Jump to content

Talk:Oregon State University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Misc

Another point thats missing is the fact that oregon state university is one of 11(?) universities in the US to house a nuclear reactor.

Residence Hall not to be confused with dormitory? You have to be kidding me, they are EXACTLY the same thing!

Residence Hall is the preferred terminology for Campus Housing practitioners. Eric Stoller 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Does it really need its own, specific info box (Template:OSU taxobox)? --Jason McHuff 20:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why nothing about Dixon rec center?

Sun Grant

I found 5 sun grant colleges as opposed to the 2 that this article states. I corrected it in the past it but was reverted for some reason. Maybe someone else might want to take a look at this. --Ddaanngg 05:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. North-Central Center (South Dakota State University)
  2. Northeastern Center (Cornell University)
  3. South-Central Center (Oklahoma State University)
  4. Southeastern Center (University of Tennessee)
  5. Western Center (Oregon State University)

Land, Sea and Space Grant

In the article it says that OSU is one of 10 universities in the United States that are Land, Sea and Space grant Universities. Elsewhere in Wikipedia it's says that there are only 6. Which one is it? Muj0 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

By my count it's 10, and here they are. This is just my own personal research, nothing I've ever seen published.

Hope these check out. --Peter J. Mello, Jr. 1 October 2005, 0341h (UTC)

If you look at the links for the Sun grants then it looks like OSU is one of only 4 Universities that has all 4 types of grants. -James Padgett
I count 13. The list above actually includes 11 (not 10) of them. The 13 I count are:
btm 08:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Notable campus building images

I was thinking it'd be nice to spruce up the listing of colleges and departments with a few authentic shots from around campus, say of Benton Hall, Weatherford, maybe Weniger? I don't have a digicam, so maybe someone in Corvallis wants to upload a couple personal shots? Peter J. Mello, Jr. 17:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Athletics section as seperate page?

I noticed that the only University of featured article status is the University of Michigan, and I think that we could do something similar for this university (among other things...I'd like to get it up to peer review for featured article status at some point but we need to do a lot of work on it first). VegaDark 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not sure if there's really enough information to flesh out a seperate page for Athletics, but I'm sure it could be attempted. Do you have a to-do list of things you would like to see done? I'm more than happy to help out where I can. Peter J. Mello, Jr. 16:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed on the University of Michigan article that for the main page they have kind of a stub about things such as history, athletics, alumni, etc. with a link going to a more expanded version. I think it would be nice if we could get enough information to do the same thing, perhaps use that page as a template for our own as it is the only university page that has gotten featured article status. We could certainly expand the alumni to have a page of it's own, as there are plenty of people notable enough for Wikipedia that are still left out (I added a few though). The athletics sections for other pages can list all-americans, ncaa championships for all sports, bowl games, etc. and I think we could definitly fill a page with that info. USC has a page listing every member of their current football team, I don't know if someone wants to bother doing that for us though. VegaDark 21:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

HP Reference to the facility in Corvallis

The reference to the second largest HP facility in the world is a very dated reference. While at one time this was true; Currently the Corvallis site has shipped its production lines to Singapore, is in the process of reducing its labor base to 1/4th the size with intention of eventually closing the site.

Gazette times

12.108.19.226 21:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you delete such a reference? I don't see one now. HP Corvallis is still the second largest site in the company. Please cite some sort of reference about the site closing.

Lead

The lead of this article is too large (see WP:LEAD). PDXblazers 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian Politics

I am reading that Irwandi Yusuf, the recently elected leader of Aceh Province (northern Sumatra) is a MS/Veterinary degree holder from Oregon State. Is this a correct statement?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.146.102 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

more notable alumni

I believe a couple of the co-founders of CH2M Hill are OSU alumni. I believe CH2M Hill is now one of the largest env. engineering companies in the world. It was my understanding that the Valley family, namesake of the Valley library, were co-founders of the NFL. Weren't some of Oregon's governors OSU grads? Casey208.53.88.146 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And what about Steven Jackson? Casey208.53.88.146 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Douglas McKay, governor of Oregon, was a grad of Oregon State College, subsequently Oregon State Univ. Casey208.53.88.146 05:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

James Withycombe, governor of Oregon, was a grad of Oregon Ag. College, subsequently Oregon State University. Casey208.53.88.146 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are tons of notable alumni not mentioned on this page. The list can be found at List of Oregon State University people. Since we refer readers to that page, the section on this page on notable alumni should be short and sweet and not list everybody, only the most notable. VegaDark 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Playmates are more notable than Governors? Casey206.170.183.60 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that there was a link to that page in the Notable Alumni section. Casey206.170.183.60 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a link. See right under the header where it says "Main article: List of Oregon State University people". VegaDark 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I missed that link. Could we make it more noticeable? Maybe include it in the final sentence of the text. Thanks. Casey206.170.183.60 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

schools and colleges section

Okay, I tried to improve the two-column layout, but kind of messed it up. I'll come back and fix it if somebody more skilled than me doesn't do so first.

On a separate note: I removed the word "(Department)" which followed the name of every department, cluttering the appearance and making it difficult to read. I also think all the external links in this section - to individual college web sites - should be removed, but I'll hold off on that in case anybody objects. -Pete 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Reactor

I made a page for your nuclear reactor and associated facilities; OSU Radiation Center.

Tell your friends.theanphibian 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami research

The wave lab needs an article (or section in whatever college it is a part of), as it is often in the news and thus notable. Aboutmovies 07:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we need total students in text box?

Hey folks, I just made some major edits/changes to the lead section. Hope everyone likes it! Anyway, I have not tried to drop the "total students" from the top text box because someone replaced it after I made the removal. That's fine and I'm not interested in removing it if you want to keep it. I've just seen other university pages eliminate it when undergrads and grads are already listed. Thanks for your input. AgntOrange 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

"In 1994 OSU was rated the "Safest campus in the Pac-10" in a recent study of universities."

Two problems, 1994 is not really recent, but also is this really even relevant at this point? I was there in 1994 and the school has gone from what around 14,000 students to around 20,000 students, there are a number of new buildings on campus, and it has been 13 years. I could understand if it was last year, but I think this should go.

Other clean up notes:

  • The degree programs need to go, leaving only a list of colleges without links (though do need a source).
  • Sources for items beyond the intro, there are only a few.
  • The lead needs to be shortened with about half the info moved to other areas of the article.
  • Citations need to be made uniform, no mix and match.

This should address most of the major problems with the article and help move it towards GA class. Aboutmovies 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Reformatting complete

I just finished reformatting the page so it matches Wiki standards for Universities. I believe some of the sections should eventually be boiled down to a max of three paragraphs and then lead to dedicated pages (ie. "History" It appears there is already a page dedicated to this). Of course, it's all a work in progress. Hope everyone is happy with the new look! AgntOrange 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Graduate and doctoral degrees"

Anyone else think this sentence in the lead is awkward? "The university offers undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degrees and a multitude of research opportunities". Doctoral degrees ARE graduate degrees. That is like saying "we carry fruit and apples". Shouldn't we simply say "Undergraduate and graduate degrees"? VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sold. -Pete (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the author was trying to highlight that OSU grants doctorates, since not every school does. Maybe, "...undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees along with a multitude of research opportunities." might accomplish this without the repetition. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Doctoral degrees are graduate degrees, but a specific form of graduate degree. Some institutions offer master degrees, which are graduate degrees. However, they may not offer a full Phd.AgntOrange (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I like Aboutmovies' suggestion, as I think it satisfies both our concerns. Agreed? VegaDark (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Diversity: Black Out" Info Removed

For the first time I have removed the "Black Out" info due to the fact it is not a historic event in the university's history (ie. will it be remembered in 10 years? Probably not.). In fact, there have been wider covered stories relating to racism at all of Oregon's major universities and none are included in their wiki's. For inclusion, it should be based upon whether the information was "well" circulated nationally. Best test is did it make the New York Times print edition (not an on-line version with a conglomeration of AP stories.)? That would typically indicate a level of "historical marking" worthy of mentioning on a university website. In truth, I see no reason not to make a wiki for this event if one so chooses. It was certainly an embarrassment to the university.AgntOrange (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AgntOragne: Fair enough. I restored it before, when it had been deleted with the justification that it was "derogatory" to the school, which is not a sufficient reason for removal. I don't live in Corvallis though, and have little to go on to assess how big an issue this was, so I'm happy to take your word for it.
I did, though, revert one of your changes: "Revered as a top tier forestry school" -> "Considered a top tier…" This seems pretty straightforward to me; Wikipedia is not here to puff up any institution, but to provide a factual account. If there's any reverence, there's plenty of places to discuss it besides an encyclopedia.
Thanks for all your work on the article, esp. for tracking down more citations. -Pete (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the black out thing should be left out. While it had some local press coverage, I still think it was far too minor to have its own paragraph on the Wikipedia page. This is nothing more than a few students complaining, nothing big enough to mention on the Wikipedia page. As for "revered" vs. "considered", I agree that "revered" is a little too POV unless the source specifically uses that wording, which I haven't checked. "Considered" just informs the reader that it is ranked a top school (which is undisputed), while "revered" gives a sense that all other schools with a forestry program look to OSU as their model program. If the source says this, then I would consider the wording proper, but if it is merely a ranking I think "considered" is more appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Forestry School "Revered"

"I did, though, revert one of your changes: "Revered as a top tier forestry school" -> "Considered a top tier…" This seems pretty straightforward to me; Wikipedia is not here to puff up any institution, but to provide a factual account. If there's any reverence, there's plenty of places to discuss it besides an encyclopedia."

I understand your fear. You feel this is going to become some sort of marketing promo for the school. I too fear this... Our information loses credibility when it makes this leap. I don't believe we are doing so by using the term "revered" to refer to the most respected forestry program in America. There is not a better word to describe it.... That I know of. Besides "considered" is already used within the paragraph itself. If you can come up with another word which describes a school for being the best... then I would love to hear your suggestions. Revered is not "puffing" up a sourced fact here.... but I am open to alternatives other than considered.71.56.158.17 (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: rewrite the first sentence to be: "OSU is widely considered to have the nation's leading school of Forestry." --Esprqii (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Does "Regarded" really describe "viewed as the best" in one word?" If we are going to drop "revered" for another word... let's use one that is as complete as "revered" is.AgntOrange (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)\
  • The use of the word "revered" is unencyclopedic, a blatant POV violation that cannot be supported with a reference, and a silly redundancy when coupled with "top tier school". It is simply unecessary, and no other word need replace it. "As a top tier school" is more than adequate without introducing intensifiers with religious overtones.--Edgewise (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Revered and similar words are either weasel words or words to avoid or peacock terms. Which ever, they are not encyclopedic. The sentence is also unsourced, nor attributed to anyone/thing. I think we need something like: OSU's forestry program is considered the best in the United States by Timber Man magazine (insert real publication). or: According to Forestry Educators Monthly (insert real publication) Oregon State's forestry department is rated number 2 in the United States.
  • This way we let the facts speak for themselves on the subject and the reader can decide if it is revered on their own. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are we having this debate?* "The study, published in the Journal of Forestry, examined a range of research, publication and citation criteria at 47 universities in the U.S. and six in Canada. It is one of the first peer-reviewed rankings of forestry programs in at least a decade, the Auburn University authors said."

Unless you are blatantly biased against the OSU forestry program you have no choice to agree that "revered" is precisely what is referenced in this wiki paragraph. Please do your research. If you want to debate this fact... do so with the Journal of Forestry. Not here. I have asked nicely before to provide an alternative to "revered" which describes the "best" in one word. Instead of providing an alternative VegaDark removes the word. Let's move on. Apparently "revered" is the best choice. AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are blatantly against reading the various guidelines people have pointed you to or are blatantly against consensus (I count me, Edgewise, VegaDark, and Esprqii on the revered should not be used list to only you on the use) then I am completely boggled that you are still debating this. So, yes, please do move on and not use revered. As to a fact, no actually that would be the opinion of the author(s) of the article, wouldn't it? I can say my ass is revered, but that really does not make that a fact, nor would we include that in Wikipedia. Again, we do not generally use words like revered in Wikipedia (see blue links above), and I have nothing against my alma matter. I have fond memories of falling asleep at Peavy Hall during Econ. But we do not use revered. Why are you so against not including it, do you work for the school or something? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Any references I have seen above that would indicate the word "revered" should not be used were unfounded. Please specifically direct me to where the use of this work is against Wiki standards. Otherwise, let it alone.AgntOrange (talk)

The word "Revered" does not appear anywhere in the reference you cited. Therefore, its use in this article is unreferenced. Without a specific reference, it is your opinion, not a fact. Expressing personal opinions in Wiki articles is unencyclopedic. Is that clear?--Edgewise (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying it does! The reference does, however, indicated the school is "revered." This has become a game for you. I can only consider this vandalism after you fail to provide a requested alternative in over 4 months.AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If "revered" does not specifically appear in your reference, it is unencyclopedic to include it in the article. It is your personal opinion only; OSU Forestry has never been revered by anyone, at any time. If you have a reference to the contrary, please post it here.--Edgewise (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the reference for this paragraph and, as I requested in December, provide an alternative word to "revered" that describes being the "best."AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the reference. "Revered" does not appear in it, yet you insist on including it. Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum to express your personal opinions.
As for an alternative, one is unecessary; "As a top tier forestry school" is perfectly acceptable without a intensifier that violates the WP:POV guidleine.--Edgewise (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add me to the list of people who have contended the word "revered" is utterly inappropriate in this context. I think this extensive discussion is unnecessary. I proposed "regarded" as an alternative many months ago; other alternatives have come up. AgntOrange, whether you regard the reversion as vandalism is irrelevant; you like, though, you can report it to the vandalism noticeboard. -Pete (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you fail to provide an equitable alternative we can both agree upon. I have contacted wikipedia's administration to review your past deletions for vandalism. AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to their moderation of this dispute.--Edgewise (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone questions that OSU has one of, if not the, top forestry school in the nation. However, "revere" has connotations of worship and adulation, which I don't think are appropriate for an academic department. Renowned, widely respected, highly regarded...those would all work better. Or my previous suggestion: drop that clause altogether and reword as: "OSU is widely to have the nation's leading school of Forestry." -- Esprqii (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Esprqii, I think you left out a word: "considered", perhaps? I don't think "highly regarded" or "renowned" or "widely respected" are good, either; where there's a simple statement of fact available, we should avoid qualifying words. -Pete (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "considered"; sorry. And I do agree that it is better to let the facts speak for themselves. --Esprqii (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I commented at the Request for Assistance. To reiterate, I agree with the foregoing that "revere" is too strong and too loaded a word in this context, and that it's very easy to edit around it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it... alternatives! Hey, if you want to switch to "Renowned" I'd be happy to stick with it because it does suggest the best in one word. If only this alternative had been provided earlier we could have moved past this epic battle. Please feel free to change "Revered" to "Renowned" and I will not change it again. AgntOrange (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to set the record straight, 1) I don't recall ever personally reverting "revered as", although I agree that should be changed as not adequately sourced. The only thing I recall reverting was the nonsensical "<noinclude> </noinclude>" that you keep adding for some unknown reason. 2) I am one of the most pro-OSU people you will ever find. It is an absolute joke to accuse me of reverting that wording to make OSU look worse. I would love if you found a reliable source that specifically used the wording "revered as", but until then wording it that way would be misinformation, which is unacceptable. As I said earlier, even if we have a reliable source saying our forestry program is undisputedly the best in the world, using the wording "revered as" would still be innapropriate. "Revered as" is not necessarily synonymous with "considered", revered implies that other institutions strive to have their programs like ours, which the source you provided does not convey. I would oppose "Revered as" in referring to the Harvard Law School without a reliable source using that specific wording for the same reasons, although it would probably be true. Bottom line, there seems to be a consensus here that "Revered as" should be changed. I suggest you help find other information to expand the article rather than make the minor changes you keep reverting. VegaDark (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't demonstrated that an alternative is even necessary. The sentence in question, ("As a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject. ") already describes the OSU School of Forestry as the nation's leader. What more do you want? Additional intensifiers are just redundant.--Edgewise (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, "As a top tier..." sounds fine, we don't need an alternative to "Revered". VegaDark (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Without the word "revered," or your suggested "renowned" at the start of the sentence it no longer makes grammatic sense. In fact, it becomes a meaningless sentence without an adjective describing the level of respect the school has achieved. This is your version: "As a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject." This sentence makes absolutely no sense because OSU is not widely considered the nation's leader in the subject just because it is a top tier forestry school. Instead, it is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject because it is revered/renowned by many scholastic organizations as the top forestry school. This is why the revered, or renowned belong at the start of the sentence.AgntOrange (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "According to x publication", like Aboutmovies suggests? That would be nothing but factual and not be subject to POV. VegaDark (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Revere" implies deference.Urzatron (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without either of the two adjectives, the sentence doesn’t seem to make any sense. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

When a student there has a chance and it is sunny out could someone take pictures of:

Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It is unattractive to post pictures enlarged to 650 pixels. It screws up the column alignment, and causes the columns to wrap around the picture in a manner inconsistent with copyediting standards, which is an irony as OSU once had a very good Department of Journalism. It is unfortunate OSU is represented by such a clumsy and awkward layout.--Edgewise (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, in general and for this article. I support enlarged pictures beyond the thumb default or reduced size if there is a good reason. I don't see a good reason here, so the Manual of Style dictates thumb as the default and users can then change their size preference for display under "My Preferences" if they want bigger pictures. Also, there should not be external links in the captions, nor should the captions be very long, nor should they be bolded or made small. This is mainly covered in the MOS as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the pictures in this article should not override default size settings. There are occasional reasons to ignore this principle, but I don't see any here. Aboutmovies' WP:MOS observations are all correct as well. -Pete (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Slow edit war

I'm a Duck, so I don't care about what happens on this page, much, but the reverting back and forth is getting a bit disruptive. Can User:71.56.158.17 aka User:AgntOrange and User:Edgewise please start discussing the changes AgntOrange is trying to make? See also the above discussion about "Revered". Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added comments to "Revered" and "Pictures" to address my concerns.--Edgewise (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits Requested

{{editprotected}}

1) Several photos need to be sized, in accordance with Wiki standards, but still viewable by readers. Current sizes of the library and the Memorial Union are too small for readers to see.

2) The second paragraph beneath "Academics" & "Rankings and recognition." The current grammar is incorrect.

"Revered" as a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject.

OR

"Renowned" as a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject. Thank you AgntOrange (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

{{done}} Happy‑melon 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverted per below. Happy‑melon 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just a stray thought from a disinterested party, so take it for what it's worth, but the sentence as it now reads - "Renowned as a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject" is redundant and inelegant. "OSU is widely considered to be the nation's top forestry school" is cleaner and doesn't carry the vague sense of uncritical acclaim that "renowned" does. JohnInDC (talk ) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JohnInDC.... I think it's worthwhile to recognize the possibility the "consensus" (ie. VegaDark, EdgeWise, Pete, AboutMoves) may all be the same individual and we are dealing with nothing less than a vandal.AgntOrange (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The following comment was copied from my response here.

I'd be very careful about accusing VegaDark (who is an admin) and Aboutmovies of vandalism. That is not an accusation to be thrown around during what is merely a content dispute. See WP:CIVIL. They are both alums of the school, and care about the content of the OSU article, that is all. AgntOrange, you also seem to be accusing one or more editors of sockpuppetry? I can assure you that that is completely unfounded, especially because VD and AM sometimes don't get along very well, but if you are concerned you should make a report here. Katr67 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. To report vandalism, go here. Please don't make idle accusations, thanks. Katr67 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

VegaDark has already admitted he/she attended UofO and I think an administrator just dropped his/her status to: This shows user to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VegaDark AgntOrange (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know where you got that, but I am an OSU alum, and have never attended UofO. Take a look at the pages I have created, almost all of them are OSU-related. To accuse me of being-anti OSU is one of the most ironic things I have ever heard. VegaDark (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you did go to OSU, at least that's what your page says... None the less, you don't appear to be an administrator by your actions. What I am suggesting here is not "end-of-the-world" stuff. I just would like to see this page read intelligently. The use of "Revered" or another's suggested word "Renowned" would fix a currently incorrect sentence.AgntOrange (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an administrator. see here. Also, as I said before, I don't recall even reverting your "revered as" addition. Please provide diffs as to what edits of mine you consider to be "vandalism". VegaDark (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
When you say things such as "The current grammar is incorrect" (It isn't) and that there's an "incorrect sentence," this does not go a long way toward giving the impression that you are editing in good faith. There is no "incorrect sentence." What you mean to say is, you feel that the article doesn't go as far as it should toward saying that the Forestry School is renowned. This is what you feel; this is what you should say. If you were to speak this way instead of claiming that there are "incorrect sentences" and "incorrect grammar" when there aren't, you might actually have another editor come along and agree with you. Possibly.Urzatron (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are an administrator, I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia. I've seen numerous times in the articles history where you have reverted changes of mine and provided no explanation. Has anybody commenting here contributed any new information to this site? All I see are revisions of mine, and few additions. Sad AgntOrange (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs or you have nothing to back up your accusations. I think you will have a very tough time finding them. Additionally, If all these users were sockpuppets of mine as you assert, the state of Oregon would owe me a medal, as the users here alone make up a huge chunk of Oregon articles, and I would have literally no life outside of Wikipedia. That accusation is one of the funniest things I have read on here in a while, actually. VegaDark (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I am also an OSU alum, and my sole interest in this page is to project an image of my alma mater that is not clumsy, awkward or riddled with weasel words. Your silly conspiracy theory regarding all those who disagree with you gave me a laugh, and for that I thank you. You have repeatedly made anonymous edits signed only by your IP address, so advancing sock puppetry charges against everyone who repairs the damage you caused is the height of hypocrisy. --Edgewise (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have all made edits without signing... If you notice, many of my edits are actually contributions. Some with sign ins and some without. Please show me where "revered" is referred to as a "weasel" word. I haven't been able to locate this as of yet.AgntOrange (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the WP page on weasel words. You will not find a list there, nor is one necessary for thoughtful editors. What you will find are the following examples:
"People say…" (Which people?)
"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
"It has been decided that..." (Who decided this?)
"It has been mentioned that..." (Who mentioned it?)
"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is it actually popular wisdom?)
"It is known that..." (By whom is it known?)
Now, to that list, add "Revered as..." (By whom is it revered?) "Revered" implies that there are one or more people who revere something, and the weasel part comes when you decline to state who it is that reveres the OSU School of Forestry. If you cannot point to even a single reference of anyone, anywhere who ever said, "I revere the OSU School of Forestry", then the use of that word in this article constitutes "weasel words". You state it as though it is common knowledge, or that it is implied by other references. That is unencyclopedic, and is not welcome on Wikipedia.--Edgewise (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok... Let's go with: "Revered by America's forestry academia as a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject."


How's that? AgntOrange (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing, it is redundant. If the sentence says OSU is "widely considered the nation's leader in the subject," why on Earth is it necessary to also opine that it is "Revered by America's forestry academia as a top tier forestry school" ? The former stands alone by itself, and is supported by your reference; the latter is a redundancy that is, so far, unsupported by any reference you have supplied, and represents your personal opinion. If you want us to accept any use of the word 'revered', you are going to have to scrounge up a reference that supports that. So far, you have failed to do that, only offering a survey that says the OSU College of Forestry is "perceived by academic colleagues as the leading forestry program in North America." Can you not understand that this does not support any claim that OSU is "revered" by anyone? Revered is a loaded word, and does not belong in an encyclopedia, unless it is specifically and unambiguously cited from another respected source.--Edgewise (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No AgntOrange, per everything posted on this before, except by you. But when you have time AgntOrange, do read one of our policies called Wikipedia:Consensus. Its one of the core policies and tends to override all others. You may want to specifically read the section called "Reasonable consensus-building" and note the RFC case listed and the circumstances where 1 editor was going against everyone else. You may also want to stop the accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry, as assumptions of bad faith (especially poorly researched ones) can get editors blocked for repeatedly being uncivil. And I have yet to make an edit (22,000 so far on Wikipedia to your less than 500 the last I checked) to OSU where I was not logged in. My laptop logs me in. Anyway, everyone but you says no revered, so, no revered (or renowned either). Maybe find a publication that lists the program as the number 1 rated forestry program and the we can say: "The Forestry Department was rated as the top foresty program in the nation by U.S. News & Forest Reports in 2007."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] As that is the essence of WP:NPOV, letting the facts speak for themselves. The reader can then decide for themselves that the program is revered or renowned. We do not tell them that though. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it solves the weasel problem to transform the assertion into a straightforward unsourced edit. (And as Edgewise notes, there remains the matter of that loaded word "revere".) JohnInDC (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


The following comment was added by a blocked user (AgntOrange) in an attempt to circumvent the block. I have struck the text, and encourage others not to respond to comments in violation of WP policy. -Pete (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) All of this would be "loaded" if it were not true... If you bother to read the sourced info at:

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Oct06/forestryrank.html

you will have no choice but to accept the fact this program is very much a "revered" program. Not sure how one could argue otherwise? This is getting old...24.21.177.25 (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What does being "number one in North America" have to do with being "revered"? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Give it up. You have failed to gain even a single vote of confidence in this vain attempt to impose your will on the Wikipedia community. You have failed, and the more you struggle, the more you will continue to fail. Your changes will never be accepted, and you will end up banned from editing ever again if you continue to defy the consensus of the community. For your own good, just stop. There is no other outcome, so just stop.--Edgewise (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, AgntOrange, you just don't appreciate the connotations of the word "revered". It does mean "to hold in high regard", but it also carries powerful connotations of worshipful devotion and deference. It has the same root as the words "reverent", "reverence" and "Reverend", and like those words is often, perhaps most often, used in a religious context. "Revere" is just not the right word to apply to a school's forestry program, no matter how good the program is; it implies a truly exceptional level of admiration that simply isn't supported by one, or two or even twenty studies establishing the program as the "best" in the country. That is the source of the other editors' objections. JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Now - "renowned" doesn't carry the same connotations of awe and reverence, but it is still a pretty strong word to use to describe the findings of a single academic study. It suggests universal, or near-universal acknowledgment, and carries - I think - a slight aspirational flavor. It is an improvement over "revered" (which in this context is simply wrong), but "renowned" remains, in my judgment (and I am guessing, that of the other editors as well), a bit too powerful a word too. Stick with a simple recitation of the facts - which speak nicely for themselves here - and leave off all these adjectives, which don't add anything and just lead to endless unproductive and contentious discussions. JohnInDC (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that AgntOrange has been temporarily suspended from editing for violating the WP:3RR guideline. He is now avoiding that administrative action and deliberately posting anonymously using the IP address 24.21.177.25. He is also known to post anonymously using the IP address 71.56.158.17. I think there is a word for that. All three users should be permanently banned from ever editing again.--Edgewise (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think there are grounds for permanently banning anyone, please take the discussion elsewhere. We have procedures for banning, but you have to go through the proper channels. Like I suggested to AO, please just report the situation, either at WP:SOCK or WP:ANI, leave this page for discussing the article, and would all sides stop the empty threats and accusations. Discussion of various editors' behavior belongs elsewhere. You might report the use of the IPs to the blocking admin. Note that AO can still edit his/her own talk page. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more suggestions. Like Pete says, let's get back to work. Katr67 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests

Reversion

{{editprotected}}

Happy-melon or other administrator, please revert the changes executed on behalf of AgntOrange, which were in error.. The edits at question are the reason for the page protection, and no new consensus has been reached. AgntOrange's desired changes are at odds with every other editor involved in this discussion. -Pete (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Amazing how even the most apparently uncontroversial points can prompt so much argument :D. All my edits reverted. Happy‑melon 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! -Pete (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Colors

{{editprotected}} The OSU marketing department updated their web palette within the past six months or so. The official web color for the school's orange is now #e55302. This needs to be changed in the article's infobox. —Parhamr (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Source: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/webcomm/webidentity/colorpalette.html —Parhamr (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this doesn't appear to be at all connected to the edit war that caused protection, and the source you've provided strikes me as pretty ironclad, I've gone ahead and implemented this. If there's any objection, please let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Headings

{{editprotected}} I'd like to request a minor manual of style edit for two headings:

  • Colleges and Schools-->Colleges and schools
  • Notable alumni & faculty-->Notable alumni and faculty

Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Ranking" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://emt.askadmissions.net/oregonstate/aeresults.aspx?type=3&cid=1435&did=2&iname=answerdefault|title=Virtual Advisor - School Ranking|accessdate=2007-12-18}}
    • {{cite web|url=http://orst.askadmission.net/orst/aeresults.aspx?Quser=alumni|title=Virtual Advisor - Alumni|accessdate=2006-06-09}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Institution Name Changes

Hi. I've just found the lists of historical name changes of OSU:

According to these, it was not in 1890 but in 1908 that OSU's name was changed to Oregon Agricultural College (OAC). Although the chronological history of Oregon State University 1890-1899 page of the OSU official website states in its 1890 section that

"Name of institution -- Oregon Agricultural College (OAC)",

this statement seems to me to mean that the institution was just commonly called so at that time and that there was no name change in 1890. I think the lists above are more trustworthy from a more official viewpoint. -Occhanikov (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the lists above are also more of the commonly known as names. The Dictionary of Oregon History says Corvallis College stopped in 1886 (the list still uses that through 1888). Also the list you reference above in footnote 1 bears out the common names part, as it says 1937-1961 as OSC, but the footnote says it only became that officially in 1953. Going by the timeline, look at 1908, and it appears that even the president didn't know what the actual name was. This 1890 source says it is the Oregon State Ag. College at that time. I don't think the lists above or the timeline have the official names, except for the official change to OSC and then OSU. My guess is someone would need to go through the legislation year-by-year to see what it was officially known as. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your research. 134.117.200.114 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1

flagship status

The link does not specifically mention that the OSU is indeed a flagship university. I have yet to find another source that makes this claim as well. I think this claim should be removed, as the UO article makes the same claim, but with a valid source. --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a source (or maybe it was two) to address this, thus the claim is now supported. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---This is not supported by it having the rare distinction of being a Land, Sea, Sun, and Space grant school? 128.193.162.56 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What is not supported, the flagship bit (which has been supported by a citation since about March 8, 2012 when that point was raised? So what exactly are you trying to say? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the user was trying to say that since it is a Land, Sea, Sun, and Space grant school it is by default a flagship university. --ben_b (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

--As per request of another user, I will post evidence in the University of Oregon's mission statement as approved by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education that shows UO is the only flagship in the system.

University of Oregon mission statement as approved by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education

References to the University of Oregon being the flagship institution and the only flagship institution (in these contexts, "the" in place of "a" designate singularity):

  • On page 2: "The University of Oregon is a comprehensive research university that serves its students and the people of Oregon, the nation, and the world through the creation and transfer of knowledge in the liberal arts, the natural and social sciences, and the professions. It is the Association of American University flagship institution of the Oregon University System." (emphasis mine)
  • On page 3: "As noted in the preamble to the University of Oregon mission statement, this University is Oregon's Flagship Association of American Universities institution. This status, affirmed by the Oregon University System Board sets a context for the considerations of institutional mission fulfillment." (emphasis mine)

And finally, the biggest piece of evidence:

  • On page 5: "Selective Flagship Institution. We seek to enhance our flagship status within the Oregon University System by attracting and admitting the most promising undergraduate students from Oregon's divers communities, other states, and the world. To this end, we will develop clear, comprehensive, and more selective admission standards that elevate our current admission criteria consistent with our academic mission and our role as the flagship university in the State of Oregon, while at the same time ensuring unbiased assessment of promise from all student groups. We commit to improving our student retention to the extent consistent with our public mission and to graduating most students within four years." (emphasis mine)

Nowhere can I find Oregon State University formally verifying flagship status, or even informally mentioning it. Ckere (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You should have opened this discussion and presented this evidence some time ago instead of edit warring with multiple editors. It would have been much quicker, easier, and more productive for everyone involved. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The University of Oregon mission statement, approved by the board of higher ed says the UO is "Oregon's flagship AAU institution." This is like saying OSU is Oregon's flagship land grant institution. UO is the only AAU institution in Oregon just as OSU is the only land grant institution in Oregon. The Oregon State University article has nothing to do with the UO and its internally developed mission statement. The Oregon University system has never desinated a single flagship institution.

I cited an independent source listing Oregon State as a flagship institution. Other sources will list the UO. The status of flagship is very subjective, especially in a state like Oregon where both major universities have different state mandated focuses. The state of Oregon really has two flagships. OSU and UO have very different academic focuses and are the premier public institutions for those focuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedu2 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reread the quote from page 5. Your source is inaccurate. It lists a number of universities as flagships when they are not flagships by any stretch of the imagination. Take for example Arizona State, Auburn, Clemson, all the UCs except Berkley, and many more. If you feel you have verifiable information that contradicts the discussion above, please share it with us. Ckere (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


First again, no one is arguing whether the UO is a flagship or not, that can be argued on the UO page. The question is in the OSU article and OSU's status. UO's status does not affect OSU's. Many states claim multiple flagship campuses. To name just a few that do and are also included currently on Wikipedia, Texas AM, University of Texas, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana University, Purdue University, UCLA, and Cal Berkley. There are many more out there as well.

Secondly, flagship university by definition is subjective. The Oregon University System has never designated a Flagship institution for the system. Robert Berdahl who is the former President of the Association of American Universities, Former President University of Texas, Former President UC Berkley, Former Interim President and faculty member at the University of Oregon, states in the linked article below entitled "Future of Flagship Universities, "I remember vividly being chastised by the Chancellor of the System of Higher Education in Oregon when, as Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oregon, I referred in testimony in the legislature to the University of Oregon as the "flagship" campus."

As far as the University of Oregon's Mission statement is concerned, it only calls itself the "flagship AAU institution in Oregon." The Oregon University System has disagreed with UO on this for a long time, thus Oregon's concession to "flagship AAU institution." There's only one AAU institution in Oregon.

Third OSU meets the requirements of a Flagship University as laid out in the Berdahl article above.

From the Berdahl article. "What do we mean by the term "flagship" universities? The term applies, in all the cases I can think of, to the fully mature public universities serving most of states. In most cases, these institutions were the first public universities to be established in their states. Many of what we now call the flagship campuses were established in the extraordinary period of university building that took place in the United States in the roughly three decades from the mid-1850s to the mid-1880s. Many came into being after the Morrill Act of 1862 provided the federal grants of land to the states to establish public universities. Some states built two institutions, a land-grant college focused on agriculture and the "mechanical arts" as well as general education, and another more directed at classical education and the other professions. For example, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Washington, and Texas, among others, built separate institutions, while Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and California combined the land-grant and liberal arts function on a single campus. These institutions formed the core of the public systems of higher education in their respective states. State teachers colleges, later evolving into regional state colleges or universities, formed the rest of the higher education institutions in most states."

Further being the State of Oregon's Land Grant, Sea Grant, Sun Grant, and Space Grant University, OSU is Oregon's premier Research University gathering more research funding than the rest of the Oregon University system combined. 

   *http://oregonstate.edu/fa/making-oregon-states-research-dollars-count

Lastly, below is a scholarly study by the Bureau of Economic Research regarding Flagship State Universities. Oregon State University is clearly listed as a flagship in the state of Oregon. 

   *http://www.nber.org/papers/w9516.pdf

I have to respectfully disagree with your insistence on removing "Flagship" from the OSU article. But thank you for submitting it to peer review as the warring was getting old and I was unaware how to submit something for peer review.

Sedu2 (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As of September 2014, the OSU website makes no mention of flagship status. I can not find any CURRENT literature that suggests the state of oregon, or any gov't agency has granted this institution flagship status. There are many top universities that do not carry flagship status (UCLA, NC-State, MSU, so flagship status doesn't mean they are lesser or weaker institutions.
Therefore, I don't see any reason to incorporate flagship into this article, as it is misleading and there isn't much evidence to support this claim.
In higher-ed speak, flagship is a very substantial and verifiable designation. It's not up to Wikipedia users to cast their own views on the matter. Trust the experts!
OSU isn't the state's flagship. However, it is the premier applied sciences, agriculture and engineering uni in oregon.
Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and objective, not marketing propaganda. --96.49.132.194 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You still do not get it. Wikipedia is not deeming OSU as such, reliable sources have. It is not in fact some sort of official designation, such as a land grant college, which is covered at Flagship university. So, its not about an official designation. Your edits have been reverted since they do not match the reliable sources provided. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Then explain to me why osu doesn't refer to itself as a flagship university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.132.194 (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have to, as that doesn't matter. Try reading Wikipedia's Five Pillars and you might start to understand things. To put it another way, if North Korea calls itself a democracy, does Wikipedia too? Aboutmovies (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Flagship status, revisited

While this user may have abandoned their fight here, they have been reverting my edits on Oregon which are properly sourced. Now, let's take a look at "flagship" criterion according to what is reliably sourced in Wikipedia's section on Flagship#Education. "The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established (Advantage: OSU) and are frequently the largest (Advantage: OSU) and most selective (Advantage: OSU if student qualifications is the criterion, advantage UO if percent of applicants admitted is the criterion), as well as the most research-intensive (Advantage: OSU) public universities. These schools are often land-grant, sea-grant, or space-grant research universities" (Advantage: OSU). UO even dropped their flagship claim in 2013. Here's a source stating OSU is a flagship university. At worst OSU is a co-flagship university, although considering OSU has every single advantage in the criteria over UO I would consider OSU the sole flagship university in Oregon. VegaDark (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see [[1]] for centralized discussion about this topic, which you have chosen to post to several different talk pages now. Ckere (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Oregon#Education_introduction to keep discussion centralized

An unregistered editor just added this back to the article citing only this reference. It's a reliable source but it's really, really weak evidence for such an important claim. The paper was released ten years ago and classifies institutions as "flagships" based on data that were already over ten years old when the paper was released which means the data are now more than twenty years old. The document was published as an NBER working paper which means that it may have undergone some sort of review process but it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal or other venue where we are assured of editorial oversight and quality control (although I assume that the NBER has those kinds of mechanisms in place; I just don't know for sure). This single piece of weak evidence is entirely insufficient to justify such a strong claim. ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an article that references OSU as a flagship university that also passes WP:RS and is far more recent: Source. VegaDark (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't explicitly call OSU a flagship though, just that according to the author of the article there are two flagships. For all we know the author could think WOU and EOU are the flagships. Personally, I think OSU shouldn't be listed as flagship -- if you do a quick search for UO's flagship status, there are comparatively many many more sources backing that up. 65.78.144.35 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the The Bulletin article implies that the chancellor of the Oregon University System said that the two institutions are flagships. But it's not a direct quote so it's not entirely clear if that is something the chancellor said or the reporter's opinion or interpretation. Without knowing which of those two possibilities is correct, this is pretty weak source, too.
There have been several discussions and edit wars about the flagship status (or lack thereof) of several universities lately so I apologize if I'm repeating myself but I urge you to consult the sources in Flagship; they're pretty good sources and include many of the most authoritative on this very subjective, murky, and ill-defined topic. You'll be on much better ground if you can cite sources written by experts in higher education. ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

2012 commencement speaker

Something about the 2012 commencement speaker, First Lady Michelle Obama, should probably be added. --ben_b (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't fit into the articles current layout. It should be added, but only if the layout can be altered enough that it fits the scope rather than being out of place simply for the sake of inclusion.128.193.163.234 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Women's Athletics

In the article their is only information about the men's sports and make no mention of the women's,(such as gymnastics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.143.221 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Shortening the People section

I think that the People section needs to be dramatically shortened, as it does not fit the length of the article, is far too detailed, and very unreadable. Maybe we should model it after University of Oregon's equivalent section. Thoughts? 65.78.144.35 (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommend modeling your approach on the one commonly taken in other articles, including many of the Featured Articles in this category (e.g., University of California, Riverside, Dartmouth College, Duke University), that includes a brief description of the (a) overall facts and information about alumni, (b) a brief selection of some of the most notable alumni, and (c) a link to a separate article that is a more extensive article focusing only alumni of the university. ElKevbo (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds more or less what the section already looks like. Personally I agree with OP that it's ridiculously unreadable, but if it's consistent with other articles, then I'd say the general format should be left. Maybe it's University of Oregon's section that should be changed? I do think it should be expanded a little, but other editors previously fought to simplify it, so I'll respect that. Ckere (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your general observations and agree that this article's alumni section could be improved regardless of how well it does or does not resemble the alumni/notable people sections of featured articles in this same general category. Personally, I'd lean toward a more succinct, selective listing of people in this article with meatier descriptions of how those people were influenced by or connected with the university. That would make it a much more interesting, useful, and informative section for this article.
I also agree that the alumni section of the UO article needs to be improved. I'm just not volunteering to do it. :) ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll volunteer for it! Just have to dig a little time out of my schedule, so it might not happen for a couple of weeks. I personally think UCR's section would suit OSU best. Ckere (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Rankings of online programs

Note: Original discussion began on my Talk page and has been copied here for increased visibility and participation. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, I couldn't help but notice you have taken a keen interest in removing as much information as possible from the Oregon State University page lately, one of those things being a piece of information that I recently added with a source diff. As you could see from my source, OSU's very own website lists those rankings. Your edit summary was "not authoritative or even credible "rankings". Let me list the problems I have with this - 1) I'm not listing those websites as the source, I'm listing OSU's website as the source. This is about as credible as you can get in terms of WP:RS. 2) These are both .org organizations, they have no commercial incentive to rate one place over another. A google search of online rankings of online schools shows thebestschool.org as the 3rd result. 4) How are you determining what is an "authoritative" source vs. not? Your own personal opinion? Please explain your methodology for determining what is "authoritative" or "credible", since you are proclaiming that these sites are neither, despite the school itself advertising these rankings. 5) US News and World Report doesn't rank entire online programs, they only rank individual degree programs, so those rankings can't be used as a source for how highly ranked an entire online school is or isn't, only individual programs. VegaDark (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a few issues that need to be addressed. I don't think there's much question about the reliability of OSU's website. Instead, I think the proper focus is on the two sources that OSU's website is citing, uncritically and only to promote the university. So let's examine these two sources.
  • http://www.thebestschools.org/ This website appears to be run by one person who does not seem to have significant expertise in evaluating or assessing higher education programs or institutions. The specific ranking cited by OSU has only one sentence describing the methodology by which this ranking was created. And I know of no evidence that the reputable scholars and experts who work in this area use or even recognize this website, its author, or its rankings. It's also interesting to note that many of the rankings have prominent links to a similar website that has an an affiliate program and the links from thebestschools.org appear to be affiliate-related links.
  • http://superscholar.org/ This website is very, very similar to the one above. It has the same shortcomings: poorly qualified author, poorly described methodology, and lack of mention or use by recognized experts. It even has the same affiliate links to collegedegrees.com.
It is on those bases that I believe those very poor sources that shouldn't be included in this (or any other) encyclopedia article. If this program is truly among the very best and consistently recognized as such by credible experts then you should be able to find much better sources without any problems. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of an organization that ranks online programs (not individual degrees) that you would consider reliable? I can't find anything better than these sites. Also, your analysis includes an awful lot of "appears" and "seems." You're making a lot of assumptions and coming up with your own personal opinion about these sites' reliability, which flies in the face of the fact that the university actually cites these sources. This doesn't appear to me like some Joe Blow creating a list as you make it out to be. Perhaps a better statement would be something like "OSU cites multiple organizations that rate the Ecampus program as one of the highest rated in the world" if you are concerned about the sources. It's an unambiguously true statement and the reader can check out the sources themselves if they want to look further. VegaDark (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Research funding claim

I was just looking around for sources to support my claim that OSU's higher research funding is in part to support a higher number of specialized programs, but I was looking at the source for that claim that OSU receives more research funding than all other Oregon institutions combined. It turns out that the source seems to lift that directly from the Wikipedia article, so that source is invalid. As such, I am going to replace that with OSU's self-reported number of $285 million in research funding for FY 2014. Ckere (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It also looks like the same source is used to cite the claims about research grants; while I believe it is correct, I will put a citation need template on it for now and look for more a more reliable source for that as well. Ckere (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a source directly from OSU promotional materials that repeats that exact claim. VegaDark (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that was surprisingly difficult to find. Ckere (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Total number of graduates

The intro states: "More than 160,000 people have attended OSU since its founding" but I believe that stat actually represents the current number of people in the alumni association. With 30,000 students currently, there must have been many more who have attended through history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.113.8 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Oregon State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of new school crest in the infobox

@ElKevbo: I'm puzzled by the edit summary you left when reverting my edit we don't work for the university and they don't get to control this article so we need a better/different argument to replace this image and hoping that I might solicit a bit more of an explanation from you. I'm not even sure what one has to do with the other, i.e. WP editors not being beholden to the subjects of the articles they edit. I'm paraphrasing very loosely here but if I had to define Wikipedia's raison d'être off the top of my head to someone it would sound something like: "to faithfully organize and maintain the most accurate and broadly applicable set of facts available on a subject so that they benefit the greatest number of people." If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested in learning precisely how.

Quoting directly from the TemplateData for Infobox university, the image field instructions state [a] University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo, leading me to think we should respect OSU Visual Identity Guidelines where they say As the primary identifier for Oregon State University, the [new] logo must be used...whenever the university is being represented. Interpreting that under the common sense principle that when facts change the current information is almost always of greater utility to the majority of people, my opinion is that we shouldn't replace the old seal with the crest design that's replaced it not because the university prefers it so, rather that people visiting this article will have probably seen the new crest somewhere in connection to OSU already and placing it in the infobox allows them to instantly know whether they're on the page they want or not. Contrasting that with the unsightly seal that's there now (which the school wisely never made any effort to emphasize, at least during my lifetime), its obscurity is likely having the opposite effect, causing people to wonder if this page is about the school they want info on longer than is necessary. Lastly I refer you to WP:LOGO#Logo Choice where the guideline is Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. where I believe the term accurate has an implicit preference for current datum over historical ones. Thanks for hearing me out, I look forward to reading your side of things. — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ 19:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Has the university changed its seal or just changed its procedures about how the seal is used? If it's a new or updated seal then we should update what we're using in the infobox. If it's just a change in policy (i.e., new restrictions on how the seal can be used, a new policy on how people have to ask permission to use the seal) then it's unlikely that we'll want or need to change this article. (Whether the institution's seal is the best image to use here is a great question but it's one that has largely been settled; archives of this talk page should have the old discussions on this topic.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I alluded to in my original edit summary, this is a new graphic completely unlike the old one. (I thought that much was obvious just comparing them visually, haha) The old one has been relegated to use on stationery for the university president and on diplomas while this new design (which they're calling the "crest") is what replaced it, dating back to November 2017. To your other point, I'd agree in most instances that the seal of a college is usually not a good visual cue for people, but in this case the crest is starting to be extensively used on official materials and signage and fits the infobox use case marvelously. — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ 20:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that the image that editors expect to be in that part of the infobox is the seal that is used by the institution in its most formal proceedings (e.g., what's placed on diplomas) so we'd stick with what we have. But if you feel strongly about this or want to continue to make an argument for the use of the other image then I won't revert or argue back because I agree that a university's seal is usually not helpful for readers unfamiliar with the institution (e.g., nearly all Wikipedia readers) so a bit of Wikipedia civil disobedience would be fine with me. ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That's what I'm going to do, then. I lean to the other side of the fence on this and think the majority of WP editors would agree that keeping the article current makes a lot more sense than being intransigent about changes going on out in the world beyond our control. Chief Justice Roberts said it best recently when he said that judges (and WP editors, naturally ;) ) aren't here to transform the game but just to call balls and strikes based on what they see right in front of them. If I'm in error on that, I'm happy to go for Round 2 in here and let the process handle things as it tends to do quite elegantly around these parts. Oh, and if you have a spare minute to bring me up to speed over on my talk page on what part(s) of WikiPolicy you feel would ultimately prevail over the ones I've already cited, I'd like to know so I can advocate for revising them or at least not run afoul of them again. See you around the edit log, friend. — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ 01:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not found anywhere that says the mark has replaced the seal. I'm not in favor of removing the seal unless there is evidence that they have completely gone away with the seal. If you don't want a seal to be used, then we need to be consistent among all university articles and only place one logo in the infobox, not two, and a consensus would be needed. Corky 02:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to remove "land-grant" from lede sentence and insert ranking information in lede

An unregistered editor is insisting that this article (a) not include "land-grant" in the lede sentence and infobox and (b) include ranking information from bestcollegereviews.org in the lede (specifically: "Oregon State University ranks in the top 50 research schools nationally and serves as the state's chief research university. [1]").

Edit warring to omit "land-grant" from the infobox and lede sentence is inexplicable; this is an essential, defining characteristic of the institution and it's included in the infobox and lede sentence of every other land-grant college or university. The information from bestcollegereviews.org doesn't belong in the lede because (a) it's really vague (ranked by whom? in what years?), (b) it's an unreliable source, and (c) it's not in the body of the article (the lede is a summary of what's in the body of the article; it should not introduce new information or new citations).

@50.35.121.207: Why are you making these edits without any explanation or justification? ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

He or she is also insisting that this article not mention land-grant status in the lede sentence until all other articles about land-grant colleges and universities includes it as well. First, that is not how Wikipedia works. Second, to the best of my knowledge all other articles about land-grant colleges and universities already include this information in the lede sentence; any that should and the omission is a mistake that I'd be happy to correct. Third, the specific example that he or she has cited - University of California, Berkeley - does include this in the lede sentence contrary to his or her claims.
In any case, even if this demand were based on accurate information - and it clearly isn't - then it still would not be sufficient to justify edit-warring without any discussion in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Best College Review. "The 50 Top Research Universities". bestcollegereviews.org. Best College Review. Retrieved 28 January 2021.

Insistence on including a single, outdated ranking in the lede

An unregistered editor is insisting that the second sentence of this article be: "OSU ranked 89th in the nation and 270th in the world by the Center for World University Rankings in 2020-21.[1]"

It's inappropriate and unnecessary to include a single, outdated ranking in the lede of this article. The lede is intended to summarize the most essential information that readers must know first about this subject and this ranking is not among the most essential information. Further, the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the body of the article and this fact is not even mentioned in the body much less discussed in such detail that it merits inclusion in the lede.

Edit-warring to include this information in the lede, especially when it's only sourced to a self-congratulatory news article written by the subject, is clearly promotional. ElKevbo (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Theresa, Hogue. "regon State University ranked in the top 1.4 percent of universities worldwide". oregonstate.edu. OSU. Retrieved 12 May 2022. {{cite web}}: External link in |ref= (help)

Edit-warring to not remove "land-grant" from lead sentence and remove ranking information

As stated in the "talk" section of this page, the majority of land-grant universities DO NOT mention their land-grant affiliation within the first sentence of their wiki description. Nor do they even bother to mention it in the first paragraph. If they do mention they are a "land-grant" school, it is generally added somewhere in the history section or lower in their article. ElKevbo has been informed of these facts and politely asked to show a standardization of the first sentence usage he is proposing. He has failed to provide a single example, but even if he had we would all want to see that this first sentence usage was common or standardized at the very least before adding it in such a way to this page. We all recognize Oregon State is a "land-grant" affiliate, but it is also a space-grant sun-grant and sea-grant institution and it clearly stated it as such in the second paragraph. That should be sufficient for ElKevbo, who appears to be bullying his way with no presidential wikis to back him up. He is also creating an edit war by not providing evidence to back his change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.121.207 (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been through and looked at the articles for the universities listed at List of land-grant universities. It is clear that the vast majority do indeed list land grant status in the description in the opening sentence. Space grant, sea grant and sun grant have neither the same historical significance nor the same broad recognition as land grant, as has been discussed on the central Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education page. It therefore makes sense to follow the example of almost all other land grant universities and include this information in the description in the first sentence. Robminchin (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
If anyone knows of any articles about land-grant colleges or universities that do not include this in their lede or infobox, please let us know! We may have missed a few but to the best of my knowledge this is already included in every relevant article. In any case, the presence or absence of this information in other articles in no ways justifies your continued edit warring.
There was also a specific discussion about the other -grant affiliations several months ago at WT:UNI. You're welcome to revive that discussion if you think it needs to be revisited although the work has already been done. ElKevbo (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Please identify examples. I think we all want to see more than just a few. We want to be able to see that this is the way most land-grant universities, in general, write their descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.121.207 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Out of the 75 universities (not including Oregon) in the "by state" listing, 60 include land grant status in their first sentence. I'm not going to list them all, but examples include: Alabama A&M University, University of Arizona, University of California, Berkeley, University of Florida, Purdue University, Kansas State University, University of Maryland, College Park, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln University (Missouri), Pennsylvania State University, and Virginia Tech. Robminchin (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I just went through the entire list and caught a few that we had previously missed but the vast majority already included this in the infobox and lede sentence. (We still need to go through the complete list of tribal colleges that were granted land-grant status in the 1990s or later; I think we're missing several of them, at least from that list article.) There are a couple of entries in that list that don't include this in the lede because of unique circumstances e.g., a couple are system-level designations, only part of Cornell is land-grant. But even with these omissions, mistakes, and unique cases, it's clear that this information is included in nearly all of these articles.
In any case, this still doesn't matter as it doesn't provide any justification for your edit warring, unregistered editor. It's clear that your preferred version of the article is not the one that consensus favors. And you haven't provided any explanation for why you've also edit warred to include bestcollegereviews.org in the lede or why you lied and said that University of California, Berkeley doesn't include this information in the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate your work and it does appear you have a sizable list of schools NOW using the term in their first sentence. On the other hand, few west coast schools were using it in their first sentence until now and several schools back east still don't mention it until much later in their bios: Hawaii, Cornell, University of Cal - Berkley, Washington State U. You may have fixed some of these, but will they stick? Also as I said earlier, please update the University of California Berkley page and we will be happy to follow. Cal is a school within the same collegiate conference and it would be an accepted precedential change - showing national acceptance. If they don't accept it, we should all ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.121.207 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

UC Berkeley has been stable with land grant in the opening sentence for over a month with no objections, having previously had it in the second sentence (and the change was not made by myself or ElKevbo, to be clear); you may be confusing it with the UC system page. Hawaii is similarly a system page – UH Manoa has it in the opening sentence. Cornell is only partly a land grant university – it is a private university containing statutory land grant colleges, so describing the whole university as a land grant university would be wrong. And none of this is a valid reason to edit war here – see WP:Other stuff exists. However, as you are "happy to follow" as long as the change was made to Berkeley, and it has been made there by a third party without any objection long enough ago to be considered stable, it would appear we have agreement. Robminchin (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Research "and Engineering" University

It may not be well understood by all editors reviewing this page that Oregon State University was designated by the state of Oregon as the "engineering" college for the state. "...the board confined studies in engineering and commerce to the Corvallis campus and major work in the liberal arts and related subjects to the University of Oregon in Eugene."[1] In most states, fully accredited engineering schools are present in most of the state public institutions. That is not the case in Oregon. The University of Oregon and Portland State both offer several engineering degrees in niche areas, but none would be recognized as fully accredited engineering programs by other engineering schools and do not follow the same standards of accreditation as OSU as listed here: List of engineering schools. Oregon State University is, by state policy, the "engineering school" for the state. This makes Oregon different than other states. OSU stands alone as "the only" state-appointed engineering school and this role is probably more important today to readers than knowing it is a "land-grant" university. If a student is looking to go to school in the state of Oregon for engineering, they should probably know OSU is the main public engineering school to attend for this degree. In addition, Elkevbo has noted that because we are recognized as a "research" university, which OSU is, the school will also be recognized as an engineering school. If you visit the University of Oregon wiki you will see it is also defined itself as a "research" school. For the reader it would be much clearer to accurately describe the University of Oregon as a "liberal arts" school than a "research" school with an engineering program. Once again, UofO is not a research or engineering school. They have a few niche area they are allowed to offer limited degrees in, like environmental civil engineering. OSU is the only truly recognized engineering school. Having this designation separates the school from all other public universities in Oregon and is a top defining characteristic of the university. Ludviggy (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

When considering whether it's appropriate to label an institution a "research university," we generally defer to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, not individual editors' opinions. Both Oregon State University and the University of Oregon are classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity," the classification for research universities that produce the most research in many different disciplines. So we are definitely going to label both of these universities as "research universities."
This university also clearly does much more than just "engineering" so it's inappropriate to label it an "engineering university" in the lede, especially as we're not interested in helping "a student is looking to go to school in the state of Oregon for engineering" as this is an encyclopedia article and not an admissions guide. You're welcome to write about the university's unique role in engineering education in the state but the lede sentence - the one sentence that has to summarize the most essential information about the university - is not the place to try to do that. ElKevbo (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ELKevbo has stated that because the term "research university" is used it also indicates a school is recognized as an engineering school. UofO would not be considered an engineering school by any respected accreditation body for engineering schools. See List of engineering schools This information would not only be helpful to a student but to anyone reading the page and attempting to understand what OSU is recognized as. I don't see the harm, what so ever, in providing this critical description. Engineering is literally what distinguishes OSU from UofO. Ludviggy (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that and I'd appreciate you not misquoting me. I said that "it's not an "engineering university, it's a research university with an engineering college like hundreds of others."
Who refers to this university as a "research and engineering university?" Can you cite any reliable sources that use that phrase? It's certainly not a claim that the university makes about itself. It's not a classification used by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education or any other classification scheme of which I am aware. And it's not a description used in any other Wikipedia articles as far as I know.
Further, why should we highlight this one college in the lede sentence of this article? The university also has an accredited business college so why don't we call this a "research and business university?" It has a college of education that's accredited so this should be a "research and education university," right? ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You missed my original point, which I do cite. In the state of Oregon, there is only one fully accredited and state-assigned public engineering school. This is unusual for most states. This is why you would not see it used by schools in most states. It is important to point out what distinguishes OSU from other public universities in Oregon. Please feel free to clarify what you said about the use of "research university". It was my understanding that you believed this described schools with engineering colleges. Therefore, "engineering university" would not be needed. If not, what where you suggesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludviggy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Ludviggy (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, we absolutely do not need to use the first sentence of this article to distinguish this university from the University of Oregon. This is an encyclopedia with an international readership; the lead paragraph of an article summarizes the body of the article and the subject. In particular, the very first sentence should "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English [and it should not] describ[e] everything notable about the subject."
But you still haven't answered any of my questions: Who refers to this university as a "research and engineering university?" And why should only this one particular college be highlighted in the first sentence? ElKevbo (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
OSU is the largest/main research university in the state of Oregon. That's already established by multiple citations provided on this page. If you look at the citation I provide in this TALK it specifically says "engineering" is how OSU distinguishes itself from UofO. One of our state's own illustrious historians describes the importance of this distinction - which would also be important to anyone reading outside of Oregon. Did you know OSU is the state-assigned engineering school for the state of Oregon before reading this? There are all kinds of important reasons for anyone interested in OSU to know these facts. These are distinguishing facts. How many other universities use the term "research and engineering" university is inconsequential if you go back and read my previous explanations. Ludviggy (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Using the made up phrase "research and engineering university" doesn't tell readers that. It only tells readers that a Wikipedia editor made up a phrase that isn't used by anyone else, including the university itself and all of the scholarly and journalistic sources that classify colleges and universities.
You are encouraged to add information about this university's unique role in its state. You're not encouraged to try to squeeze this into the first sentence of the article where it doesn't help readers (as it requires much more explanation that should be placed in that one sentence). And you're certainly not encouraged or allowed to make up your own terminology that no one else understands or uses. ElKevbo (talk)

References

  1. ^ Groshong, James W. "THE MAKING OF A UNIVERSITY - Oregon State University". oregonstate.edu. OSU. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
It seems that the information about this being the designated engineering school of the state would be better conveyed by staying this explicitly elsewhere, rather than trying to shoe-horn it awkwardly into the first sentence. As it stands, I would read this as saying that OSU is primarily an engineering institution rather than a broad-based university. I'd be surprised, based on this opening sentence, to find that it had a law school and offered a wide range of arts and humanities programs. The opening sentence not only fails to convey that it has been designated as the state engineering school but it misleads as to the actual nature of the university, making it seem a far narrower institution than it actually is. I appreciate this wasn't the intent, but it is the effect. Robminchin (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
My response to this is, it would appear the school is dedicated to land-grant curiculum by using land-grant in the very first sentence, which is also awkward since it has little to do with school today. Research and engineering are much more relevant to describing the school in the first sentence because this is how the state of Oregon sells this school, just as other universities sell themselves as a polytechnic or health and science school. We all know these schools offer coursework outside of their specialty, but they are known for specific curricula. OSU is known for research and engineering. I would bet money that most of the university's foreign students, or very close to the majority, are enrolled in engineering at OSU. That's the historic draw and OSU's specialty in Oregon. Which is different than most states and state universities. Look here, California "Polytechnic" State University offers a degree in music https://cla.calpoly.edu/departments-majors That makes no sense by your standards. Ludviggy (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Who refers to or classifies this university as a "research and engineering university?" ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
(You might also find it helpful or interesting to review the institution's own mission. It clearly claims a strong foundation and continued value of its land-grant mission. It doesn't mention engineering at all. A subject's self-published description is not the only source that we consider when writing an article nor do allow them to control the article, directly or indirectly. But this is a very important source that should be given a lot of weight unless it's contradicted or undermined by other reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC))
True. OSU is a land-grant institution and the OSU mission statement, like many other land-grant universities, is still displayed on their websites to show their history and show they are still following the rules established by the Morrill Act IMHO. Keep in mind, most of these land-grant mission statements were written a 100 years ago. We all know it has little to do with what the school is today. At one time all land-grant schools were big agricultural schools. Those days are long gone at OSU. Today's OSU AG school has around 2,600 students. Compare that with engineering, which has around 9,800. Agricultural "research" is still important, but agricultural education is a minor program. And, honestly, that's the same story at most institutions that were started or supported by the Morrill Act. As a side note, the school just hired a new president, who happens to hold a doctorate in mechanical engineering. I do want to add, no one is saying the school should not be described as a land-grant school. It's just no longer a leading characteristic. Since 1900 OSU has been designated by the state as Oregon's engineering school. That cannot be disputed. Ludviggy (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
California Polytechnic State University is the name of the institution. Nobody is inventing the phrase "a research and polytechnic university" to describe it, just like nobody is calling MIT a "research and technical university". Unless OSU changes its name to Oregon Engineering University, there is no equivalence.
There was debate a few years back as to whether the various '-grant' designations should be in the lead. The consensus was that land-grant was a historically important designation that should stay, but the others were removed. Nobody thinks land grant universities just do the subjects specified as the focus in the Morrill Act – indeed the act itself stated that this didn't exclude other subjects. But am engineering school is generally understood to be one that just teaches engineering, just like a law school is one that teaches law and a medical school is one that teaches medicine. There's definitely an argument that the lead should state that OSU has been the designated engineering school of the State of Oregon since 1900, but calling it an engineering school doesn't convey this information, and the information it does convey is misleading. Robminchin (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is inventing a name period. The use of "...land-grant, research and engineering university" to describe a university's specialties is not a name. However, California Polytechnic State University is a name and that should carry much, much more weight than a description following a name. The Morrill Act did indeed support a number of Agricultural and Mechanical schools (A&M). I'm not entirely sure how widespread the mechanical schools were. I'm going to say mechanical arts funding was a fairly insignificant part of the "land-grant" money. I believe the main focus was agriculture education and some research. Correct me if I'm wrong. It appears schools sponsored for mechanical arts only made up a handful of the "land-grant" schools. These schools were mainly in the Midwest and East. I think most land-grant schools across America were known exclusively as agriculture schools and not for mechanical arts. This is especially true in the west. It looks like the University of Cal may be one of the few exceptions. 50.35.122.16 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
50.35.122.16 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
You're wrong: engineering is a huge part of the mission of land-grant institutions. It's what the "mechanical" refers to in the institutions that use or used the phrase "agricultural and mechanical" as part of their name. So in that sense it's redundant to include "land-grant" and "engineering" in the same sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The mission and the money are two very different things. Do you know how much was spent on mechanical arts education vs agriculture? The more I read about the Morrill Act the more I see it was, historically, referred to as the "Agricultural Act". What is being overlooked here is most schools spent Morril Act money on agriculture and not the mechanical arts. Only a small number of schools could afford to set up a mechanical arts program. "The concept of higher education for the mechanical arts was at most vague and at least non-existent. While various prominent individuals and interest groups supported either higher education for farmers or higher education for mechanics, very few supported both or imagined how they could be combined in a single institution" [1]50.35.122.16 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Lang, Daniel. "THE PEOPLE'S COLLEGE AN EXPERIMENT IN NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION". academia.edu. University of Toronto. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oregon_State_University/Archive_1&oldid=1175389903"