Talk:Ohio University/Archive 1

Demographic listing
Listed in the Academic "Overview" section is demographic information from students. The demographic information is obviously listed alphabetically; however, a user keeps placing Caucasian first. Visitors to this page have an obligation to make sure the demographic information is listed alphabetically. Thank you for helping with this. Add your comments to this section on the subject--Vedansa (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
This article contains plagiarism from http://www.ohio.edu/outlook/06-07/October/125f-067.cfm — Bulletsoap (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone should make mention of OU's E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, which is within the College of Communication, since it's one of the premier journalism schools in the country. Said someone should not be me, because I really know very little about the school, other than it's very selective and very prestegious.

Why mention one program at a school without mentioning the others? Ohio University is also known for making many modern discoveries in Physics, for having one of the top Aviation Programs, etc.

I agree not so much for this reason, but for the lack of current documentation regarding Scripps as "one of the premier journalism schools in the country." A visit to scrippsjschool.org, a website one would assume would display the most favorable rankings the school has garnered, does say the school was named one of the top 10 in the country by US News and World Report ... IN 1996! It does have a good reputation in Ohio as far as I know, but in an encyclopedia you need some (current) evidence.

I agree with this motion. the school has gained a significant amount of respect in its area for several reasons. The school is one of the earliest Journalism schools in the nation, dating back to at least 1923. Several advanced facilities are owned and operated b the school, a notable mention is the Bush Research Center which opened in 1979. The current director, Thomas Hodson, is well respected amongst Journalism school directors. The school may not be among the top 10 in the country but I would argue that it certainly deserves mention of some kind. The evidence I am posting is current and the fact that the school has a solid reputation in Ohio means it deserves mention in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should include information on all schools with national respect, even if they are unable to break the top 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rintaminator (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First and Finest
I have removed the phrase "is often referred to the first and finest university in Ohio." There are a few reasons. One, I find only scant mention of the phrase being used and in the few examples I saw, it was OU saying so. Second, it's not clear that OU is either the first or finest in the state. Marietta Academy was a degree-granting school founded in 1797 - though not chartered until 1835. Part of this can be blamed on the difficulty in chartering a college where no state government existed (OU and the State of Ohio were founded in 1808 and 1803). As to being the finest, I really am unsure what we are talking about. If this were Harvard's homepage I would have no problem with it saying that Harvard is traditionally recognized as the best university in the United States. I would oppose including empty phrases. Rkevins82 05:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any concrete way to determine what constitutes "finest"? Prove that Harvard is more deserving of the title fine than OU. It is simply a catchphrase; it isn't necessary to verify whether it meets your standards or not. Should we determine if the currently popular "OU - O Yeah!" is 100% accurate?208.122.95.27 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Presidents table
Is this necessary? I don't see many universities that have it, plus it is a red-link table. Rkevins82 - TALK 04:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It does not seem necessary to post this information. If it was a norm in pages for other Universities than the situation would be different entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rintaminator (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Presidents Table
That was just the first step of what I was planning for the Ohio University page. Right now I'm working on writing articles about each of the former presidents, but it might take me a little while.

I agree that all the red links look bad at the moment though, perhaps it would be best to remove the table until some more of the articles about former presidents are completed.

However, I have noticed that many universities do have a list of their former presidnets. I didn't do an extensive search, but here are a few:
 * University of California
 * Mercer University
 * Stanford University
 * University of Washington
 * Brown University
 * Johns Hopkins University
 * Ohio Wesleyan University

Kwiksilver 03:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Carnegie Foundation
It was named... what?Madmaxmarchhare 02:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ohio University was named by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to reflect its growing number of graduate programs. Only four other ins

First and Finest, Revisited
"Ohio's First and Finest" was a school slogan used by the university in the eighties and nineties. The slogan was branded all over campus. That's probably where you heard it. BTW, Ohio University was the first school to be chartered in the Northwest Territory, but that occurred in 1804, not 1808. Also, the State of Ohio was founded in 1803, not 1808. - johnthacker83 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

MAC Template Inclusion
Template in question:

As it appears on the wikipedia pages of all of the schools in the MAC, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. There is a section of the article on athletics, which the template fits. The school also has to meet requirements for a variety of activities, including the recruiting of all students, because it is a MAC member. Yes, there is an Ohio Bobcats page. The template should certainly be there. I don't, however, see why it shouldn't be in both places. It is maybe five lines long on the average viewer's screen. So why shouldn't it be there? Rkevins82 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's related only to sports, not the Uni over-all. It should go on that uni's sports article. If it does not apply to the uni over all, then why is it on the "over all" article?  It is a question of putting relevant information in the best place. Just because you can repeat yourself on every article doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.  See Only make links that are relevant to the context "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder." But if you really want it there, I don't care that much about this issue. -- Ned Scott 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I tried to point out in the initial post, being a member of the MAC means that the university must submit to its rules. This applies to ALL students, not just athletes. Rkevins82 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is 20+ years long plagiarism scandal recently discovered notable enough to be included in the main article?
While researching plagiarism, I found many news articles like this one and this one stating that there has been a plagiarism scandal that stretches over twenty years in its mechanical engineering graduate program where even masters' theses were plagiarized. Is that notable enough to include on the article on Ohio University? You can find more if you go to Google News and search for "Ohio University plagiarism". Jesse Viviano 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included, considering how widespread it was and the media attention it brought.Bcirker 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is not notable piece of information. Most universities have had some sort of scandal which received media attention and they are are not typically included in entries. 26 October 2006
 * Of course its notable. There have been repeated articles in major media, including the following in Chronicle of Higher Education and . And so should those at other universities be., In fact, it might be worth a separate article as well.  article. So would the professor principally involved, Jay Gunasekera. If nobody else write them, I will. DGG (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
Now, I may be from Central, and this may come off as a little MAC Championship gamesmanship, but the Athletics section is rife with NPOV liberties. I'm not going to lodge a formal complaint, but come on, this ain't a PR piece here.Bveale 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sports Cuts
The entire text of a letter to the editor has no place in an encyclopedia. Seriously, can you get any more self-centered?

Your point is well-taken. We are new to Wikipedia and are learning the ropes. The lengthy addition was deleted. Our information on sports cuts at OU belongs here, however. If you go to the link provided for Save OU Sports, you will see that this is entirely legitimate information. Youngsters considering OU, especially if they intend to continue a sports career there, should know this information. We have invested years of effort, our families' resources, and much more in developing our athletic abilities. We also put a great deal of effort into advancing the teams at OU on which we participated. This was taken away from us by OU in a process that violated its policies and NCAA guidelines. We had no advance warning that this might happen. Please visit our website at www.saveousports.org and see why we are so passionate about this issue. Save OU Sports 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Sports Cuts Entirely Inappropriate
Save OU Sports and the rest of his club continue to act like a whiny group of entitled little kids. You lost your sports...get over it! Move on! That is what people do when far more serious things happen, such as the loss of one's job, the loss of a loved one, etc. The entitlement of today's college students astounds me at times and makes me worry about who will be leading the world in a few years.

That said, the continued placement of this "Save OU Sports" propaganda on this wikipedia page is unjustified. It is a NEWS STORY on campus and you will not find other NEWS STORIES on this page. The page is broad in scope and provides a vague overview of all pertinent areas of Ohio University. We cannot open this page to include NEWS STORIES like it is some sort of daily blog. Otherwise, we would have all sorts of recent stories like the discontinuation of dining dollars at Baker Center from 11-1:00 and whatnot! As a result, the "Save OU Sports" story, like other NEWS STORIES does not, and will not, belong on this page!

If you and your buddies at "Save OU Sports" insist on venting your lost cause on Wikipedia, why not create your own article? That would be a far better alternative to being on the Ohio University page, where it will continue to be deleted by loyal Bobcats.

132.235.203.140 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a News Story - A Major Legal Issue Involving Title IX - A major policy decision by OU that has cost students and families thousands and is forcing many to transfer
We're not trust-funders. This is not propaganda. You talk like someone from OU who doesn't want this issue to get a full airing. Anyone contemplating going to OU has a right to know how this university handles difficult issues that affect the lives of its students - in secret without participation by those such decisions will affect the most.

Our website also draws attention to the financial difficulties OU faces, another material element in any high school student's decision to select a university. Do you want to conceal that information from them, allowing them to commit to OU only to find out after they arrive that programs they may have counted on are going to be cut? This decision cost scores of families paying out-of-state tuition a tremendous amount of money.

If you are worried about who will be leading the world, look to the current crop of university administrators who think nothing about violating their own policies, making representations to students on the swimming and diving team in writing (check our website for the facts) and then surprising them twelve days later with decisions that are completely contrary to the written representations they just made. As role models for the current students, are they setting examples of integrity and transparency that can serve as lessons for the students? If the way they handled this vulnerable group of students is an indicator, then they are very poor role models.

Students who won't take this kind of treatment lying down are the very kind of student you should hope will lead the world in the future.

The kinds of students that devote years developing their athletic expertise are more likely to have the kind of discipline and focus that our future leaders will need. If they were whiny, they would never have undertaken the rigors and demands of an NCAA Division One athletic commitment.

If you are, in fact, a loyal Bobcat (just as are the students who now have to deal with the consequences of the decision made without their knowledge or input), then you might have more concern about the integrity of your university and the direction in which its current management is moving it. OU is a great and storied university and it deserves to be represented and managed far better than it is now.

OU also deserves the attention and action of concerned alumni, as you seem to be, to correct the underlying problems of which this issue is a major symptom.

Kindly see what we have to say on our website before you summarily dismiss us and delete our additions in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Save OU Sports (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree completely..."Save OU Sports" does NOT belong
While perusing Wikipedia at work today I saw that a "Save OU Sports" article appeared on my alma mater's page. I quickly opted to delete it (as I see has been done by others before me) because, like the guy above states, it is a news story. This site doesn't contain anything else of the like, and it sticks out "like a sore thumb". Agree or not with these sports cuts, you cannot argue against that a daily story (as would be seen in a newspaper for a day or two and then be mentioned sparingly thereafter) just doesn't belong here!

On another note, I saw that you put this stuff (which is almost like an advertisement for your site...that surely does not belong on Wikipedia) on other pages. You put it on the MAC page, where someone else took care of it and called it inappropriate. However, you proceeded to put it on the STATE OF OHIO and OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS pages, where they also were deleted. It can be debated whether or not this belongs on an OU page, but the page of the STATE?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? What's next...the United States page?? Please refrain from such selfish and foolish actions and understand the relatively small scope of your incident in comparison to issues of the state and the world. I hate to break it to you, but outside of your club very few people really pay much attention or care about your plight. Sport cuts are a well-known reality in college sports today...they have been done before OU, and will be done after OU.

And before you tell me, like my fellow Bobcat above, to "visit your website", please know that I already have and it does contain some decent information. It is your right to keep that site, whether or not others agree with your "rabble-rouser" stance. However, please don't make Wikipedia pages a "branch" of saveousports.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsFan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All Facts need to be represented!
I agree that the Ohio University sports cuts should be represented here on Wikipedia. The situation happening at Ohio University is a disgusting fact. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, disgusting or not, all facts should be represented. 64.247.113.155 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Information Page on Ohio University? More like a Bobcat Booster Page
I guess we'll just have to put up with the deletions and keep replacing our contributions. Above comments from "Loyal Bobcats" indicate that this is a page that is broad and "vague" (not sure what that means) but if you try to learn much about OU, you will find that most of the detailed info is about Bobcat sports. We're not dealing with loyal alumni as much as we are with the Green and White club whose members seem to care far more about football and basketball than they do about what has been done to time-honored OU sports traditions - Olympic sports cut summarily, an OU Hall of Famer (NCAA Hall of Famer Stan Huntsman) demanding that OU remove his plaque from its own hall of fame, NCAA Champ Elmore Banton publicly denouncing OU's sports cuts.

Wake up people! This is our university too and we have a right to fight back. Your deletions don't speak as much about your loyalty to OU as they do about the fact that you simply want to keep us quiet and go on pretending that OU traditions aren't being trashed in the name of the almighty dollar.

When other OU cuts come down the road, as appears to be happening with its current budget crisis, are you going to be nearly as indignant if a group puts up a notice that a particular degree program was cut? I don't think so. To a great many of the athletes whose programs were cut, loss of those sports is a setback to their professional careers. The experience they hoped to gain from competing at college was experience they intended to put to good use as they pursue a professional career in sports - coaching, administration and the like. As we have said before, that experience, to them, is just as important as their courses.

Enjoy your tailgate parties "Loyal Bobcats." OU football goes on at the expense of those kids who directed you to your parking places during football games (all members of the "lesser sports programs,") who sold you those raffle tickets in the parking lots, who staffed the admission gates, and who did thousands of hours of unpaid, volunteeer work at games also as loyal Bobcats. Kids on the other teams put their volunteer hours directly into the football and basketball budgets and in return they were stabbed in the back. Those are the same kids whose sports cuts were planned and executed behind their backs. Shame on OU and shame on you for trying to muzzle them.

If OU is such a great university, then it can stand a little controversy and come out of it the better for it being aired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Save OU Sports (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Proposed addition to Ohio University website
In accordance with guidance we received recently from Wikpedia administrators, we are posting below a proposed insertion into the Ohio University Wikpedia page. This insertion is almost identical in structure and type of content to an edit on at least one other university's Wikpedia website in that it deals with Title IX, a law that precipitated an important action by Ohio University. We checked with Wikipedia and are given to believe that the other posting we found was consistent with their guidelines and remains on that university's website as a result. Since this proposed edit tracks with the one allowed to remain on Wikipedia, we believe this conforms to Wikpedia's guidelines. This proposal is open for editing and comment before posting. Following a period of time allowing for others to comment, it will be added in its edited form provided it is not materially revised.

To those who object to this issue appearing on OU's Wikipedia page, it is not a news report or simply a passing situation. It provides information that is relevant to a large group of current and alumni Bobcats and deals with a decision that has fundamentally altered OU's athletic environment and has become a major event in OU history. When Olympic sports with almost 100 and 72 years respectively of history at OU are dropped, it is a major event and not a fleeting news story. The contributors of this are Bobcats too and expect to be allowed to post this information without undue interference.

Proposed addition:

"Title IX compliance On January 24, 2007, Ohio University Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt announced that four sports teams would be eliminated effective the end of the 2006-2007 academic year. The affected teams were Women’s Lacrosse – one of the fastest growing sports in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Men’s Swimming and Diving – 72 years of tradition at OU, and Men’s Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field – almost 100 years of tradition at OU and counting for two teams for Title IX purposes. The stated reason for the cuts was to comply with Title IX requirements, specifically that the ratio of male-to-female student athletes match the whole student population.  The Athletic Director also explained that Ohio University’s athletic budget was under strain and that the school could no longer insure that student athletes participated in a “quality sports” program.

Many students were angered by the cuts, complaining that only less-popular and “non revenue” sports were affected, and not sports such as football. The Athletic Director stated that resources budgeted for the cut sports would now be “strategically reinvested” in revenue sports. Numerous editorials have appeared in newspapers across the country, both in support of and against the decision. “The Post Online,” “The Athens News” and “The Athens Messenger,” newspapers serving Ohio University’s region, all carried detailed reports on this decision. Ohio state-wide newspapers such as the “Cleveland Plain Dealer” and the “Columbus Dispatch” have also carried articles about this decision as well as reports about compliance with Title IX by Ohio schools in general.

In direct response to Ohio University student athletes’ expressions of concern about this decision, NCAA President Myles Brand, in his weekly podcast on March 5, 2007, discussed the continuing trend of U.S. universities using Title IX as justification for cutting sports programs for budgetary purposes. The Chairman of the College Sports Council, the American Lacrosse Conference, and the Executive Director of the College Swimming Coaches of America all issued statements or gave interviews expressing disappointment over this decision by Ohio University."

--Save OU Sports 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

It Just DOESN'T fit
I don't care how you jazz it up...a reasonable argument cannot be made to put this on the OU page. Other controversies at OU are not mentioned here...why should this one?? There is no mention of the plagerism scandal, budget cuts, IT hacking, etc. This is a smaller "scoop" than those are, and coming from someone who stated that athletics take up too much of a proportion of the OU page, why are you picking an athletics issue to take up a large proportion of the page?

Also, to call this "a major event" in OU history is laughable. Mabye a fairly large event of the year, but its nothing to a school with a 200 year history. OU has been around long before these cuts and will exist long after...and unlike what you say, it is a "passing situation". Twenty years from now when these sports are long gone, few will remember that they ever existed. Heck, most people around Athens have already forgot about the cuts...the story was in the paper for two days and left. People move on...so should "Save OU Sports" and their agenda. 132.235.203.18 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree
Why aren't other controversies mentioned on this site? Those are major financial, ethical, and management issues that people associated with OU and those contemplating association should know about. Shouldn't prospective students and their families know about such things before they make a major academic career and financial commitment to a school? Budget cuts are certainly material to them. Withholding this information from them through the pressure of a group who simply don't want OU's athletic program to look bad is wrong. Kids and their families considering schools come to Wikipedia, among other places, to get that information. They shouldn't be subjected to a sanitized presentation. We get the strong feeling that those who seem to care so much about this just don't want the facts to appear.

Once we are finished dealing with this issue, it may be a good idea to author contributions on those issues. We'll let Wikipedia decide if we are compliant.

The issue is still in the papers and it is now in the legal agenda of the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights as an official complaint that they are obliged to consider and possibly investigate at OU. Check out the Internet if you don't believe us. Check out the Student Newspaper's recent editorials about Title IX and what it has done and is doing to OU. This proposed addition is about Title IX, a major national legal issue in which OU is now involved.

When a significant activity of a university that has been around for almost 100 years and has produced NCAA titles is dropped - Men's Track and Field, an Olympic sport - how does that not qualify as a major event? As many students who suit up for each Bobcat football game were summarily dropped in this action. If this had happened to the football team, we're sure most of the objections to our proposed addition would evaporate. Why shouldn't actions that affected the lives of these dedicated youngsters count for as much as those on the football team?

We are engaging Wikipedia's experienced volunteers to review this material to tell us if it meets their standards. If it does, we will post it.

This is your chance to contribute edits and you are invited to do so keeping in mind OU's long-term reputation that it has built since 1804, and not short term interests of athletics promoters and boosters many of whose interests in OU are far more financial than anything else. As we said before, if OU is such a strong institution, it can stand a little controversy and its supporters should welcome the opportunity to see that everyone who attends(ed) has a chance to have their say.

--Save OU Sports 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Here's your problem
I'm not the first one to say this to you folks at "Save OU Sports," but I need to emphasize it again: An overwhelming majority of people do not care about what happened to you. At all.

From your comments, it seems clear that you believe people fall into one of two camps: those who think it's the most appalling injustice in the history of the school, and those "Bobcat boosters" who are scrambling to cover up the grave misdeeds of the athletic department so they can remain proud of the school when they go to the football and basketball games. Since that's all they do.

There are a lot of people in the third camp, which you don't acknowledge. These people have a sense of perspective and understand sports are cut frequently at universities across the country, and people move on. You might try listening to them. 24.208.178.99 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We understand all too well
It's not our problem; it is OU's problem. If those of you who object to this were half as concerned about OU's integrity as you are about the so-called perspective of this Wikipedia page, you might see the merit of our position. We are also well aware that many don't care. We certainly understand that. We don't expect everyone to support our desire to see this information made available to people researching OU using Wikipedia; and we are not naive about the realities of university budgets and the need to cut programs, sports and otherwise. On the other hand, we expect those who do not care a fig for this issue to kindly stop obstructing if you don't give a hoot about what happened and let us present these facts about Title IX and how it was used by OU (and many other schools) as political cover for budget cuts, something completely contrary to the intent of the law.

The legal side of this is growing. As we said before, we do not plan to go away. Legal action by Equity in Athletics, formal complaints by the Swim Team to the US Department of Education, and other contemplated action will likely demonstrate this in time. This is certainly something I would want to know about if I were a high school junior or senior researching a university.

As we have said in numerous fora here and elsewhere, it is not that the sports were cut; it is HOW they were cut. Had OU done this in an above-board manner, with some kind of warning, advising current and prospective athletes that there was a possibility that programs might be cut, there would not be an issue. Kids with other university options could have made informed decisions that protected their interests (and their families' finances - no small consideration for a lot of families). Our website documents the secretive manner in which this decision was made and then executed -- contrary to NCAA policies, concealing these plans from the Student and Faculty Senates, completely contrary to OU policies. What's the point of having policies in place if they are going to be ignored when it is convenient?

We have collected a credible body of documented evidence on our website that this decision was in the offing before coaches began 06-07 school year recruiting and certainly before they began 07-08 recruiting for the teams that were cut - coaches kept in the dark as they induced youngsters to make perhaps the biggest decision so far in their lives. OU's athletic department gave one team written assurance that they were not in jeopardy two weeks before the team was cut.

OU's leadership has refused to answer letters from the athletes and parents of the team that received written assurances - well documented on our web site. They apparently know they mishandled this badly and have probably been advised not to respond.

While this is a nuisance to those of you who object to the presence of this information on this page - we're Bobcats too - it is a major financial and college career disaster for a good number of the 86 kids who were hit with this. They're almost all dedicated, disciplined athletes who worked for years to get to this point. They deserved much better treatment than being surprised at the last possible moment with a decision OU's representatives say is "final," with no opportunity whatsoever for recourse to a number of options that might have been available to save their teams if OU had tabled this problem when they began working on it - as early as December 2005 as we show through official university documents posted on our site obtained through the FOIA.

You can choose to help us achieve a consensus on how this issue will be posted on OU's page or you can simply object without offering edits - your choice. Nevertheless, we will maintain this posting for comment and editing and will persist in our efforts with our without your input.

--Save OU Sports 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Agree completely that most just don't care
Like the other guy above, I am not some "big bucks" booster who provides the cars to coaches and such. I'm just a regular, middle-aged, middle-class alumni who has pride in my school and my school's athletics teams. I know you feel that these cuts were some grave crime against humanity...I feel, though, that it is really the same thing that has happened at virtually every MAC school and schools around the nation. It is ashame for the athletes involved, but others have made it through and so can you. '''Note this: If you research how this has been done at other places, you will find that it is almost always a closed door process. Can you imagine open pubilc forums debating who's sports will be cut??? What kind of atmosphere would that create?'''

There are a variety of reasons for the cut sports that MAKE LOGICAL SENSE if you think about them:

1. Title IX was a real issue. If you look at the facts (something "Save OU Sports" conveniently ignores), '''Ohio University is comprised of 52.2% female students and 47.8% male students. However, 57% of athletes were male while only 43% were female prior to the cuts'''. Title IX requires being close to the same proportionality, which OU was obviously far from. By cutting men's indoor and outdoor track (those athletes count twice, I believe) along with swimming, this problem is alleviated.

2. Budgets...this is self explanatory. The sports cost money (especially lacrosse, which seems to have virtually all scholarship athletes) and the athletic dept. is in a deficit. You can't cut certain sports due to MAC rules (Baseball, Softball, Volleyball, Women's Soccer, Football, Basketball), so only a few options remained.

3. The one most people ignore is this: THESE TEAMS WERE NOT COMPETITIVE WHATSOEVER! After a quick google search, it appears that OU men's swimming has not won a MAC title since 1971! The men's indoor track team has finished last or next to last 9 of 10 times since 1996! Since joining the American Lacrosse Conference in 2002, lacrosse has a conference record of 6 - 18 and finished last most every year!

What kind of an experience is it for student-athletes to have no chance of even being mediocre each year? These teams were the dregs of the league...cutting them is almost like putting a rapid dog out of its misery. 132.235.203.48 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Competitive?
You could change the name of the sport in the above paragraph and it would apply to a good number of sports at OU including OU's football team, or most other schools in the country for that matter. Your comments, and some of the rationale the AD used in his "Rationale Document," -- obtained through the FOIA and available on our website at triple W DOT saveousports DOT org - indicate that titles are what it is all about. The overarching issue is survival of a broad range of sports programs at NCAA schools, providing as many opportunities as possible for students to compete at the national level, but the trend is in the opposite direction.

As for competitiveness, OU went on a long, dry spell in football before they hired the current coach and he appears to be making a difference. Likewise, the lacrosse coach OU landed is one of the best young coaches in the country. Navy Lacrosse thinks so. They hired her quickly after OU dropped the program. The OU lacrosse program, building only since 1999 when it started, even as new as it was, could already claim to have beaten Ohio State University, Penn State, and Virginia Tech. How many other teams at OU can make that claim about those schools or others with equal athletic heft? They played in what many in the national lacrosse community think is the most competitive women's lacrosse conference in the country - the American Lacrosse Conference soon to add Florida and probably South Carolina. The ALC includes Northwestern, the national champions for the last two years, Ohio State University, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Penn State. Find a pushover in that bunch if you can. Any new team in such a conference is going to find it difficult to rank highly for a while. It was not given a chance.

The budget is very self-explanatory. OU's athletic department racked up a $4,000,000 deficit and it needed to find a solution quickly. As Phil Whitten, Executive Director of the College Swim Coaches of American said, "This didn't happen overnight. Didn't anyone notice?" The solution was to use Title IX as political cover for a financial decision without giving the teams any warning or chance to find alternative funding.

No, most of such decisions are not made in secret and if they are, as is the case in OU's circumstances, it is in violation of university and NCAA policies. Go to the Student and Faculty Senate pages and read what they have to say about being excluded from this decision in apparent violation of OU's written policies.

What kind of atmosphere would that create? Probably a very disruptive one for OU, but at least people committing thousands of dollars of scarce family resources to send their youngsters to OU would have known that teams might be cut and they could have chosen to go elsewhere, as many of this year's freshmen now wish they had.

The way this was handled minimized the difficulty for OU and maximized it for the students and their families. So much for "Vision Ohio's" core values, including "integrity." You can find the entirety of "Vision Ohio" on our site if you care to. Does keeping a calm atmosphere include giving a letter of assurance to the swim team twelve days before they were cut? Many of the new organization "United Swim Parents" are reviewing their options with attorneys. OU may eventually wish it had aired this well in advance of the announcement.

Your last comment is unkind and an apology to the hard working, dedicated Bobcats on those teams is probably in order. If you applied that criterion to OU's football team a couple of years ago -- no bowl appearance since 1968 -- OU would not now have a football team.

Back to the main issue - Title IX. Title IX was used as political cover for a financial decision. OU chose the one test of three available that would force them to drop teams. The other two offered much more flexibility and the AD would have taken one of those if he really wanted to preserve the teams. As we stated above, Title IX is undergoing major challenges in court these days. Its misuse in cutting athletic programs at schools is contrary to the its original intent and it is gradually eroding sports opportunities at schools nationwide, including in Olympic sports.

In order to avoid "pushing a specific point of view," we are proposing just to add to the page the bare facts about what transpired. --Save OU Sports 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Fair use rationale for Image:BOBCATS.gif
Image:BOBCATS.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Stakeholders please respond to above
Agreed. This request (above) has been ignored. If the image is not removed and replaced with a more suitable image (Cutler Hall, The Gates?) I will delete it. The bobcat paw is in keeping with the remainder of the page: overlong, tedious, and self-promoting. This article sounds as if it's attempting to be a school history, a recruiting bulletin, and an apologia, all wrapped together. I wouldn't link to it in its current state. Woodlandpath (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumni/faculty
Does the material really need references, especially the individuals who have wiki links? I know having outside sources helps the credibility, but it would seem that a wiki link would be a major step in recognizing someone as being notable. Vbofficial 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohio University Associate Athletic Director pleads guilty in court
Is noting of this reprehensible story on this website appropriate? This is the same person entrusted with OU's athletic department funds at a time when the school claims to be in financial crisis and following their dropping of three varsity teams to save money. OU alums should know what is happening at their revered old school. It seems to be under the control of incompetents or worse.
 * NO. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.  These types of stories come and go on every campus and in every city over the years.  If we added this story then we would also have to add every positive story.  It would never end. Vbofficial 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Parents and prospective students researching universities, especially those considering college athletics, should know the truth about how Ohio University's athletic department is managed.  Read about it here.  http://www.collegeswimming.com/news/2007/jul/31/architect-ohio-us-sports-cuts-pleads-guilty-embezz/

Come on, its a NEWS STORY! Its just one bad apple who likes to forge signatures and "skim off the top". Don't indict the whole institution on the actions of one foolish man.


 * ah, just like the plagiarism scandal referred to above. If OU athletics are notable, this is. DGG (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Information Regarding Sports Cuts
Information about the Elimination of four Varsity Sports is a major issue and event that took place at Ohio University. For the legitimacy of Wikipedia information about the cuts must be represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstud67 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone who lacks the honesty and courage to log in keeps removing anything controversial from the Ohio University page. This is undoubtedly one of OU's own flacks, who keeps making the page a total puff piece. I have to live here in Athens under the shadow of Ohio University, and I WILL make it my task to make sure that the article reflects what's really going on here. jaknouse 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, IPs are allowed to be editors of Wikipedia, so please stop running around saying that they have no "courage." Also, stop accusing people of having bias and being their "flacks."  Assume good faith with all other editors.
 * Now, to the point...any controversies that you're adding need to be properly sourced. It is not enough to have one letter to an editor serve as a reference to a controversy.  Please do not add the section back until it is fully sourced.  Metros 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Neutral
this page sounds like it was wrote by admisions recruiters. that needs to change. wikipedia is for information, not propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.85.229 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Northwest Territory?
Ohio achieved statehood in 1803. Ohio University was founded in 1804. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ohio leave the Northwest Territory once it became a state? Unless I am missing some arcane bit of information, it seems that Ohio University was founded in the State of Ohio and not in the Northwest Territory. The history section notes that Ohio U. had a precursor known as American Western University, but from what I can tell this entity was never established, let alone held classes. Should someone rewrite the history section and place the Northwest Territory thing in the proper context? Or is there an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalriata (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"OHIO" and sources
In reading the source attached to the "OHIO" mention in the opening sentence, it never specifies that "OHIO" in all capital letters is an alternate or shortened name for the school. Instead, it merely states that Ohio University has a trademark on "OHIO" to use on things like merchandise and sports uniforms. "The agreement gives Ohio University exclusive rights to "OHIO" for athletic uniforms, apparel and merchandise..." and "Ohio University was granted the "OHIO" trademark in May 1995." Every reference to a shortened name of the University uses "Ohio" in standard spelling. "...that Ohio University has indeed been known as 'Ohio' for more than 100 years." This was used as evidence for OU to trademark "OHIO" over the objections of Ohio State, but it's no more an "alternate" name than "AKRON" is for the Akron Zips or "KENT" is for Kent State. Instead we'd just say "Akron" and "Kent" even if both schools have trademarked the all-caps versions. Other issues in this article are the extreme lack of sources. For instance, the recently-added section on the student recreation center is full of wonderful things about the facility, but has zero sources, so readers have no idea if the claims are true or just examples of boosterism. Please, if you're going to add any content, but especially larger sections, please make sure they have citations to go with them that are reliable. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldest?
Article states, "Founded in 1804, it is the oldest university in the Northwest Territory" and I indeed heard this proclaimed when I visited OU this summer. However, this does agree with the statement under Vincennes University history, which states, "Vincennes University is the oldest university north of the Ohio River and west of the Alleghenies. This institution was founded in 1801 ...." Note: The map of the Northwest Territory shows that Indiana was a part of it.

So, how can the claim in the OU article be valid? --Kentmoraga (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the Vincennes University history needs some major review as it is full of POV terms and few sources. Next, it does state that the school was established as an academy in 1801 and renamed as a university in 1806.  In the early 1800s "academy" was typically an early form of a modern high school since secondary public schools were not established anywhere in the US, especially in what was then the frontier.  If that is the case here, then OU is still the oldest university in the former Northwest Territory as it has been a university from its founding.  Another difference is that Vincennes has been a two-year school since 1889, so it is a university in name only in the way that "university" is typically thought of (a 4-year school, usually with graduate programs).  In reality it is a junior college. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo not showing on Facebook?
Anyone else notice the Ohio University seal is no longer showing on Facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.132.81 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal content
I've removed two sections—one added recently, which is either a copyright violation or primarily original research, and the other which had been tagged for improved references for two years. I have no objection to content involving campus hauntings or supposed paranormal activity, but there are several things I think we'd do well to keep in mind. First, this is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive collection of local folklore and urban legends. Just about every college campus has its ghost stories passed down from class to class and sometimes detailed in the student newspaper, and I'm not seeing anything especially noteworthy about any of the stories presented here. Second, sometimes less is more: a brief section, well sourced (preferably to an off-campus publication such as a daily newspaper) and tightly written, could be a good thing. A lengthy, rambling collection of sundry details replete with weasel words and vaguenesses really isn't a credit to Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but you also pulled out the "1970 protests and school closing" section, which seems like a legitimate attempt by two students to add material about an important period in university history. Yes, it needed coalescing between the two contributions as well as some copyediting and wikification – I've made a first pass at this – but it doesn't deserve to be tossed.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I made this addition to the article after researching the information on the internet and finding nothing but myths and ghost stories. I added this section to exploit such stories and put the truth out there! This is my first addition as a wiki user and I realize that there is going to be some conflict and disagreements with my addition, but this is what the majority of people are looking for when they research Ohio University! Besides its reputation as a party school, Ohio University is known as being the home of the Athens Lunatic Asylum. Any search related to the university will bring up numerous websites focusing on the bogus myths of paranormal activity. I tried to source this addition as best as possible, but the articles which I dug up in the university's library were found on microfilm and the best thing I could do was cite "The Post" considering that is where they were published back in the late 70's. Honestly, why take this down? Just because YOU do not see anything special about this information does not mean other people will have the same perspective. The length of the addition was necessary to get my points across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp233010 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 *  @ Wasted Time R:  I'm aghast. That was completely inadvertent.  (sends mouse to corner for time-out)  Thank you for fixing it!
 *  @ Mp233010:  And thank you for contributing to the article. I realize it was your first addition, and I hope my disagreement with its inclusion doesn't discourage you from contributing more. Truth be told, I read your addition with great interest, but my love of ghost stories conflicted with my commitment to Wikipedian principles, and the latter won out. I did seriously consider modifying what you added, rather than simply removing it, but the problems took several forms, necessitating more of a rewrite rather than just a heavy edit, and I couldn't figure out how to do that without access to the sources that you used. For instance, what you added appeared to contain multiple instances of original research. Two examples: "'One myth that is most commonly heard among the students today' 'Most of these myths have been passed on through generations of students and are still alive and terrifying those who attend Ohio University till this day'"Who says? If it was in an old newspaper, then claims involving "today" and "to this day" are unfounded. If you are saying it, well, with all respect, that isn't good enough. The tone was also a major issue in places; it was closer to what one might expect to find in a supermarket tabloid than in an encyclopedia. With regard to what you said about perspective, there's no doubt that many people would find the content interesting (I include myself among them) but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. You say you added the section to "put the truth out there". Thing is, Wikipedia concerns itself less with truth than verifiability. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR and then, if you're still interested, revisit the idea of adding something to this article. I'm willing to help, if I can. Rivertorch (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies if my rebuttal came across as ignorance, I was just somewhat upset with my addition being pulled barely after being up for a week. I am somewhat disappointed with the outcome, but after reviewing the links, I understand where you are coming from. I am going to consider making revisions and reposting the addition. Thank you for your time and concern. PLEASE feel free to edit and repost this addition! I am an overwhelmed senior in college taking twenty credits and applying to graduate school, so the likelihood that I find time to repost this addition is minimal. If you decide to, please email me with and questions and concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp233010 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replied at your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

First African American graduates
The title of this section may be inaccurate. I'm guessing that Hunley-Blackburn was the first African American woman to graduate from OU; if so, that should be stated up front in her entry. But I'm guessing there were other African American graduates between Templeton and Hunley-Blackburn. If that's the case, the section needs to be retitled.

On a separate note, I placed three maintenance tags in Hunley-Blackburn's entry. The first two are fairly self-explanatory ("B.S. in E." needs to be spelled out, whatever it is, and there's no context to indicate who "Dean Richardson" might be). The third one is because it's unclear why she couldn't teach in the same school system as her husband. Was there some sort of anti-nepotism rule? I take it that her husband was also African American, but the original wording (which had nearly impenetrable syntax) read"she met her husband Charles Blackburn which happened to be the son of Ohio University first African American to be a trustee on the Board of Trustees, John R. Blackburn"which on second thought is ambiguous, to say the least. Rivertorch (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I think that both of these alum's sections may be somewhat beyond the proper scope of this article. It's possible that one or both of them deserves a separate biographical article, if they meet notability requirements. Such a level of detail certainly would be appropriate for a separate article, but for the purposes of this article it probably should be trimmed down to details directly relevant to their time at OU. Rivertorch (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1970 protests and school closing
There was a deletion of a large section of accurate material describing historical events that took place on campus in 1970. These events are documented by historians, journalists, photographers, etc. As a freshman student who was present during these events, and experienced the subsequent school closing, it is clear that the report in Wikipedia is accurate, and the details are important for readers. The section requires copy editing but not deletion. 1970bobcat (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would highly recommend trimming the section quite a bit. It completely dominates the history section.  See WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."  The Kent State shootings, for instance, take up a paragraph of the history section of the Kent State University article and that event was far more significant both nationally and in the history of KSU than the closure of OU was in either aspect. The history section as a whole needs some major editing and perhaps a separate History of Ohio University article.  Even then, the closing in 1970 is a part of a very long history and is by no means the most significant event in the history of the school. Intricate and excessive details about one specific event in an article like this are not appropriate. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it needs trimming but not deletion. This history is well documented on the web and many of the details could be replaced by external links. Please leave most of the historical details there until someone has time to do the copy editing because it is an important part of OU history. What is the most significant event in the history of the school (other than its founding) by the way? Construction of the football stadium? McGuffey readers? I'm at a loss. 1970bobcat (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with 1970bobcat. Most of the history section is threadbare; when it gets built up more, then maybe a split-off to an History of Ohio University article would be warranted.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All three of you make valid points but I particularly agree with JonRidinger about undue weight. Many, if not most, large public universities experienced considerable unrest around that time, and I don't see anything about this episode that merits the level of detail it has been given. Meaningful as the events were to those present on campus at the time, and significant as they undoubtedly were in shaping the history of the university, they're sort of dominating the section now, and that isn't appropriate. I'll see if I can get around to doing a rough copyedit tonight, but I'm inclined to cull a fair amount of material in the process. Please note that this content was added very recently by one of several students participating in a class project associated with the Wikimedia Foundation's Campus Ambassador program, a scheme not without its hiccups (see this section and also this one above). Incidentally, the IP editor who removed the content at issue made several other problematic edits, which I'm going to try to fix as well. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I completed a rough copyedit. Doubtless there are multiple things, big and small, remaining to be fixed. I actually ended up leaving more material in than I expected, but that doesn't mean I think it should all stay in. My major concerns at this point are the reliance on too few sources and imprecise attribution to those sources. (Lots of sentences in there that I can't tell whether they're sourced or not.) There were numerous instances where I wasn't sure exactly what the intended meaning was; those I didn't remove I tagged and, in some cases, inserted a hidden-text note to other editors. I'd be grateful if someone with access to all of the cited sources would check over what I've done; I tried not to rewrite anything in a way that changed the apparent meaning, but since the meaning wasn't always exactly apparent . . . Fascinating topic, btw, and perhaps deserving of its own article. Rivertorch (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In any type of general history section, you have to determine which are the most important points and which are details that could be done without. You also have to look at certain events in the larger picture of the topic.  The topic of the article is Ohio University, not the school's history.  A LOT of protests happened after the announcement of the Cambodian Invasion and schools were closed in the wake of the Kent State and Jackson State shootings (see Student Strike of 1970).  The history section is simply to give the reader a general idea of how the school developed, not intricate details of certain (or every) events.  If they wish to study the topic further, the sources provided should point them in that direction. This is a school with over 200 years of history.  While the closing and protests in 1970 should definitely be mentioned and explained, they should take up a paragraph at most.  In other words, a good summary of what happened and why.  And I definitely agree that the rest of the history section should be expanded (at least more balanced), but the answer to that isn't making a massive section about a single event.  Look at featured university articles like Michigan State University (uses subheadings) or the University of Michigan (doesn't use subheadings), both of which have long histories and also have respective "History of ..." articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right. I concur with the gist of all you say, although I wouldn't be quite so strict as to limit it to one paragraph. In any event, how about a separate "History of" article? As you can see (and as discussed in the preceding thread on this page), there's excess detail elsewhere in the history section. Do you think there's enough content here to create a new stub? Rivertorch (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire history section should just be redone before anything. Starting a history article is fine, but in cases like this can just be a magnet for more of the excess (or irrelevant) details this article already suffers from. If there is concern about losing valuable information, put it in userspace until an appropriate article can be created (like the first African-American graduates).

As for the 1970 section, I don't think it's a matter of "limiting" it to a paragraph so much as it is realizing what would be needed for an effective summary that keeps undue weight and staying on topic in mind. In the greater picture of the 200-year history of OU and bearing in mind this is an encyclopedic article about the school (not an all-inclusive website about its history), that's why I think a paragraph would be appropriate. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the thoughtful responses of all and the copy editing - for what it is worth, there are links to some material on the university 'Founder's Day' pages. See e.g. Past Stories. I would be surprised to find much about the 1970 events on the ohio.edu web, though I will search for good info on external websites. It is interesting that they decided to give the 1970 graduating class a 40 year late commencement Class of 1970. The early history of OU in WP is a big disappointment. It doesn't even mention the College Lands. On the early history of OU there are some links that I will insert as references. Here is one: Ohio History Central:Ohio University. I am not sure it is appropriate to compare emphasis on history directly with schools that are peers today, because OU has a unique history being the oldest in what was the Northwest Territory. 1970bobcat (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * More references are great, but most of this section needs removed or better summarized. The key is making sure the history section actually stays on topic and is in proper context.  Lengths of history sections will obviously vary depending on the school.  The Athens, Ohio article had a similar problem with its history going into tons of details about groups of people (like details about native tribes, some of whom never even lived in southeast Ohio) or other background information that really wasn't appropriate or relevant for a general history of the city.  OU being the oldest in the NW Territory means there will be some unique information, particularly about its founding and early days, but I don't think it will be significantly longer than any other school of similar age and size. Again, look at *featured* university articles for some ideas as to the level of detail and length of history sections.  I used Kent State as an example not because it's a peer institution with OU now, but because of the Kent State shootings (which of course partially influenced what happened at OU), probably the most well-known aspect of its history, yet mention of that event does not dominate the history sections of the Kent State University article nor the Kent, Ohio article.  It's definitely mentioned (own subheading), but as a general summary.  And I'm a history person, so writing detailed histories is not a problem for me.  Learning to decide what was most important to include in these general history sections (summaries and details) was what I had to learn. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

student numbers are confusing to me..
In the info box at the top right, it reads:

Students: 35,324 Undergraduates: 17,212 Postgraduates: 3,645

As far as I am concerned, I'm pretty sure that [students] = [undergraduates] + [postgraduates] ... right?

So what accounts for the extra 14,467 students who are neither undergrads or grads? Hmm... Guypersonson (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would bet the 35,000 total is the entire university while the 17,000 and 3,000 is for the main campus in Athens. Ohio U has some branch campuses and the way they are counted in enrollment varies by institution. The infobox should note the totals for the entire university and the Athens main campus since this article really covers both.  Kent State University has a similar situation with 8 total campuses. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate pages for the separate campuses?
Does anyone have any feelings on the creation of individual wikipedia pages for each campus (Ohio University - Lancaster for example)?
 * I don't see any reason why not. There are multiple examples of regional campuses with separate articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizapath Perkins. Perkins Residence Hall
I am Sara Marie Perkins Smith of Longmont, Colorado. My father was Carl R. Perkins of Athens, Ohio. I am now 76 years old and am seeking to document a piece of our family history. My family tree shows that Elizpath Perkins is an ancestor of mine. (The paternal grandmother's Warren name goes back to General Joseph Warren who died at Bunker Hill.)

Ohio University has a Perkins Residence Hall. I was often told as a child by my father that the residence hall was named after Elizpath Perkins, an ancestor. Is there any historical reference on file at OU that might give me some background on the involvement of Elizpath Perkins in the establishment of Ohio University. A clerk at OU told me on a telephone call I made years and years ago that the Perkins Residence Hall was named after Elizpath Perkins. My father said he was instrumental in the founding of Ohio University. Can anyone refer me to historical literature/documents, pictures, etc. re: Elizpath Perkins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.168.227 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ohio.edu/compass/stories/11-12/3/cherry-blossom-2012.cfm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy edits of January 2013
New image of the West Green, replacing image of the West Green prior to its renovation

Deleted ARC building stuff in history: separate page created

ARC building added to list of buildings on West Green

Created Community service in student section

Opening paragraph, added information from OhioHigherEd source and VP for Research source

Fixed Kennedy Museum thing beneath Fine Arts

Alphabetized ethnic proportions, because they have been un-alphabetized.

Moved part of Baker Center section to its own page

Unbolded all names of greens in pictures' captions

Deleted information about University of Dayton being an arch-rival of Ohio University, as this is inaccurate and someone's personal opinion. Only Miami University and Marshall University are considered close rivals at this time in history, mostly for their history and geographic locations, respectively.--Sapienna (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Noteworthy edits of February 2013

 * History of Ohio University - created article


 * Ecology of Ohio University - created article


 * College Green of Ohio University - created article


 * Ohio University College of Arts and Sciences - created article

--Sapienna (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited main Ohio University article to link with each new article


 * I'm about to propose some of those articles - College Green of Ohio University and Ohio University College of Arts and Sciences - be merged into this one as they don't seem to be topics that rise to the level of requiring their own article.
 * I'm also going to nominate Ecology of Ohio University for deletion; discussion can be found on it's AfD. ElKevbo (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Both the pages should stay separate as they seem to be topics that rise to the level of requiring their own article afterall. There are other pages for colleges affiliated with Ohio University, such as the medical college, and the Arts and Sciences college definitely has enough information for its own page as a core of the university with the most departments and students.  Other universities' Arts and Sciences colleges have their own pages, like the University of Virginia College of Arts & Sciences.
 * Ohio University's Ping and Baker Centers have their own pages, and the College Green is more storied in its history, so it ought to have its separate page, similarly to Harvard Yard and the University of Alabama Quad.--Lavarq (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How do those topics meet our notability guidelines? Both of the articles that you believe should remain separate have one reference each that is not directly from the university.
 * I have no comment on the other articles you mention except a general observation that there are indeed other articles in Wikipedia that should also be deleted or merged. ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable independent secondary sources not affiliated with the university point to the Green’s significance as a centerpiece of the institution. Several are on the Internet, a part of newspapers, magazines, and more, while others are in print and a part of a general body of research about the institution and the city.  These are also true of the College, and its history, having been central to the formation of higher education in Ohio.  For instance, the Lybarger Bill and liberal arts education in Ohio, as well as other stand-alone topics, contact with the subject of the College of Arts and Sciences, making it unique from the other bodies of the university.  The secondary sources are accessible by looking, and point to why both articles should remain separate and not merged with Ohio University, in addition to the above examples of similar subjects with separate pages.
 * The schools of medicine and communication demonstrate two separate colleges affiliated with the university have separate pages in the expanding encyclopedia.--Lavarq (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you add those sources to the Green article as they would go a long way towards establishing the notability of the subject.
 * I don't understand your arguments for the other articles. Can you please clarify what reliable sources establish their notability?  And please don't point to the existence of other articles as evidence that those articles should exist; that's not a convincing argument, especially when those articles suffer from the same problem as the ones in question. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend removing the proposed merge tags because sourcing for both pages has been added (per a consensus that the separate articles should stay as long as additional sources were provided).--Lavarq (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ohio State University/Ohio University distinguish template
An unregistered editor has removed the template at the top of this article that advises readers that this article is not about Ohio State University with the rationale that it should removed "because the notation does not appear on both pages and because the international profile of Ohio University is enough to warrant its removal from the page." The first point is a fair one and I have added it to the Ohio State University article (not because it's an issue of "fairness" but because the rationale that the two articles and universities can be confused is solid). The second point, however, isn't very convincing because the template doesn't wasn't present because this university isn't well-known but because there is only one word different between these two universities in Ohio so it's likely that some readers may be confused or accidentally end up at the wrong article. The template is an aid for our readers and says nothing about the relative merits of the two universities. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

--The two templates are not needed and should be removed from the pages. The user traffic suggests that both schools differ in traffic size, and so this leads me to believe that users are not so much confused between the two as ElKevbo suggests. An example of this same kind of situation is with Indiana University and Indiana State University; sure, a "one word different", but users generally indicate the two are separate in recognition. --Feltek (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you conclude that based on "traffic size?" ElKevbo (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In accord with the consensus reached on this subject, I have removed the template.--Platoniam (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that even here in Ohio, people have a hard time telling the two apart. But there are a lot of "X University" and "X State University" instances around the US so I would agree it's not really needed here. — Ed! (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted it because there is no such consensus. Only three editors have weighed in on the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Continuing to weigh in, I have changed the latest edits with citings to refocus discussion on this page.--Elmedervarok (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean. Can you please clarify?  ElKevbo (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Flagship right
Per Platoniam, the page introduction ends with a reference to rightful flagship status. It states: Ohio University has been negatively affected by Ohio State's status as the de jure flagship in the state of Ohio from 2007, causing intellectuals to challenge the status and promote Ohio's rights. Let's discuss this; are there more sources that can additionally highlight what the designation of flagship means in the state of Ohio; how it is used; what it designates; et cetera?--Elmedervarok (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, the cited reference literally doesn't even use the phrase "flagship" so I'm baffled by how it can be used to support the statement in question. ElKevbo (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An original Enquirer staff article has been cited to anchor the topic of a right for flagship status in the introduction. I think this is a great article showcasing the meaning, as well as the loose-fit that Ohio State barely attained.  The article explains, from back in 2007, Ohio State was designated as the flagship of the University System of Ohio without much intellectual debate by the legislature in downtown Columbus.  I will continue to look for information that displays correlations between the demise of Ohio's funding and Ohio State's favoritism by legislators, most of whom did not attend public schools in the state.--HailCats (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the statement in the Lead that states "Ohio University has been negatively affected by Ohio State's status as the de jure flagship of the University System of Ohio from 2007, causing intellectuals to challenge the status and promote Ohio's right." for two reasons. First, and foremost, neither source used to support this statement actually supports it. The first source, an Op-Ed from the Cincinnati Enquirer dated August 3, 2007, simply states that other state universities were opposed to the designation of Ohio State as the flagship of the University System of Ohio. No specific mention of Ohio U is even made. Specifically it states: "That is not to say the effort isn't raising any concerns. A prickly point with many universities was Ohio State University's designation as the "flagship" institution. Ambitious institutions like the University of Cincinnati, which has ratcheted up admissions requirements, renovated its campus and hotly pursued new research opportunities, resent the implication that OSU has special status." The second source, from the local Athens The Post, is a recent article from last month. "Preliminary estimates show Ohio University could receive more than 6 percent less in state dollars after the Ohio Board of Regents changed the way the money is awarded." There is no mention of Ohio U's loss of money from the state level as being directly related to Ohio State being named the flagship. No other university besides OU is specifically mentioned or even alluded to in the article nor anything about the flagship issue. The specific reasons given state: "OU is projected to receive fewer state dollars because the Board of Regents is changing the variables it considers for the money. Next year regents will: Give partial funding for degrees completed by students who transferred into a university or who already have an associates degree. Not award additional money for students who have completed 30 credit hours and are considered “at-risk,” which includes minorities, students with low estimated financial contributions, older students and students with very low ACT or SAT scores."Neither source mentions "Ohio's right", and neither source mentions Ohio U being directly impacted by the designation of OSU. Sources, especially for controversial statements, need to very clearly support the point they are being used to support. Neither of these sources even comes close to supporting the statement in this article.

The second issue is even if it did have reliable sources that actually supported it, it doesn't belong in the Lead. The Lead should be a summary of the entire article and shouldn't have any unique information not found elsewhere in the article. About the only place the whole flagship issue could be mentioned is in the history section (amongst mention of the formation of the University System of Ohio), and even there it's simply a fact that Ohio U, like most other schools in the state, opposed Ohio State being designated as flagship. All of the other state schools have dealt with Ohio State in funding issues for decades. It's not unique to OU by any means (as the Enquirer source shows). --JonRidinger (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This topic seems to still be an issue in the article. I edited the section "The Promise", which includes mention of The Ohio Promise but then goes right into developments at OU in the 21st century, so it likely needs reorganized, re-titled, or separated into different sections. The issue with the flagship was horribly POV, complete with unnecessary mentions of Columbus, which were clearly included to show POV (as if the General Assembly being in Columbus meant it was slanted to OSU). As I stated above, the source from the Cincinnati Enquirer doesn't mention OU's opposition at all; it implies it as part of a larger opposition from other state schools. The mention of the University Center being completed "regardless the slights of Columbus" was completely unnecessary since the planning for that likely happened before the University System of Ohio was even developed. There some other POV and/or poorly worded statements that were removed such as "Without intellectual instruction" (what is "intellectual instruction?), and "which funded a flagship campus that was not the original university" (I'm assuming this meant original university in Ohio, but that in itself was not the only reason OU and other state universities objected to the flagship status for OSU). --JonRidinger (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , apparently yet another single-purpose account for promoting Ohio University, became active on 2015-01-22 and immediately snuck the content back in as at 2015-01-22, as mentioned by  above; Coloniatta did it again at  on 2015-01-30.   It's still poorly-sourced artificial-rivalry gibberish about how the "Columbus-based legislature" "passed a novice clause" "without intellectual debate" and "funded a flagship campus", to wit:
 * "Columbus-based legislature" is a non-neutral phrase: Unexplained swipe at at the Ohio General Assembly; I'm guessing because Ohio State University is also there. Apparently the editor believes that the Ohio Constitution, which specifies that the seat of government shall be Columbus, shouldn't actually govern Ohio.  No clue where the editor thinks the General Assembly should violate the constitution by sitting when deciding between multiple cities' biases.
 * "passed a novice clause" is gobbledygook: I don't know what "novice clause" might mean, other than it being a description of the English in the paragraph itself.
 * "without intellectual debate": Unsourced, blatant non-neutral opinion.
 * "funded a flagship campus": The word "flagship" is in quotes in the sourced article, and doesn't even come out and say that funding would be affected by a "flagship". Also, obviously, all state schools are funded.  Is the state supposed to stop funding a state university once a newspaper article puts the word "flagship" in an article?
 * "regardless the slights of Columbus": Blatantly non-neutral, and the entire sentence has no source.
 * I'm removing the entire section titled "The Promise", as it's blatantly biased self-worshiping, with sourcing directly from a marketing department, followed by the incoherent statements described above. I may also remove other paragraphs that are unsourced (or purely marketing-sourced) promotion about OU or Athens, Ohio; such statements are a violation of the Neutral point of view policy and are prohibited in the form which they appear in this article. --Closeapple (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Major" research university?
What in the hell is a "major" research university? Where is this defined or supported by reliable sources? It's certainly not the typical way we classify U.S. colleges and universities. It sounds like pure POV puffery to me. ElKevbo (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I think the subjective word "major" should be removed in this instance.  If the University has received accolades for its research, that should be stated as fact per WP:Puffery.  Since this was first brought up more than two years ago, and no one has commented, is it safe to assume there is consensus here?  Beta7 (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Outdated, misrepresented rankings
I recently removed a few rankings from this article that are outdated and misrepresented. In each instance, the rankings placed this university near or below the middle of the entire ranked population so to cite them as evidence of "outstanding academic quality" - the phrase used in this article - is a blatant misrepresentation. Another editor has reverted this edit with the vague edit summary of "Subject to Talk over and get multiple insights" so can someone please explain exactly why these outdated, misrepresented rankings belong in this article?

(That this edit and several others made in recent months all appear to be entirely promotional and positive and made by new, single-purpose editors is also a bit alarming. I advise our new colleagues to review our core policies, especially those concerning verifiability of information, neutral point of view, and conflicts of interest.)  ElKevbo (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Puffery exorcism
Wikipedia is not a means of promotion ... advocacy, ... recruitment ... marketing or public relations. Neutral point of view is a core Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a service provided to editors to explore how carefully something can be worded for maximum aggrandizement.

Based on the above sections, it's pretty obvious at this point that a bunch of this stuff is from either one contributor with multiple accounts, or a group of contributors with a single leader; whoever is responsible clearly shares one brain, in more ways than one. Most of it is a textbook violation of Puffery, and some of the same things have been re-added with misleading edit summaries about "adding" (it's re-adding) historic information or how it meets the talk discussion (when it doesn't). The offending user(s) have been up to this since at least 2013, so they've had well over a year of the same advance notice that advert, unrefsect, and weasel would have provided as hatnotes, and their edit summaries are weaselly enough to indicate that they're intentionally trying to dodge scrutiny.

Therefore, enough tiptoeing around. Be bold. I will mercilessly remove anything that does not have a reliable source (and Ohio's marketing is not a reliable source), or that violates neutral point of view, or that is not specific enough to be verifiable, or that contains unquantifiable weasel talk about being "among" the best or being "ranked with", or other claims that are only technically true after you get a lawyer and a hardcover-sized thesaurus or that otherwise confuse university marketing coverage, derived uncritically-passed-through "news" articles, or other institutional self-absorption, with encyclopedia-worthy text. I encourage other editors to do the same.

I have already removed the following:
 * the first institution of higher education chartered through an act of Congress in America, by the Northwest Ordinance in 1787
 * Misleading at best, false depending on your view: Claiming an 1787 date requires quite a stretch for defining "chartered through" and "act of Congress". The Northwest Ordinance was passed by the Congress of the Confederation on July 13, 1787 (i.e. an act of a congress, but not the "of Congress" that everyone is thinking of) and did not address the establishment of specific schools; it vaguely stated "means of education shall forever be encouraged".  The College Lands were chosen by the Ohio Company of Associates on December 16, 1795, but that also did not create any institution.  The Territorial Legislature of the Northwest Territory passed "an act establishing a university in the town of Athens" on January 9, 1802, establishing American Western University; that would count as the first institution chartered, though certainly not the first institution opened to students: It literally never got off the ground.  Even though the AWU charter was never repealed explicitly, the Ohio General Assembly passed its own "act establishing a university in the town of Athens" on February 18, 1804, and that is Ohio University's charter, which also specified that "That all acts and parts of acts containing any thing within the purview of this act shall be and they are hereby repealed."  OU didn't actually open to students until 1809.  Meanwhile, another college tract in the same territory had been promised in 1794 as part of the Miami Purchase, and was finally selected in Butler County in September 1803; on that land, Miami University was established on February 17, 1809.  So Ohio University is no more first "chartered through" the Ordinance of 1787 than Miami University is, or possibly multiple other universities in the Midwest are, unless you use the qualifier "chartered through" as a criteria and then turn around and use the qualifier "first" for a different criteria (like first opening for students).


 * the second university in the former Northwest Territory
 * Not in the sources given.


 * the tenth oldest public university in the United States.
 * Not in the sources given.


 * students, who come from nearly every state and approximately 100 countries.
 * Unsourced and vague, and common for a large university.


 * campuses and e-learning programs further extend educational access and opportunity to students across southern Ohio
 * Meaningless puffery. Replaced with better basic numbers.


 * Ohio has been cited for outstanding academic quality and value...
 * Run-of-the-mill "best college" back-patting; I've moved most of the paragraph it out of the intro. Maybe it should be removed completely, since it seems to be the usual "among" fluff with no specific rankings, let alone ranking criteria or importance.


 * The team's 2012 victory over Michigan was followed with a 62–56 win over 12th seeded South Florida that saw them reach the Sweet Sixteen for the first time since 1964.
 * Redundant: Already in another section; the world doesn't care enough for this to be in the intro.


 * Ohio is host to the oldest football venue in the MAC and among the oldest athletic arenas west of the Allegheny Mountains.
 * Unsourced. Also, "among the oldest" is unquantified.  Also "west of the Allegheny Mountains" is a red flag for legend being repeated as fact; institutions should have to pay everyone a nickel every time we hear that something is the earliest "west of the Allegheny Mountains".  See, for example, User:Closeapple/List of oldest high schools in the United States for multiple schools claiming to be the first "west of the Allegheny Mountains".


 * The university includes a 200-year athletic tradition.
 * Unsourced and unquantified: What counts as "includes" or "athletic tradition"? That's rhetorical: Nobody outside Athens cares what it means, so don't bother.  Contradicted by 1894 date later in article.


 * Ohio's beloved mascot
 * Obvious opinion.

And that's mostly just the intro section. Per WP:PROVEIT and the Wikipedia policies listed at the top of this section, claims that cannot be proven, and claims that are vague or contorted enough to give a false impression depending on the interpretation (even if technically true for some interpretations), may be challenged and removed by any editor. --Closeapple (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ohio 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Pg7vCEwR to http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2013NCSEEndowmentMarket%20ValuesRevisedFeb142014.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010060122/http://mac-sports.com/ to http://mac-sports.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Alumni
Loring Miner, MD

You have to be kidding me to not include him???? Look him up.