist on either of my opinions being the rule, but certainly would welcome commentary and opinion from other, non-biased editors as to the most appropriate place to include this information.

You offered a personal opinion that "there is no statute that either of us have located that clearly and unequivocally amends the 1871 act in such a way to alter the "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college." I in turn offered the opinion that I HAD located such legislation and had cited it previously. Your response is your personal opinion that the acts I cited were wholly inappropriate for inclusion. I continue to disagree with your opinion and again welcome input from a non-biased editor to weigh the value of each of our opinions in this matter.

You mention that this discussion revolves around a subject that is not even the main focus of the page. I agree and that is one of the reasons that I have questioned why the mention of A&M's status needs to be mentioned multiple times in this article. However you are the one who determined that A&M's status had relevance and while I tend to disagree, as previously stated, I am OK with it remaining, as long as enough information is also provided to clarify the nature of that "branch college" relationship.

You suggest that I recuse myself from further editing this page OR that I push the matter to dispute resolution. First, I have ALREADY posted this article and asked for third party review. Have you done similar? Secondly, I have already proposed that you and I BOTH recuse ourselves from further editing of this page and that we leave the article to other editors for future edits. We are BOTH guilty of twice engaging in an edit war over this information. As such, we probably should BOTH move on to other articles. I am willing to make such an agreement with you, Randolph. So what say you? Do we both agree to further editing of this article?

Macae (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Randolph, let's consider some of the verbiage that you have used against me in your last edit - "fabricated", "imposing your agenda", hidden biases", "forcing your beliefs", "unwarranted personal beliefs", "hidden agenda", "vandalism". I believe that each of those comments represents a personal attack on myself and my character. I have asked repeatedly that you keep the discussion limited to the article content, and will do so again. To continue to use such inflammatory language in your responses is not helping us reach a compromise or resolution in my opinion.

Macae (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm here informally in response to the 3O request. Not taking it formally yet as I'm not sure if I will be able to address it adequately. This is obviously an edit war, but I have to say I have never seen an edit war of this size remain so relatively civil and focused on content. So keep that up and avoid getting into blame and dissecting motivations. It would be helpful for the both of you and anyone who does attempt to offer a third opinion on the content issues if you each could describe what you perceive to be the locus of the dispute. Identify what the question is to which you are proposing different answers. Rhoark (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rhoark, and thanks also to Gigs who I see has already offered some opinions.

I'm not certain that I can boil this down to a single focus. But a summary of my position probably would be -

1) Is mention of A&M being a "branch college" of the University of Texas relevant or necessary to this article, given that in practice such has never been the relationship between the schools?

2) Is mention of the A&M status as a branch college most appropriate for this article which involves the University of Texas based at the Austin campus, or is it better suited for the University of Texas System article which involves all schools that are part of the University of Texas System?

3) If it is appropriate to mention within this article, is it relevant and important enough to mention five separate times as currently is the case? Or is a single mention more appropriate?

4) If mention of A&M's technical status as a "branch college" is kept in this article, it then seems reasonable to include brief mention of the separate and distinct governance of each school and clarify that neither school controls nor reports to the other.

5) In mentioning the two failed constitutional amendments, it does not make sense to try and lump A&M and the University of Texas Medical School together since the amendments did not attempt to separate the Medical School from the University of Texas as it attempted to do so with A&M.

Of the above issues, I haven't really pushed item #1. I think it is an extremely trivial item to include for an already lengthy article. But from a historical context, I don't have an extreme issue with including it, even if such a relationship is technical only and hasn't really ever been practiced in reality. With regard to item #2, I believe it is more appropriate to the System page but have no problem defering to whatever third party opinions might be offered. With regards to item #3, I do believe five times is excessive and that the article could probably be better and more concise by making a single mention of the technical relationship, followed by mention that each school has a Board of Regents and are governed separately and distinctly by by those boards. Finally, I do believe that if mention of the "branch college" status is kept in the article, then items #4 & #5 need to remain as well in order to eliminate any confusion that could potentially be created by not specifying the actual nature of that "branch college" relationship.

Macae (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm here to respond to the 3O request formally. As was noted earlier, care must be taken in interpreting primary sources. I have reviewed the issue and I do not believe the terms "University of Texas" or "University of Texas System" in the constitution should be interpreted to refer specifically to UT Austin or the modern UT system. The constitution does indeed define A&M as a "branch" of the "University of Texas", but it is clear that governance of the two systems is separate and distinct in modern practice, and that both draw separate allocations from the PUF, and both have the independent right to issue bonds against the PUF up to the legally defined limits for each system. I agree it is unclear in modern context what exactly the constitution refers to when it refers to the "board of regents" (assumed to be singular) for the "University of Texas", but the matter seems to be of little practical consequence, and seems to have no bearing on the modern independence of the governance of the two university systems. It doesn't particularly seem to be in dispute whether the systems are really two independent entities today, so the dispute boils down to a fairly trivial historical footnote. It could almost be considered just a typographical/grammatical inaccuracy caused by the somewhat messy history of the two systems in the early days. The issue is probably too irrelevant to even attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to increase the clarity. I'm inclined to concur that it's not even necessary to mention it in this article as such. It is more of an appropriate topic for the "system" articles. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Addendum- It appears that this is relevant. The UT System board in 1996 delegated PUF management to this non-profit, which has a board consisting of members appointed by both UT and A&M. Gigs (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I will first address the comments of user Gigs: If you could disclose any relationship, present or past, with either UT and/or TAMU, that would be helpful. Additionally, it would be helpful if you could disclose how you came to this matter and what research you have done into the history of UT and/or TAMU prior to your involvement in this particular matter. Your understanding of the relationship between UT and TAMU seems to be flawed in a few material aspects and I want to understand the reasons for your perspective.

You are incorrect in asserting both the UT and TAMU systems draw from the PUF. Neither draws from the PUF. The PUF is a constitutionally mandated sovereign wealth fund administered solely by the UT Board of regents for the benefit of the university. The allocation of money for the Agricultural branch was created by dedicating a portion of the AUF to the ag branch, not the PUF. In the mid 1990s, the UT Board of Regents set up a private investment management company to manage the PUF assets (The University of Texas Investment Management Company or "UTIMCO.") There was a agreement to allow members of the TAMU system to have a minority oversight role over UTIMCO, but no control of the PUF was ever given to the TAMU administrators. All directors of UTIMCO serve under the sole direction of the UT Board of Regents.

The question here is whether, as user Macae asserts, that the legislature restricted the ability of the UT Board of Regents to exercise authority over the Agricultural college branch. It is important to remember TAMU did not maintain a separate archive of correspondence until 1950. As a branch of the university, correspondence and historical documents were kept in the university archives. I have talked with the preeminent scholar on the subject of the history of UT and the UT system. he is extremely familiar with the university archives and he assured me that there has been no legislation to restrict the authority of the UT Board of Regents over the Agricultural branch college. User Macae's claims to the contrary require interpretation of various statutes and the replacement of terms in the original with words of his choosing that alter the meanings of the passages.

I have asserted a number of times that the legislature intended for the Ag college to be a subordinate branch college pf the university and not an independent entity. I offer the additional comments from the historian that discussed the status of the Ag college from its establishment: "The writers of the 1876 constitution didn't favor A&M as the official state university for two reasons - 1) It's remote location in what would become College Station (once the railroad and U.S. Post Office had established it as a station for the A&M College), and, more important 2) It was founded with "Yankee money." Per the Morrill Act, public lands from Colorado were secured (Texas didn't have any U.S. public acreage) to use as the endowment for A&M, but this ultimately came from the feds in Washington, i.e. the Union. As Radical Reconstruction had just ended in Texas, and the 1876 constitution was a way to "take Texas back" from the resented unionists, A&M was considered "tainted" with federal funds, and not truly a university of and by Texas. Calling A&M a branch of the future university made the point."

There is little question the Ag college was established as a branch of the University. There is no question the legislature never directly acted to limit the authority of the Regents over either of the university's branch colleges. The minutes of the meetings of the Regents can be found here: http://utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings/meetings-archive. Of interest to this discussion are the minutes of the November 1913 meeting where, on numbered page 338, the resolution of the Regents was for "The repeal of the present constitutional status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the University and its return as an independent college." http://utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/1913minutes.pdf Unquestionably, the Ag college was not considered an independent college by the university Board of Regents in 1913. I continue to assert the best way to describe the relationship between the university and its branch colleges after the failed attempt to restructure the university is as follows: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Should anyone want to learn more detail of the development of either individual branch college, they can go to the independent Wiki page for that institution. To offer a specific mention of only the Ag college's status in the aftermath of the failed restructuring scheme would necessitate further explanation of that status at its inception (emphasizing the status as "tainted with federal funds, and not truly an institution of and by Texas.") I feel we have already delved into enough specifics of the Ag college for this page and it would be best to simply use the generic statement: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Randolph Duke (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the points raised by user Macae of 20:54, 13 March 2015, I offer the following: I believe it is important for user Macae to disclose his relationship, past or present, to Texas A&M University, so that any conflicts can be considered. Full disclosure of conflicts upon request is a cornerstone of objectivity.

User Macae seems to have a relationship with Texas A&M that is of sufficient importance to him that he is adamant about how various aspects of the school's history are referred to. I believe this relationship is at the heart of his insisting his personal beliefs be represented, even when the historical record indicates otherwise. Particularly, he seems intent on establishing that Texas A&M University (and its predecessor-in-name, The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas) was, since at least 1881, legislatively mandated as independent from the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents. This belief, while passed down as legend and lore among those with an attachment to Texas A&M University, is simply not supported by the historical record. In my edits, I have attempted to provide citations from the historical record dealing with the establishment of the University of Texas (so far mostly focused on the period between 1836 and 1925), including its two branch colleges. I have asked the edits I have offered to be reviewed for accuracy by a historian who has extensively studied the history of the university. I have tried to maintain objectivity and sought the input from historians familiar with this subject to ensure both accuracy and objectivity. The period of time which the present controversy between myself and user Macae are discussing (circa 1920) was one of significance to the university. During this period, there were political threats to shut down the university, legislative attempts to restructure the university and a legislative attempt to shut down the Agricultural branch (in 1913) and move it to the location of the main university. The precise controversy between myself and user Macae is how to best describe the structure of the university in the aftermath of all this turmoil.

User Macae mentions the possible discussion of the controversy on the separate page for the University of Texas System (his point 2). I am against such a move as the matter being discussed is the structure of the university in 1920. The UT System did not even come into existence until 1950. Furthermore, the Agricultural branch college was never separated from the main university and given an status as part of the UT System. While the status of the Ag branch college may, or may not be be a candidate for inclusion in the UT System Wiki page, what is of interest here is its place in the overall structure of the university circa 1920.

In his point 3), in lieu of having passages written to promote his biased viewpoint that is not supported by the historical record, user Macae wants to rewrite entire passages of the establishment section to simply remove substantive and material discussion of the Agricultural branch college. Seemingly, if he can't have his false beliefs and bias passed on as substantive fact, he won't allow any discussion of the matter whatsoever. Such a suggestion is absurd. The Agricultural branch was (and is) a part of the university. The intent of this page is to offer information regarding the establishment and development of the University of Texas. Ignoring a significant part of the university's history would be counterproductive. Sanitizing the page to purposely ignore an aspect of the history of the university simply because someone with hidden conflicts, motives and biases can't have the passage written in a manner to their liking would only lead to additional discrepancies of how to not mention something that is worthy of mentioning.

Macae's point 4) seeks to "clarify that neither school controls nor reports to the other." Here is the heart of user Macae's problem. Instead of simply providing elements of the historical record in their original and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the significance of any part of the historical record, user Macae wants to "clarify" and he wants to be the one who decides what constitutes "clarification." It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to erroneously "clarify," falsely interpret or in any way purposely lead a reader to one conclusion over another. The historical record, offered in its original, should speak for itself. User Macae has offered what he represented to be clear and unequivocal passages from the historical record that supposedly supported his belief that there was a legislatively mandated independence for the Ag college. Problematically, the citations he offered (an 1881 legislative act and a 1913 legislative act) in no way spoke to what he claimed they did. He entirely fabricated words, content and meaning that were not in the original of the citations he offered. Unquestionably, he has the predetermined conclusion that the Ag branch college was "independent" of the university Board of Regents and he is attempting to bend the historical record to fit his predetermined conclusion. Unfortunately for user Macae, the historical record is not something that can be twisted or manipulated to fit his wishes. Quite simply, my strong opinion is that the historical record should be presented, without restatement, embellishment or modification and the reader should be left to make their own interpretations of the information that is offered.

Macae's point 5) is seemingly a by-product of his inherent bias and lack of objectivity with respect to Texas A&M University. He claims I am attempting to "lump A&M and the University of Texas Medical School together." In reality, both were branch colleges of the main university. As the governance structure of neither played an important role in the growth and development of the main university in the aftermath of the political turmoil of the time period being referenced, there is no reason to focus on the structure of one of the colleges to the exclusion of the other. What is important is to give an overview of the main university in the aftermath of the political turmoil so the reader can have a point of reference to understand the further development of the university. Significantly, in point 5), user Macae wants to "eliminate any confusion that could potentially be created by not specifying the actual nature of that "branch college" relationship." Again, it is not proper as writers of the page to lead the reader to any specific interpretation of the historical record that one writer believes should be promoted, especially when that writer has refused to disclose any conflicts or biases. Macae's inherent bias seeks to ensure the reader draws only the specific conclusion that is acceptable to user Macae. The "actual nature of the branch college relationship" is a matter for the reader to conclude based upon the historical record. I have sought to establish the existence of the branch college relationship. The nature or the significance of that relationship must be left to the reader to interpret. If user Macae has additional elements of the historical record he believes are important in order to allow the reader to form a reasonable basis for an understanding the relationship between the university and its branch colleges, he needs to offer them. To date, all he has offered are references and citations that do not speak to what he claims they represent. I have offered the suggestion that passage read "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." This uses words from the historical record in their original, is sufficient to allow the reader to understand the structure of the university with respect to its branch colleges, offers no interpretations of elements of the historical record and in no way attempts to influence the reader to draw any one particular conclusion. The passage merely states what is supported by the historical record and therefore is the most appropriate passage for inclusion in this page. Randolph Duke (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to RandolphDuke's continued demands that I and other editors reveal personal information regarding relationships (or lackthereof) to the subject of this article - First, I have already stated that there is no conflict of interest; 2) RandolphDuke appears to be implying that a person that might have a relationship of any sort with this subject article becomes incapable of objectively editing an article; 3) Although I absolutely reject the assumption he makes in point 2, if we assume it to be valid, then RandolphDuke needs to recuse himself immediately from future editing based on his own relationships and biases with regard to the subject of this article. As I have stated before, I am quite comfortable with having other non-biased editors review my edits and judge as to whether my revisions suggest a conflict of interest or not.

Randolph continues to use terms such as "personal beliefs", "legend and lore, "fabrication", "false beliefs", etc. to try and ignore or discount the suggestions that I have made and the statement (and citation) that I added to the article. However none of those terms carry any validity with regards to my edit or suggestions. The edit that I made is supported by the

RandolphDuke, you again claim that I am trying to establish that A&M has operated independently of the Board of Regents. I have provided the legislative citations confirming that A&M was to be run by a Board of Directors selected by the Governor. You have provided zero evidence that this Board of Directors reported to or were any way governed by the University of Texas Board of Regents. Further, you claim that such is still the case today and yet we see that no such subsidiary relationship between the Boards exists today.

Even though I have provided a citation backing up my statement, you continue to insist that my statement is an "interpretation" and as evidence claim to have spoken to a historian on the matter. First, such action represents original research and is not appropriate for Wiki. If you wish to make additional claims, you need to be able to cite that information and not just reference a random person who may or may not be a historian that you may or may not have talked to. Second, that information that you obtained from your "historian" is nothing more than an interpretation and opionion.

With regards to where mention of A&M might be most appropriate - this article or the University of Texas System page - Yes I recognize that the University of Texas System was not created until 1950. However what is most important to look at isn't the chronology but rather the intended subject of each article. This article is entitled the University of Texas at AUSTIN and the focus is on the University that is located in Austin. The University of Texas System Page, on the other hand, looks at ALL of the schools in the System. Since A&M is not located in Austin, it seems much more appropriate that it be included in the System page rather than the Austin campus page. But as I have stated previously, I am willing to compromise on that point and am OK with it being mentioned here as a historical note. But again I question why you believe that such a trivial relationship, which technically exists but is not practiced, merits five separate mentions in this article?

Randolph Duke then goes on to claim that "Seemingly, if he can't have his false beliefs and bias passed on as substantive fact, he won't allow any discussion of the matter whatsoever." First, my statement was neither false nor biased and is backed up by citation. Second, I specifically stated that I did not think that the "branch college" relationship has enough impact or significance to merit inclusion in an already lengthy article, especially given that such relationship has never actually been practiced. However more importantly, I have previously stated that opinion but also ASKED whether it was appropriate and stated that I would welcome discussion and opinion from third parties on the matter. How do you take that position and then claim that I "won't allow any discussion of the matter whatsoever"??? This would appear to be another attempt to portray me as someone who is unwilling to compromise in this discussion when such simply isn't the case. I have stated multiple times my desire to have a third party judge this issue and made decisions.

RandolphDuke seems to belief that "clarification" of concepts is not allowed on wikipedia. I disagree and instead feel that clarification of confusing terms or concepts is entirely valid when those clarifications are backed up by citation and evidence. Such is the case with the proposed edit. "Branch college" suggests a subservient relationship which is not actually the case in this particular situation. As a result, providing the information that legislative acts provide for a separate and distinct Board of Directors to govern A&M is both valid and relevant to the article.

RandolphDuke states that "Ignoring a significant part of the university's history would be counterproductive." I absolutely reject the claim that the "Branch College" relationship is in any way "significant" and nothing provided in this article provides any evidence whatsoever of this "significance". The fact that the relationship has been entirely ignored, both historically and up to today, shows instead the complete insignificance of the relationship. But again, in the spirit of compromise, I am OK with leaving it in the article if other non-biased editors feel that it merits inclusion.

With regards to RandolphDukes's desire to lump A&M and the Medical School together - He states that "both were branch colleges of the University of Texas" and "there is no reason to focus on the structure of one of the colleges to the exclusion of the other." What I have pointed out multiple times and which he has continued to ignore is that the Constitutional amendments, which he wishes to include in this article, attempted to completely split off A&M from the University of Texas and yet attempted to do no such thing to the Medical School. As such, it doesn't make sense to attempt to lump those two schools together in the follow up statement to those amendments. Further, while both schools may technically be "branch colleges", it is my understanding that, while A&M was run by it's own Board of Directors, the University of Texas Medical School was and still is run by the University of Texas Board of Regents. To seek to try and portray the nature and relationship between each of those schools and the University of Texas as equivalent is neither justified nor objectively logical.

Macae (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I take user Macae’s points individually as doing so may allow an independent editor to better drill down to points of contention.

1) M: “RandolphDuke appears to be implying that a person that might have a relationship of any sort with this subject article becomes incapable of objectively editing an article”

• • RD: I absolutely believe inherent conflicts can (and in this case did) affect objectivity. User Macae is an alumnus of Texas A&M University and institutional pride is what is driving his instance that his alma mater be depicted in a manner consistent with the misleading history of the university he was taught while he was attending. User Macae began to erroneously assert the independence of the Ag branch college on 19:47, 4 February 2015 when he offered:

“I would suggest that the earlier mention of Texas A&M being a branch of the University of Texas is OK, but does not need to be repeated and that it also is important to make mention of the 1948 split and Constitutional removal of Texas A&M from the University of Texas System. Rather then engage in an edit war, I certainly would welcome input from other wiki editors as to this question...” There can be no mistaking what user Macae feels most important. Unfortunately for him, his belief that there was a split of Texas A&M (then referred to as the Agricultural & Mechanical College) from the university in 1948 was shown to be a total and complete fabrication on his part. Not one to be easily deterred, this entire month-and-a-half long back-and-forth has been his attempt to manipulate the historical record to somehow support his predetermined (and entirely fabricated) conclusion – that the Ag college was legislatively mandated independent of the university.

2) M: RandolphDuke, you again claim that I am trying to establish that A&M has operated independently of the Board of Regents. I have provided the legislative citations confirming that A&M was to be run by a Board of Directors selected by the Governor.

• • RD: User Macae repeatedly used nuance and misrepresentation to try to manipulate the historical record. Notice he never offers a citation of the historical record that directly supports his predetermined conclusion. Here, user Macae inserts the word “operated.” There is no question the Ag college was governed by a Board of Directors ("governed" being the word taken from the original). There is no question the Board of Directors was appointed by the Governor. There is also no question every branch college of the university was governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the governor. Earlier in the page, there is a direct legislative passage in the very act that first established the Ag college that mandates the college was to be operated under the “control, supervision and management” of the act that established the university. What user Macae chooses to ignore is the fact that the Board of Directors of each branch college operated under “control, supervision and management” of the university Board of Regents. I have offered a direct citation in the original from the Board of Regents minutes, dated November 1913, that sought to have created the very independent governance of the Ag college user Macae represents already existed. The Board of regents sought: "The repeal of the present constitutional status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the University and its return as an independent college." http://utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/1913minutes.pdf (numbered page 338). Here, the historical record unquestionably fails to support user Macae’s failed belief that the Ag college was independent in 1913.

3) M: This article is entitled the University of Texas at AUSTIN and the focus is on the University that is located in Austin. The University of Texas System Page, on the other hand, looks at ALL of the schools in the System. Since A&M is not located in Austin, it seems much more appropriate that it be included in the System page rather than the Austin campus page.

• • RD: The Ag college (and also the Med college) was a branch of the University of Texas, the predecessor-in-name to the University of Texas at Austin. The remote location of the branch colleges did not affect their legal status as branch colleges. User Macae’s contention that the physical location of a branch of the university precludes any discussion of its status of a branch of the university is patently absurd and must be rejected. Also, the Ag college, unlike the medical college was never legally separated from the University of Texas at Austin (using the modern name) and made a part of the UT System. Therefore, discussing it as part of the UT System would be improper.

User Macae offers the following in his attempt to prevent the reader from drawing their own conclusions:

a)M: Second, I specifically stated that I did not think that the "branch college" relationship has enough impact or significance to merit inclusion in an already lengthy article.

• • RD: The length of the article is immaterial. The impact of the branch college status should be left to the reader to determine.

b)M: "Branch college" suggests a subservient relationship which is not actually the case in this particular situation.

• • RD: Whatever relationship “branch college” suggests is entirely a matter for the reader to determine. the words “branch college” are taken, in the original, from the historical record. No nuance, interpretation or other suggested significance should be offered. Readers are unquestionably capable of determining the meaning of the term. I will suggest that user Macae’s inherent bias is grounded in his desire to have the reader draw a conclusion that “branch college” specifically not be concluded to mean subservient. Again, the reader is capable of drawing their own conclusion. If user Macae wants to elaborate on the nature of either branch college, there are independent Wikipedia pages for each college for him to edit and more fully describe the college.

Here, user Macae is requesting something already provided for: I) M: As a result, providing the information that legislative acts provide for a separate and distinct Board of Directors to govern A&M is both valid and relevant to the article.

• • RD:"Separate and distinct" are words taken directly from the original as used by the Ag college Board of Directors to describe their relationship with the university Board of regents and the use by the Ag college board is clearly cited. User Maece has entirely fabricated the existence of any legislative acts mandating a "separate and distinct" board for either of the university's branch colleges. He has been asked to point to the specific passage that he believes mandated a "separate and distinct" governance structure, but he has offered no legislative citation even containing the words "separate and distinct." The entirety of his belief that a "separate and distinct" board of directors was mandated lies in his strained, mangled and mistaken interpretation of various other legislative acts and his addition of words and intent that appear nowhere in the original. In short, his belief is a complete fabrication. The practice of allowing the branch college boards to operate in a manner described by the Ag college board as "separate and distinct" was done as a matter of choice by the university Board of Regents, not by legislative mandate. User Maece intentionally and falsely implies it was done by legislative mandate. The suggested wording for the Wikipedia page acknowledges the voluntary decision of the university Regents to allow the branch college boards to operate in a "separate and distinct" (notice not "independent") manner is as follows: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." User Macae has previously attempted to alter the historical record by substituting “independent” for “separate and distinct” as used in the original.

• • • I suggest the following are the entirety of the points of contention for which independent dispute resolution is needed.

• 1) The relevant issue is the description of the relationship of the university and its branch colleges circa 1920. The status of neither branch college has any greater significance than the other at this point in the narrative.
• 2) The suggested passage for inclusion at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section should read: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." (This would replace the passage reading "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."[41]" It would also remove the falsely represented citation numbered herein as 41)
• 3) The following passage (taken from the original from the minutes of the UT Board of regents meeting) clearly indicates that as of November 1913, the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas was considered to be a branch college of the university and not an independent college. The passage is point 2 of a resolution by the Board of Regents requesting a constitutional amendment for:

"The repeal of the present constitutional status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the University and its return as an independent college." http://utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/1913minutes.pdf (numbered page 338, bottom of page) Randolph Duke (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

First, with regards to conflicts of interest. It is absolutely possible for inherent conflicts to affect objectivity. However you are incorrect in assuming or implying that any relationship to any of the schools mentioned in this article creates an inherent conflict. If such was the case, your having attended the University of Texas would create an inherent conflict for you, assuming you attended the school of course. Secondly, you are ASSUMING that I am a Former Student of Texas A&M. I have never stated that such is the case. What I HAVE stated is that there is no conflict of interest with regards to myself and editing of this article. And I welcome non-biased, third party editors to review and determine if my suggested edit is properly objective and relevant.

With regards to the mention of the 1948 forming of the Texas A&M University System - You continue to claim that this was a "fabrication" even though I provided a citation supporting such information. However once you pointed out that the error in the citation, I thanked you and revised accordingly. The edits that I make on this or any other article are always good faith edits and I have zero issue with correcting/revising them if errors are pointed out or when necessary as part of a compromise. However your use of a term such as "fabricate" is an assumption and attempt to assign much more nefarious intent to my action. Such assumption is neither warranted nor justified and remains a subjective overreaction and personal attack on your part.

You claim that I have claimed that A&M was "legislatively mandated independent of the university of Texas." I have agreed from the very start that A&M was established technically as a "branch college" of the university, even if such designation was actually practiced. However, I have pointed out that, as a result of earlier legislative acts compiled in the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes, the legislature mandated a Board of Directors who governed A&M, and continue to do so today. Additionally, although technically a branch of the University of Texas, you have agreed with me that A&M was and is governed by a Board of Directors/Regents. I believe that the terms "operate" and "govern" are interchangeable in this situation, but I am fine using the term "govern" as I believe that I have already stated in past discussion. I have also already stated my agreement with not using the word "independent" in the article and have already made that change. In fact, we both agreed to the "separate and distinct" language that is currently in place, so I'm not sure what you are still arguing with regards to this point.

With regards to your 1913 board minutes - It is a somewhat irrelevant link as we have already agreed to utilize the "separate but distinct" language. However it IS interesting to note that the cited minutes mentions a need to obtain approval by A&M's Board of Directors with regards to transfer of some properties to A&M. The fact that the Board of Regents needed such approval is solid evidence that A&M Board of Directors was not reporting to or governed by the University of Texas Board of Regents but was instead operating in an equivalent role to the Board of Regents.

With regards to whether there is merit to include a discussion of A&M in the University of Texas at Austin page rather than the University of Texas System page - First, please note that I have already stated my willingness to include it here and was simply asking for a third opinion as to which page was most appropriate. Second, regardless of time period being discussed and the official name of the University at the time, the fact remains that when discussing the University of Texas at Austin, people immediately think of the University located in Austin. And that is what this article should be focused on. Thirdly, RandolphDuke has argued that A&M is not part of the University of Texas System. However, he also has acknowledged that A&M IS still technically a part of the University of Texas at Austin which in turn is a part of the University of Texas System. Therefore it is illogical for him to now argue that A&M is not therefore part of the University of Texas System. But I do understand his reasoning as A&M is the flagship of the Texas A&M University System and not considered part of the University of Texas System. Simply more evidence that the "branch college" status does not exist practically, now or in the past.

RandolphDuke suggests that article length is immaterial and implies that all facts related to the University of Texas are appropriate and it should be left to the reader to determine whether the information is significant or not. I disagree and believe that such a position would make Wikipedia nonfunctional. As editors it IS our role to create articles that provide proper information in a readable and concise manner. As part of this role, I believe that editors DO have the ability to discuss and decide as a group that some information, even if factually valid, does not have enough significance to include in a wiki article. Are you really suggesting that I or someone else would be justified in adding every bit of trivial information to this article that we desired, as long as it related to the article subject and was factually valid? Again, I don't believe that such a position as you are suggesting would be agreed to by the extreme majority of wiki editors and I continue to suggest that the significance of a non-practiced "branch college" relationship between A&M and the University of Texas at Austin can be justifiably discussed, and removed if other, non-biased editors believe that such information in not significant enough to include.

RandolphDuke suggests that no attempt should be made to clarify the nature of the "branch college" relationship. I disagree and believe that, if we mention the "branch college", relationship, it then makes sense to provide the information that the two schools are governed "separately and distinctly" from one another. Such statement requires no "interpretation" to make. Randolph appears to be fine with such discussion on other pages, but seeks to prevent it on this page. In doing so, he fails to recognize that, since this relationship involves BOTH schools, it merits inclusion on this article page.

RandolphDuke again suggests that A&M be lumped with the Medical School and claiming that "the status of neither branch college has any greater significance than the other". I have already pointed out on multiple occasions the fact that the amendments discussed in the previous sentence of the article applied to A&M but not to the Medical School, and therefore there IS justification and logic in discussing the governance structure of A&M specifically in the sentence following the amendment discussion. So far, Randolph has refused to discuss that distinction.

I propose that the current language in the article continues to represent both a suitable compromise and also a relevant and informative statement which should be retained -

Both amendments were rejected by the voters. In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."[41]

Obviously I welcome input,opinion and final decision from other, non-biased editors. Additionally, I continue to propose to RandolphDuke that, in light of the two edit wars that we have participated in on this article within the last few weeks, that we should BOTH recuse ourselves from future edits and leave it to other editors who have not been in violation of wiki policy as both of us have. The offer still stands Randolph - Do you agree to stop any future editing if I agree to the same, in the interest of this article?

Macae (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I respond as follows:

• • At the very top of this section, on February 3, I specifically mentioned I expected to hear from individuals such as user Macae who simply would not accept the historical record or the fact that that the Ag college was a branch of the University of Texas, and sure enough, my expectations that any number of trolls would soon appear were well founded.

M:You claim that I have claimed that A&M was "legislatively mandated independent of the university of Texas." I have agreed from the very start that A&M was established technically as a "branch college" of the university, even if such designation was actually practiced. However, I have pointed out that, as a result of earlier legislative acts compiled in the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes, the legislature mandated a Board of Directors who governed A&M, and continue to do so today.

• • RD: Again, you insert the word “technically” to nuance the relationship of the branch college and the university. The constitution did not state it was established “technically” a branch of the university. The constitution stated it was “constituted as a branch.” You obviously will not stick to using words as offered in the original. I understand your points cannot be supported without nuance, manipulation and misrepresentation and outright dishonesty.

M: With regards to your 1913 board minutes - It is a somewhat irrelevant link as we have already agreed to utilize the "separate but distinct" language. However it IS interesting to note that the cited minutes mentions a need to obtain approval by A&M's Board of Directors with regards to transfer of some properties to A&M. The fact that the Board of Regents needed such approval is solid evidence that A&M Board of Directors was not reporting to or governed by the University of Texas Board of Regents but was instead operating in an equivalent role to the Board of Regents.

• • RD: Again, you misrepresent and fabricate meaning where it is not in the original. In fact, I am now accusing you of being patently dishonest. The passage you refer to regarding the transfer of property (assuming it is part of the resolution I have cited) merely states they regents need to Ag college directors to agree to the separation of the Ag college to create an independent college and to agree to the division of the PUF assets. It in no way evidences a prior legislative act mandating and reporting structure that amends the 1871 act that established the Ag college to be under “control, supervision and management” of the UT Board of Regents. Whether the Regents needed any approval of the Ag college board of directors is absolutely unproven and is immaterial to this entire discussion. There is no citation whatsoever inexistence that states the Board of Directors of the Ag college reports to the governor. That is an entire fabrication of your dishonest mind.

M:With regards to whether there is merit to include a discussion of A&M in the University of Texas at Austin page rather than the University of Texas System page - First, please note that I have already stated my willingness to include it here and was simply asking for a third opinion as to which page was most appropriate. Second, regardless of time period being discussed and the official name of the University at the time, the fact remains that when discussing the University of Texas at Austin, people immediately think of the University located in Austin. And that is what this article should be focused on. Thirdly, RandolphDuke has argued that A&M is not part of the University of Texas System. However, he also has acknowledged that A&M IS still technically a part of the University of Texas at Austin which in turn is a part of the University of Texas System. Therefore it is illogical for him to now argue that A&M is not therefore part of the University of Texas System. But I do understand his reasoning as A&M is the flagship of the Texas A&M University System and not considered part of the University of Texas System. Simply more evidence that the "branch college" status does not exist practically, now or in the past.

• • RD: My statement regarding the status of the Ag college was that the Ag college was never separated from UT Austin and made a separate part of the UT System. Your continued dishonest manipulation of words and your misrepresentations are beyond tiring. You mention “people immediately think.” Such statements have no proof. Most importantly, they have no importance to this discussion. You are trying to manipulate the historical record to craft an impression and to manipulate “what people think.” STOP!

User Macae, the entirety of your efforts are to create an impression of the status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College you approve of. On the other hand, I am trying to provide elements of the historical record, in their original, for the reader to consider. At this point, since you refuse to end your practice of changing words from their original, of inferring existence of legislative edicts based upon strained and mangled interpretations of other documents and your unquestioned intent to manipulate the perceptions and beliefs of the readers when the historical record is quite capable of speaking for itself, I am done with you and your outright dishonesty. The biases and conflicts your are so adamantly refusing to make known have become more than apparent. You are a troll seeking to manipulate the UT Austin Wikipedia page to portray your alma mater in a way the historical record does not support. I have spent enough time dealing with your dishonesty and ill motives.

• • • Until directed otherwise by an objective third party, I will insist on the following and will effect changes on the page as necessary to support the following:

• • 1) The relevant issue is the description of the relationship of the university and its branch colleges circa 1920. The status of neither branch college has any greater significance than the other at this point in the narrative.
  • 2) The suggested passage for inclusion at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section should read: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." (This would replace the passage reading "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."[41]" It would also remove the falsely represented citation numbered herein as 41. Randolph Duke (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Randolph, you stated that you "expected to hear from individuals such as user Macae who simply would not accept the historical record or the fact that that the Ag college was a branch of the University of Texas, and sure enough, my expectations that any number of trolls would soon appear were well founded." First, I DO accept the historical record and have provided citations of the legislation supporting my suggested edit. Second, I have NEVER disagreed with the "branch college" relationship between A&M and the University of Texas at Austin and have never suggested that such a statement was incorrect. Third, your labeling me as a "troll" is yet another personal attack from you that is a good indication of the bias and emotion that you are carrying into this discussion. I have asked you repeatedly to refrain from the personal attacks but obviously you continue to ignore such request.

I use the word "technically" to point out that the two universities do not in practice have the "branch college" relationship that was specified. First, you have yet to provide any evidence that such a relationship is actually practiced by the two schools. Second, I use that term only here on the talk pages where we are allowed to be more expressive of opinions rather than facts. I have NOT attempted to use the term "technically" in the article itself.

You state "Again, you misrepresent and fabricate meaning where it is not in the original. In fact, I am now accusing you of being patently dishonest." Of course you are incorrect once again, Randolph and are simply making claims that fit a bias rather than objectively weighing the information.

You stated "The passage you refer to regarding the transfer of property (assuming it is part of the resolution I have cited) merely states they regents need to Ag college directors to agree to the separation of the Ag college to create an independent college and to agree to the division of the PUF assets." First, I suggest that you reread the citation that you provided in order to understand what was said. The statement that I am referencing is in the last paragraph on that page. Secondly, in you stating that the regents needed the A&M Board of Director's approval, you are pointing out what I had previously stated - that the A&M Board of Directors was not being governed by the Board of Regents at the University of Texas as Austin. Otherwise, no approval would have been needed in order for the Board of Regents to act.

You state that "It in no way evidences a prior legislative act mandating and reporting structure that amends the 1871 act that established the Ag college to be under “control, supervision and management” of the UT Board of Regents." However we have already discussed that issue and I have already provided the citation to the legislation in 1925 that consolidates previous legislations that does indeed alter the way in which A&M is governed.

You state "My statement regarding the status of the Ag college was that the Ag college was never separated from UT Austin and made a separate part of the UT System." And my response was that IF A&M remains a part of the University of Texas at Austin as a "branch college" AND the University of Texas at Austin is part of the University of Texas System, then logically that means that A&M is a part of the University of Texas System, even if such relationship is a technical rather than actual one. To claim that such a logic argument is some sort of "dishonest manipulation or words and misrepresentation" is simply another case of you crying wolf and placing bias before objectivity as you choose to do repeatedly.

You state that what “people immediately think.... has no importance to this discussion”. I absolutely reject such an assumption on your part. If we choose to include language that we as editors feel is going to mislead or create a false impression with the reader, we are certainly within our editorial authority to add clarifying, factual information to help explain the information. To use a term such as "branch college" and then argue that no attempt to explain the nature of that relationship is allowed in the discussion, is not logical.

You claim that "the entirety of your efforts are to create an impression of the status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College you approve of." First, I am attempting to ensure that the relationship between A&M and the University of Texas at Austin is properly explained so as to not mislead the reader or create a false impression. I am doing so through a statement that is supported by citation that I have provided. Second, if I was attempting to create an "impression" that I "approve of", I would not have posted a request for objective, non-biased input and even decision from a third party. Third, you are claiming to provide elements of the historical record for the reader to consider, and yet you are also attempting to prevent other elements of the historical record from being provided in order to try and prevent the reader from considering them. Such selective editorship isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.

You state that "You are a troll seeking to manipulate the UT Austin Wikipedia page to portray your alma mater". First, you are again resorting to personal attacks in the absence of actual objective discussion. Second, you are again making assumptions concerning my possible relationship to either University discussed in this article.

You state that "The relevant issue is the description of the relationship of the university and its branch colleges circa 1920. The status of neither branch college has any greater significance than the other at this point in the narrative." I have already pointed out several times why the significance IS greater and so far, you have chosen not to address the points that I made regarding that matter.

You state that "Until directed otherwise by an objective third party, I will insist on the following and will effect changes on the page as necessary to support the following:" In other words, you will continue to insist on the removal of information that you disagree with and will continue to make those edits, even without the consensus or even support of any third party editors. Is your above statement suggesting that you will start up an edit war again, as soon as protection is removed from this page?

Finally, I have suggested multiple times that you and I, both being guilty of engaging in multiple edit wars on this page, should step back and allow other editors to make any and all future edits of this article. I have asked third parties to evaluate this article and this discussion and suggest and even make any changes/revisions that they feel appropriate. Are you willing to do the same and recuse youself from future edits of this article and instead leave it up to other editors, RandolphDuke? What say you?

Macae (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User Macae, this conversation is over. For the past month and a half I have played your game of trying to force the legends and fairy tales you were taught at Texas A&M "Fish Camp" onto this page. You have continued to insist you twisted, strained and mangled interpretations all point to your predetermined conclusion, regarding what impression the reader should be manipulated into believing concerning Texas A&M's relationship to the University of Texas.You have failed to narrow down points of contention for third parties to consider. Instead, you simply continue to do everything but offer elements of the historical record for individuals to review to determine if your claims have any validity. I truly believe you are playing a game and that you have are playing obstructionist out of improper motives. I have made what I believe to be the points of contention absolutely clear for third parties to consider. I have also made it clear i am done trying to reason with you. The past month and a half dealing with you has largely been a waste of time because you are intent on playing games instead of trying to resolve the issues. I am done playing games with you. Good bye.

• • • Until directed otherwise by an objective third party, I will insist on the following and will effect changes on the page as necessary to support the following:

• • 1) The relevant issue is the description of the relationship of the university and its branch colleges circa 1920. The status of neither branch college has any greater significance than the other at this point in the narrative.
  • 2) The suggested passage for inclusion at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section should read: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." (This would replace the passage reading "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."[41]" It would also remove the falsely represented citation numbered herein as 41.Randolph Duke (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke - As evidenced by your continued use of terms such as "legends", "fairy tales", "improper motives", "troll", etc., you continue to resort to personal attacks rather than focusing on the article itself. With regards to your claim that "neither branch college has any greater significance than the other at this point in the narrative", I have already pointed out in a half dozen responses found above, why there IS a significant difference. You unfortunately have refused to discuss those differences that have been detailed. With those differences that I have pointed out, I believe that the statement should continue to read as -

Both amendments were rejected by the voters. In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."[41]

In "Insisting" on the statement to be used and stating that you will continue to make changes on the page to force inclusion of your desired statement, it certainly appears that you are planning to start yet another edit war as soon as protection is removed from this page, regardless of the fact that your position does not represent a consensus nor does it have the support of any third party editors. Rather than do this, I again suggest that we BOTH agree to recuse ourselves from future edits of this page, and instead leave it to other non-biased editors for future additions and revisions. I fear that if you start another edit war on this article, it could lead to a topic ban for both of us.

Macae (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For The Love of God, Please Stop!

This one section has become the Great Wall of Wikipedia. WP:WALLS It is now 130 pages of text! This is unacceptable and unreadable by other editors. As you continue this discussion (which I do not really suggest) please start new sections. It would be really helpful if one or both of you would break the above section into sub-sections. Perhaps 20 sections of 7 pages, in order to allow other editors to read and understand the discussion. Absent that you have wasted enormous time. Enormous. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Capitalismojo and, as one of those guilty participants in this argument, I agree that it has been a huge waste of time and has done little to actually enhance the article. Nothing new has been mentioned in these follow up responses and the crux of the argument can be found in the first couple of paragraphs of this discussion. It appears that RandolphDuke is ready to end the discussion and I am fine with doing so as well, so hopefully no new sections will be needed. At some point in the future, it probably makes sense to remove much of the latter part of this discussion since it really hasn't achieved anything. But I will hold off doing so until some point in the future when the issues surrounding this disagreement are more settled.

Macae (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis of Debate - Extensive January 30 Edits

As I mentioned on February 3, "I fully anticipate this to draw objections from those with a close attachment to Texas A&M University, as much of it is inconsistent with the version of Texas history they have been lead to believe." User Macae is an alumnus of Texas A&M who is insisting his alma mater be referred to on this page in a way that resembles the legends and lore of his alma mater. The problem is those legends are inconsistent with the historical record. I believe this page should focus on the historical record and the legends and lore of Texas A&M University be discussed on the Wikipedia page for that institution.

The contentious passage (at the moment) is end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section which currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."

Through a quirk of history, the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (predecessor-in-name to today's Texas A&M University) was constituted as a branch of the University of Texas (predecessor-in-name to The University of Texas at Austin). To this day, the branch college status of the Agricultural college has never been changed and constitutionally, Texas A&M University remains a branch of the University of Texas at Austin. This fact riles the alumni of Texas A&M. Legend and lore fabricated by Texas A&M administrators and alumni to soothe their egos (and passed along through the generations) is that the Ag college was never a branch of the university, that there was a legal separation by the legislature in (fill in the blank with whatever year happens to be convenient) or that the legislature mandated the Ag college to be independent since (fill in the blank with whatever year happens to be convenient). User Macae is insisting the legends and lore of his alma mater be represented on this page. The University of Texas at Austin has long been the greatest rival of Texas A&M and as a Texas A&M alumnus, user Macae is seemingly defending the legends and lore of his beloved alma mater. I am attempting to have the historical record represented and to allow readers to draw whatever conclusions they feel most reasonable.

What seems to be needed is a non-conflicted third party to decide on the best language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section.

User Macae favors: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." I favor: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."

We each have our reasons for favoring the individual passages. If a third party cared to step in and settle the matter, the disagreement might well end here and now, unless user Macae insists on adding additional examples of his alma mater's legends and lore in between the factual passages of this page. The existing passage needs to be corrected as the citation numbered 41 does not support the claim made in the statement and was offered in error. If user Macae's text is to be used, either it needs to be supported with a valid citation or it needs to be noted as "citation needed."Randolph Duke (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke - In stating "User Macae is an alumnus of Texas A&M", you are again making an assumption only. Secondly, in stating "who is insisting his alma mater be referred to on this page in a way that resembles the legends and lore of his alma mater.", you are again resorting to personal attacks rather than focusing on the material itself. Finally, my proposed statement does NOT resemble legends and lore, but instead is supported by citation.

You suggest that this article should focus on the historical record, and yet desire to prevent the historical record related to the nature of the "branch college" relationship between the two schools from being included.

If we are going to mention a technical relationship that doesn't actually exist from a practical standpoint, then we should certainly explain the nature of that relationship and allow the reader to then draw whatever conclusion they feel reasonable.

I agree that we need a third party opinion and have posted on the third party site asking for just that. Further, I believe that as participants in two separate edit wars on this topic, we should both recuse ourselves from further edits to this article and leave future edits to other, third party editors. Will you agree with me on that proposal, RandolphDuke?

You state that "The existing passage needs to be corrected as the citation numbered 41 does not support the claim made in the statement and was offered in error." However that citation actually DOES support the claim made and references to the relevant legislative act of the Texas legislature.

Finally, one additional point to make is that the statement that RandolphDuke and I are arguing about directly follows the statement that the two amendments that would have severed the "branch college" relationship. These two amendments involved A&M and not the University of Texas Medical School. Therefore it seems reasonable and justifiable to reference A&M rather than both schools in the sentence that follows.

Macae (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Second Attempt at Synopsis of Debate - Extensive January 30 Edits

Obviously, my attempt to offer a synopsis of the issue and focus on the exact passage under dispute has not been as successful. Previous attempts by myself to focus discussion on the exact points of contention met with similar futility. I reiterate it is my belief the point of contention is the best language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section that currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." It should be replaced with: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."

The remainder of the conflict is noise and chatter driven by collegiate jealousy and the insistence by an overzealous and misguided alumni of Texas A&M University that the Wikipedia page of his alma mater's dominant rival contain passages designed to create misimpressions of the history of his alma mater that he personally approves of.

As user Macae has refused to focus on identifying points of contention for third party evaluation, I have ended all discussion of the matter with him and I look forward to third party comments on how we can end one of the most senseless and absurd matters I have been forced to deal with. There are other edits, such as the uploading of a new university wordmark, that have been requested and comments by other historians that need to be included on the page. User Maece's interference is neither helpful, informative nor appreciated.Randolph Duke (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke - First, your usage of terms such as "collegiate jealousy", "overzealous and misguided", "dominant rival" continue to represent personal attacks on myself rather than focusing on the article content itself. Having asked dozens of times already to cease such attacks, I will make such a request yet again. Second, if I was going to "insist" on a statement that I "personally approve of", as you have claimed, then I would not have been the one to request third party input, nor the one willing to abide by third party decision, nor the one offering to recuse myself from future edits of this article if you also would make similar agreement.

With regards to your claim that I have refused to focus on identifying points of contention for third party evaluation - I provided just that when User:rhoark first made that request on March 15th. However I can post it again in this section in order to make it easier to find and analyze -

1) Is mention of A&M being a "branch college" of the University of Texas relevant, non-trivial or necessary to this article, given that in practice such has never been the actual relationship between the schools.

2) Is mention of the A&M status as a branch college most appropriate for this article which involves the University of Texas based at the Austin campus, or is it better suited for the University of Texas System article which involves all schools that are part of the University of Texas System?

3) If it is appropriate to mention within this article, is it relevant, non-trivial and important enough to mention five separate times as currently is the case? Or is a single mention more appropriate?

4) If mention of A&M's technical status as a "branch college" is kept in this article, it then seems reasonable to explain the nature of that relationship by including brief mention of the separate and distinct governance of each school. FYI - RandolphDuke and I have already agreed with the that verbiage as best describing the governance structure of the two schools.

5) In mentioning the two failed constitutional amendments to remove the "branch status" label, it does not make sense in the very next sentence to try and lump A&M and the University of Texas Medical School together since - The article does not list the Medical School as being a "branch college" even a single time and; Since the amendments did not attempt to separate the Medical School from the University of Texas as it attempted to do so with A&M.

Of the above issues, I haven't really pushed item #1. I think it is an extremely trivial item to include for an already lengthy article. But from a historical context, I don't have an extreme issue with including it, even if such a relationship is technical only and hasn't really ever been practiced in reality. With regard to item #2, I believe it is more appropriate to the System page but have no problem defering to whatever third party opinions might be offered. With regards to item #3, I do believe five times is excessive and that the article could probably be better and more concise by making a single mention of the technical relationship, followed by mention that each school has a Board of Regents and are governed separately and distinctly by by those boards. Finally, I do believe that if mention of the "branch college" status is kept in the article, then items #4 & #5 need to remain as well in order to eliminate any confusion that could potentially be created by not specifying the actual nature of that "branch college" relationship.

Macae (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I suggest reading and preparing a RFC for this talk page. That is to say a "request for comment". This is a brief summary of a propsed edit and a request for other editors to weigh in. In this way a contentious edit can be discussed by multiple editors and consensus achieved. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After requesting a 3O request, editor Gigs took a look and gave a formal opinion on March 13th. His opinion was that "I'm inclined to concur that it's not even necessary to mention it in this article as such. It is more of an appropriate topic for the "system" articles." No other third party has argued against Gig's opinion on this matter to date. As such, I suggest that the references to A&M's status as a "branch college" be removed from the article based on the "triviality" of the subject that Gigs referenced. With that removal, it no longer would make sense to include the statement that user RandolphDuke and I have been discussing, so it too can be removed and therefore eliminate this particular disagreement that has occurred. Rather than make the corrections myself however, I believe that it is probably more appropriate to have a third party editor make the changes, so I will make the request to Gigs and see if he is willing to do so. Macae (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Although Gigs has already responded, in the interest of getting as much input as possible, I have followed Capitalismojo's advice and requested an RFC. I'll hold off making or requesting any edits of this article until we have hopefully obtained additional input from other third party editors. Macae (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Third Attempt at Synopsis of Debate - Extensive January 30 Edits

I (yet again) assert all attention should be focused exclusively on the best language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section that currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."

My contention continues to be that the individual preferring the language I disagree with has utterly failed to cite the existence of the mysterious "previous legislative acts" that supposedly clearly and unequivocally mandated "each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." If there is a legislative mandate that contains the words "separate and distinct" it can be produced. If no such mandate containing those specific words exists, it cannot be claimed one does exist. It is that simple. The other individual has entirely fabricated the existence of such legislation that contains the words "separate and distinct" and accordingly, the claim that it exists should not be included. It can be argued the "separate and distinct" relationship existed, but there is no legislative mandate that established it. The "separate and distinct" relationship simply was not legislatively mandated.

The language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section should be replaced with: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."

Attempts to draw the discussion to any other subject have proven meaningless and unproductive. They need to stop and this matter needs to be brought to a conclusion so other necessary edits on the page can be made. Repeated interference based on collegiate jealousy have proven to be neither helpful, informative nor appreciated.Randolph Duke (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke You again incorrectly claim that I have "utterly failed to cite the existence of the mysterious "previous legislative acts"". However I have already cited that legislative act, as has been pointed out repeatedly. With regards to the "separate and distinct" verbiage, it was you who referenced and suggested that language and which I agreed to. And as you have acknowledged, such a relationship does exist. And with regards to your desire to try and lump A&M and the Medical School together by using "both branch colleges", such is not justified since the constitutional amendments involved only A&M.

I still think it is possible to find a compromise statement that both of us can find agreeable, although it might be a moot issue given the 3rd party opinion to remove the branch college references completely. But in the spirit of compromise, I would suggest the following - "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but each school continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."

You continue to try and force an edit that not only has no consensus among editors, but doesn't even have the support of a single other editor. In order to try and resolve this issue, I requested a third party opinion. And that third party suggested that the entire "branch college" mention should be eliminated due to the triviality of the information. This makes the statement that we have been arguing about entirely unnecessary. I will hold off making these changes however for a few days in case anyone wishes to respond to my followup "Request For Comment".

RandolphDuke, your usage of terms such as "Repeated interference" and "collegiate jealousy" continues to constitute a personal attack on myself. Please desist from these continued attacks.

Macae (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding relevance of "branch college" status of Texas A&M in University of Texas at Austin

Texas Constitution refers to Texas Agriculture and Mechanical College as a "branch college" of the University of Texas. Is this wording relevant and significant enough to include in the University of Texas at Austin article? If so, does it merit multiple mentions? And if included, should the article then include mention of the separate governing structure of each University? 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, in 1967, the name of "The University of Texas" was changed to "The University of Texas at Austin" so prior to 1967, "The University of Texas" (for purposes of this article) is one and the same as "The University of Texas at Austin." Each and every mention of "The University of Texas" prior to 1967 is a mention of the history of "The University of Texas at Austin" and any deletion of a passage discussing The University of Texas prior to 1967 is a deletion of a passage discussing the history of The University of Texas at Austin.

Additionally, the term "each university" as used above is misleading. The question should read "Should the article then include special notation of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college?" Prior to 1963, there was but one university, that being The University of Texas. The university had two branch colleges, the Agricultural college and the Medical college. In 1963, the legislature changed the name of the Agricultural branch college to "Texas A&M University." The debate that has run to such an absurd length concerns the governance structure of the university and both its Agricultural branch college and Medical branch college circa 1920 and whether the structure of the two branch colleges can be referred to obliquely or whether the individual governance structure of the Agricultural branch college was so important to the growth and development of the University of Texas that it warrants special and exceptional discussion and recognition. Randolph Duke (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke, you again have attempted to make the same edit that has led to two edit wars, several protections of the article, and which neither consensus agreement nor the support of even a single other editor. In fact, the 3rd party opinion recommended removing the mention of the "branch college" status completely, based on the triviality of the statement. Macae (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording in question is not relevant enough to merit its inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the topic of The University of Texas at Austin. The present-day de facto reality is that there is a University of Texas System and a Texas A&M University System, each with its own Board of Regents, both owned and managed by the State of Texas (along with several other independent state university systems). Whether or not a legal predecessor to the flagship entity of one system was once a de iure branch of the legal predecessor to the flagship entity of the other system and may still technically be so due to a carelessly worded law written two centuries ago is a matter of academic trivia, and the attempt to "clarify" this phrase has wasted far more time than the information in question could possible merit. It would be far more prudent to remove the language in question altogether and stop the edit war. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fourth Attempt at Synopsis of Debate - Extensive January 30 Edits

The matter has not been settled regarding the highly debated fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section where the last line currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."

Again, it is an entire fabrication by the other individual that there exists any legislative edict that mandated any governance structure of the Agricultural branch college as represented in the passage as it currently reads. It is my contention the passage should read "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."

In support of my position, I have offered exhaustive citations. I now yet again offer the exact words of the president of the Agricultural branch college - quoted in the original - to support that the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college and the Medical branch college were indistinguishable. In page 9, paragraph 1 of the 1900 Biennial report of the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas it reads:

• • "It seems clear that the college was intended to be, in the largest sense, the technological institution of Texas. Constitutionally, it is a branch of the University devoted to technological training just as the Medical College at Galveston is a branch of the University devoted to medical instruction. The College is, therefore, a complement of the University, offering instruction in all technological subjects." https://archive.org/details/annualreportofag1900agri

There are additional citations to support what the leaders of the Agricultural branch college, as well as the rest of the State of Texas recognized at the time being discussed and what most individuals understand today. The other individual in the debate is simply trying to reconstruct history to his own liking and in a manner consistent with the misguided and overzealous collegiate jealousies of a factually confused alumni of Texas A&M University.

I again insist this edit war end and end now, with the other party ceasing all erroneous and unsupported edits to this page. As the wording for the passage has been unquestionably supported by numerous citations, I will change the passage to the factual version I have been long supporting and will remove the inaccurate and unsupported passage. Randolph Duke (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RandolphDuke - If you wish to stop participating in an edit war, I would suggest that you cease your continued edits that have yet to gain, not only consensus support, but has not yet gained support of even a single other editor. Further, the formal third party response stated an opinion that the "branch college" status does not even have enough significance to merit inclusion in this article and should be removed entirely. I have held off making such changes while waiting for response to my "request for comment". Without any dissent from that third party opinion, I'll go ahead and make the recommended revisions next week. Macae (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

With regards to your comments - I have already provided the legislative citation outlining the governance structure of A&M. Additionally, the citation that you provided in response does not refer to the governance structure but only points to an opinion regarding the intent/goals of the school. Also, in again trying to lump the two schools together, you are again ignoring the points and distinctions that I already have pointed out - including the fact that the constitutional amendments referenced in the sentence immediately proceeding the debated statement, did NOT treat the schools equally. Instead the amendments applied to A&M but not the Medical School. Macae (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)