Misplaced Pages

Talk:Oregon State University

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgewise (talk | contribs) at 02:04, 15 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:04, 15 April 2008 by Edgewise (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconOregon B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).
This article was a Collaboration of the Week/Month for WikiProject Oregon November 25–December 3, 2007.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon State University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This is nothing more than a few students complaining, nothing big enough to mention on the Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Again, we do not generally use words like revered in Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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/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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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." 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)

Edit requested

{{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)
Categories: