Talk:Ohio Bobcats

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 Wikipedia: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)

Ohio University Athletic Department Financial Problems

Ohio University Associate Athletic Director admits guilt in court. Pays restitution. Sentencing scheduled for September 2007. Read about it at this link. http://www.collegeswimming.com/news/2007/jul/31/architect-ohio-us-sports-cuts-pleads-guilty-embezz/

See an alternative view of how Ohio University's Athletic Department manages its athletes

Save OU Sports is a non-profit organization composed of student athletes and their supporters from sports OU dropped without warning. It's website is http://www.saveousports.org OU is being held to account by the people associated with this site with the ultimate goal of reinstating the dropped sports - Men's Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field, Men's Swimming and Diving, and Women's Lacrosse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 17:10, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Promotional Language & Unsourced claims

Many areas of this article are written in a promotional tone with unsourced claims. After attempting to fix this article, request cites for questionable claims and bring it up to Wikipedia standards, author of promotional content and dubious claims is reverting edits. From WP:Verifiability, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.". Cite your sources, even if they are "secured archives". See WP:CITE for more info on how to do that. As to promo language, the fact that another article may contain promotional/peacock language does not excuse this article. Thanks,Stesmo (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the conversation on this talk page. Please read WP:BURDEN. The first sentence: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ohio University: The Spirit of a Singular Place" is not a neutral, third party source. It was written to commemorate OU's bicentennial and is sold by the university, so is going to have promotional language and other POV statements. Not being directly published by OU doesn't remove it from the realm of being subjective, so using it under claims of objectivity would be incorrect. Books like that are useful for non-controversial facts like when an event happened or verifying that a person was associated with the school, but not for statements that are clearly POV.

Additionally, the use of the all caps "OHIO" has no regular use. I'm fully aware of where that comes from, but no third-party sources ever refer to OU in that matter and even on the school's websites, the all-caps term is not used in any kind of consistent manner when mentioned in regular text. Varsity Ohio doesn't use all-caps when it's written out in regular text, the style guide cited in the lead about the school colors calls it "Ohio University Green" (actually says nothing about white), and the opening page for branding uses both the all-caps and regular versions of "Ohio" multiple times on the same page. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Colleges and universities commissioning history books to mark significant historical milestones is quite common. It's also common for the most detailed history books that focus on specific institutions to be written by alumni, emeritus faculty, or retired administrators (often archivists). I've heard some of my historian colleagues refer to these as "house histories" and there is tremendous variance in their quality, rigor, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. So I think you're right to be suspicious; I tend to approach these books with skepticism myself when I use them in my work although they're often the only source for particular facts especially more obscure or detailed ones.

However, some of these books are high quality books written using sound historiographical methods by highly qualified scholars. So we can't make any blanket rule that these are or aren't reliable sources; they have to be individually examined especially because there are different standards applied by different publishers or to different kinds of documents e.g., a PhD dissertation focused on a specific aspect of a college or university is probably quite reliable despite the obvious involvement of several people with connections to the institution. And it's always perfectly fine for authors of sources to have and express points of view; WP:NPOV only applies to Wikipedia articles and has little or no bearing on the reliability of a source.

As we usually do in all other articles, I also think that there should be a different standard of rigor applied to sources based on the specific fact(s) those sources are used to support. In other words, it's probably not a problem to use one of these sources to support trivial, factual claims. But they may be suspect to support more complex claims or interpretations.

In this instance, I think it's correct to reject this source as a high-quality one to support the POV, self-serving statement "Much to the ire of other universities in the state, Ohio University strikes a balance between boutique academe, world-class research, and high competitive standards for many of its student-athletes, which augments its fraternal appeal as the state’s oldest university." This is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional brochure or extension of the university's recruitment efforts. ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If it sounded as if I were trying to say the book isn't reliable at all, that wasn't what I meant; I have cited all three of Kent State's commissioned histories (1960, 1992, 2010) in various articles so I know these kinds of books are valuable sources, but at the same time, can't be used as justification for POV statements within an article, any more than the university's website can be used for such a purpose. Say, for instance, Peden Stadium was rated as the "best in the MAC" for something...well, then we'd not only need the third-party source in the article, but we would need mention of who rated it best, when, and for what within the article text. For this article specifically, as we both said, the use of that book is most welcome to verify quite a bit of information, like specific dates, historical facts, and even to verify certain people connected with the school (alumni, coaches, etc.).

As for the all caps "OHIO", that is part of the university's brand recognition and thus has no real place here on Wikipedia. As I mentioned previously, third-party sources always refer to the school as "Ohio University" or "Ohio" ("Ohio U" within the state of Ohio) and even on Ohio University pages, the use of "OHIO" vs "Ohio" is inconsistent even within the same articles. This article is not an OU publication, so doesn't fall under the branding requirements. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It takes a lot of chutzpah for an SPA to accuse other editors of bias without presenting even a shred of evidence. And it's incredulous to claim that a work commissioned by the university and written by a university employee using university sources is above scrutiny simply because it's published by the university (which itself should be a red flag that it might be biased!).

So let's take a look at the evidence:

1. The book was published by a reputable university press which is solid evidence of rigor.
2. The book was commissioned by the subject of the book which raises some suspicion of the author's independence and the role of the subject in the editing and approval of this book. That doesn't mean the university played any role in editing or approving the book - it probably didn't - but it's reasonable to raise the question. And even if the university didn't play any formal role in editing or approval it's certainly plausible that it exerted influence, even inadvertent influence.
3. The book was written by an author who is employed by the subject of the book which raises questions about the author's objectivity. It's not necessarily a bad thing because obviously a long-time employee will have significant personal knowledge of the institution and its history but it's reasonable to wonder how much the author's connections to the subject influenced her decisions.
4. As far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem to be a professional historian which is a pretty big strike against its rigor. The publisher describes the author as "An avid reader and local history buff [who] has been on the staff at Ohio University since 1975. She enjoys both small-town life and the liveliness of the busy campus." A university webpage promoting the book describes the author's then-current (2008) position as "assistant director of the Academic Advancement Center" which seems like a far cry from a professional historian or archivist.
5. In fact, the author herself says that the book is "like a glorified scrapbook" and the university described the book as "a cross between a coffee table book and a scrapbook" which is not at all reassuring when evaluating the rigor of this source.

So my previous evaluation of this source and the specific claim it was being used to support remains unchanged: This is a poor source to support the supposedly factual claim that was removed from this article: "Much to the ire of other universities in the state, Ohio University strikes a balance between boutique academe, world-class research, and high competitive standards for many of its student-athletes, which augments its fraternal appeal as the state’s oldest university."

All of that aside, it sounds like a wonderful book and I have no problem with it being used to support uncontroversial claims or even being used to support POV statements as long as those statements are clearly and properly attributed in the text of this article to this author's commissioned work. But given what we know about the source we would be foolish to blithely treat it as a rigorous, critical, and uncontested account of the subject when it comes to subjective claims about and evaluations of the book's subject. ElKevbo (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are lovely opinions (although some of them, especially your assertions of the uniqueness of this university and its situation in its state, are incorrect) but we must work from reliable sources. I summarized our policy about self-published sources above so please address the topic at hand. ElKevbo (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OHIO edit warring

I'm disappointed that the editors who are edit warring over the use of "OHIO" don't appear to have tried discussing the issue here (I apologize if you have and I've missed it!).

We are not beholden to the style guide or preferences of the subject; we have our own Manual of Style and a (often overly and confusingly) complex system of policies and community norms that determine how we write articles in this encyclopedia. In this instance, the most relevant policy appears to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters which states that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia."

So the burden of proof is on those who believe we should make an exception to this policy by presenting evidence that other reliable sources consistently capitalize this word. I've seen scant evidence presented so far in favor of this idiomatic abbreviation being consistently used by other reliable sources.

It might be an acceptable compromise to add this - the university's stated preference for capitalization - as an endnote because it is slightly interesting and useful information for readers. If there is evidence that this has been at all notable (e.g., controversial, used prominently only by particular sources or at a particular time in history) then it might even be mentioned in the body of the article. But we need solid evidence that other reliable sources use this odd capitalization before we force it on our readers and make an exception to our style guide. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can agree with my comments and then again demand that we should ignore our style guide without presenting any evidence that the unusual capitalization is with such frequency and consistency by reliable sources that an exception should be made for this article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I've already mentioned in previous posts. I can't think of any place that would be appropriate to add, though a footnote is something I would support, possibly in the history section. It's one of those trivial things that might matter to the people in branding and staunch alumni, but to most students and certainly those outside the school it's not an issue. Every third party source I can find is consistent in using "Ohio University", "Ohio Bobcats", and "Ohio". No one uses all caps in regular print, as I've mentioned before. The only time you see all caps is on uniforms, and that's fairly standard for any school. For the color, again, most sources refer to OU's main color simply by the generic "hunter green", which is standard for most schools. Most, if not all, schools have officially-named variants of colors. Only a select few like "Carolina Blue" are ever used by outside sources, though. But again, it's a moot point because even the OU style guide (referenced in this article) uses "Ohio University Green" to define the color. Again, beside the point that zero third-party sources use all caps, even primary sources are inconsistent. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Notable" competitors

I have twice removed the section on "notable competitors" as it is completely unnecessary. All NCAA Division I schools play multiple "big name" teams every year, so Ohio U isn't unique or unusual in that regard as a Division I member. Further, since "notable" has a distinct meaning here on Wikipedia, pretty much every team OU plays is notable, including every team in the Mid-American Conference. What is needed instead is expansion and organization of the history section, which doesn't flow well at all (and where the mention of the first football game should be). Ohio U does not need to rely on the notability of teams like Georgetown to make the program notable or look good; it's already notable on its own and plenty of accomplishments. Sections like "notable competitors" make it seem like editors are simply trying to add content for the sake of content and to make the program look better than it is (i.e. WP:BOOSTERISM), again, which isn't needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You still have not offered any reason why the information is needed in the article beyond some claim in the edit summary that I "lack authority" to make such changes (whatever that means). Please explain why knowing that Ohio U has played the likes of Michigan and North Carolina is A) unusual or exceptional for a Division I athletic program and B) that it adds to the readers understanding of the subject. And in what sports is the section referring? Men's basketball? Football? When was the last time OU played Michigan or North Carolina in football? How often have they played Michigan or North Carolina in basketball? And why is Vincennes listed and been included in all three of your reverts? It appears you're not even reading what you're reverting. Another user changed Georgetown to Vincennes, which is why I noticed the section. Even with Georgetown listed, it still doesn't make the section any more necessary. OU is in the MAC, so while it occasionally plays (and sometimes defeats) "big name" programs, they do not regularly compete with any of them. In Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to include more information, not on the editor who has given valid reasons why the section is completely superfluous, misleading, and unnecessary. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Platoniam but you don't own this article. The burden of proof lies with the editor who wishes to add or retain information. What evidence do you have that this information is important for readers' understanding of this topic? ElKevbo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is 1) mislabeled - I'm guessing that all of Ohio's opponents are Wikipedia-notable; 2) subjective - what is the standard for inclusion in the list; 3) unsourced; and 4) unduly promotional, via the process I've elsewhere described as "gilt by association". It should come out. JohnInDC (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JonRidinger. The section is of no value, as argued. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Platoniam, the Talk page consensus here is quite clear. The section is not helpful, and subjective, and has no place in the article. It's time to drop the stick and walk away from the argument. JohnInDC (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Of the four editors who have discussed this, you are the only one in favor of keeping it. Just as important, it's completely unsourced and that alone is sufficient reason to delete the material. You're going to be blocked if you continue edit warring (you, too, JohnInDC) so how about collaborate with us instead of continuing down the bad path you're on? ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Um - I removed the material a single time, and only after consensus here was plainly in favor of it going. That's not edit warring, not even close. I removed it again a moment ago, self-reverting when I saw your note, @ElKevbo:. Someone else can remove it! JohnInDC (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't see JohnInDC edit warring, just sticking with consensus. I removed it now that I'm beyond the 24 hours since my last time removing it (even though it's clearly in line with consensus and scope of the article, on top of being unsourced and vague) --JonRidinger (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; wrong John/Jon. :) ElKevbo (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)