Talk:Ohio State University

Title

Its The Ohio State University. 2600:4041:5364:BF00:6FA5:19C3:24DB:1198 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately some people don’t like the schools official name and use this article as a place to show it.Jojhutton (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. The Ohio State University is not just the school’s legal name, it is its preferred name. People will call it Ohio State, but you will never in your life hear “Ohio State University” without “The” preceding it, as you would with many other universities. There is no reason for “The” to be absent in the article title. JakeSkiffles (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be sitewide from the article at The University of Chicago. It's a mistake, in my opinion תִּקְוָה (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Could the question not be brought up again? תִּקְוָה (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

segregationist president

I don't want to get involved in contentious editing, so I didn't even check how new this phrasing is. But it's one thing for the article to discuss Thompson's policies or advocacy, and another to (gratuitously) make it part of his title. The beliefs and actions are relevant to the article, and they are discussed in the next paragraph, not hidden by any means. Danchall (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

(Conflict of interest: I'm a transfer student at the university.) I'd remove it, but I don't have permissions due to a "lock" (?) on the article. 2024 saw massive changes to the article by Horse Eye's Back, OnlineOne22, and JohnAdams1800, all of whom had apparent hostile intentions to the university. I'm not sure if this is a lie as well: but JohnAdams1800 claims to be a student at Illinois on Wikipedia and "can't stand Ohio State".

Unsurprisingly, his own personal university's page was not touched by the deletion campaign he ran.

Would completely revert everything if I had the ability to. תִּקְוָה (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Please address the substance of each of the edits or content with which you disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

1.) The significant events section should be completely removed or substantially cut down.

2.) Ohio State's status as the flagship university of Ohio should be restored.

3.) ACT Composite and SAT scores should be updated for 2026.

4.) Yield rate should be updated for 2026.

Thanks! תִּקְוָה (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that we can cite for #s 2, 3, and 4? #1 needs further reasoning as to why we need to significantly cull, or outright delete, an entire section. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The Columbus Dispatch: "As the state's only flagship university, Carter said Ohio State has a responsibility to the state and its residents. He wants to expand opportunities for online learning, veterans and students with disabilities. ACT composite and SAT scores can be viewed on the Ohio State website. This year's was 38532/88508, so 43.535047679% acceptance rate. Average ACT was 30.6 and average ACT was 1397 for the Autumn 2025 semester according to data on the website.

Many of the claims are extraordinary, not supported by any reference, and appear to be simply the opinion of "Onlineone22" and what he deemed important; I'm perplexed about why it is simply a point-by-point summary of anything negative about Ohio State. Early 20th century segregation was shameful, but Thompson was not the leading driver of it (as the reference cited states!), but rather the State of Ohio's educational policies at the time. No honors to Thompson have been removed nearly half a decade later. The only link is to a student newspaper's petition around the time of the George Floyd protests.

The post-2023 changes were made by those three banned users; 2 had a reputation of negatively altering articles about rival colleges (e: JohnAdams1800, who claims to be a student at another Big Ten University and dislikes Ohio State) by including a laundry list of outrages and cutting down their positive info. OceanOne22 did the same thing.

They also destroyed the opening area of the page. (Not a shock, but JohnAdams1800 left University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and his personally affiliated universities alone in his alterations of Big 10-related pages.)

Just my thoughts. תִּקְוָה (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Link - The Columbus Dispatch תִּקְוָה (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the ins-and-outs of the rules but certainly the way the article is composed appears wrong to you?

The edit history plainly shows that it is written by editors with malicious intent.

I'm not saying delete everything; I'm saying that the current way is wrong. תִּקְוָה (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thompson explicitly voiced support for Ohio State policies discriminating against black students. This is relevant whether or not he is a leading driver of discrimination.

Just because information is negative does not automatically mean it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion, and I'm wondering whether you sought consensus on the article talk page before unilaterally removing and restructuring entire sections of the article that had been there for years, thus achieving WP:EDITCON. Yes you can be WP:BOLD, but this seems like you made some very large and controversial changes that not everyone might immediately have agreed with. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I consulted 636Buster on my personal talk page and he (and others) supported the changes I made.

The rest can be discussed on the new subsection so we don't confuse people. תִּקְוָה (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

"Ohio+state" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ohio+state has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 6 § Ohio+state until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Serious concerns about edits by User:תִּקְוָה

In one large-scale change removing and adding lots of information in one edit which made it difficult to track down, תִּקְוָה (talk) removed an addition I made to the article based on a Columbus Dispatch article, which exceeds WP:RS criteria:

In 2023, Walter E. Carter Jr. took office as the 17th president.

->

In 2023, Walter E. Carter Jr. took office as the 17th president after a power struggle between Johnson and Les Wexner, a billionaire and close affiliate of Jeffrey Epstein who was formerly a member of the OSU Board of Trustees.

His justification was regional campuses; controversies are already listed. the shortening was deliberate. So because this information is listed on a regional campus page (is it?) it therefore cannot be listed in the 21st century history section of this article? This explanation is terse and doesn't make any sense, and WP:EDITCON says Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work. I am open to restructuring the sentence if there's WP:NPOV concerns but I seriously doubt there's a good reason to omit this information entirely.

I looked through their extensive edit history on this page, and this user has done other things I disagree with in a slew of changes after making their first edit to this page on 4 January 2026:

• Unilaterally removing the entire history section and all its images, replacing it with very short summaries; no consensus was sought for this large-scale change (v. WP:CAREFUL, WP:EDITCON) and many mistakes were made in the process that were pointed out and corrected by other users (example). I can't show in which specific change this happened because this seemed to have happened over dozens of incremental changes. When I tried to improve the summaries, he immediately reverted the changes to his own preferred version.
• Renaming Gaza war to Gaza War even though the article establishes that Gaza war is the way the term is capitalized on Wikipedia.
• Removing significant amounts of information (including entire sections) without archiving it, preserving it, or notifying the talk page in any form.
• In a sentence that says Protests at Ohio State University by pro-Palestinian demonstrators have occurred during the Gaza war and genocide, removing "and genocide" without leaving a note as to why so it was difficult to track down the culprit of this change, even though the protesters have explicitly claimed the genocide is the main reason they are protesting and use of "the genocide" is supported for use in Wikivoice per previous RfCs at Talk:Gaza genocide (see the RfC).
• Removed an image I added to the 21st century history section of arrests at the Gaza war protests, again with no explanation.
• Removing entire paragraphs about Rhodes Scholars and other accomplishments by OSU students (which is WP:DUE on a page about a university) with the simple note "promotional". This seems to have been restored elsewhere at some point, but again it's difficult to keep track with the volume of edits.
• Removing a note that Thompson supported discriminatory policies towards black students because he was not a leading driver of discrimination according to the user (WP:OR?) He also removed a quote by Thompson, who said "the race problem is growing in intensity every year, and I am disposed to doubt the wisdom on the part of the colored people of taking any move that practically forces the doctrine of social equality." The Lantern says As a member of the Columbus City Schools Board of Education, Thompson established de facto racially segregated schools in Columbus, starting in 1909 and lasting until 1977. So why remove all references whatsoever the fact that Thompson was a segregationist in a section about university history? This edit is the most egregious out of all of them in my view.

I am assuming good faith, but I would be lying if I said I did not suspect this seems an attempt to WP:CENSOR information on this page that is poor optics for the university. The user has more or less only edited this page and seems to be here only to make large-scale changes to this article along the lines of their own preferences despite having no apparent prior editing experience.

I would like others to voice their opinions on this issue. Many of these changes should certainly be undone and I'm sure there are other contentious changes this user made that I haven't picked up on. I would like this user to slow down and take a break from this article so that other editors can review their changes, because at the pace of this user's current edits it is very difficult to keep up with each individual change being made to this highly-visible article... and frankly I am very concerned about the quality of some of these edits, even if others look fine prima facie.

Pinging involved users from other discussions:

User:Jojhutton User:JakeSkiffles User:Vanleos User:ElKevbo User:Jessintime User:O.N.R. User:MYCETEAE User:BarrelProof User:Sargento91 User:Danchall User:Adolphus79 User:Steel1943

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Context for others

Providing context. December 31, 2025 (22:12) version to February 5, 2026 (07:12). תִּקְוָה (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

תִּקְוָה response

Hello. There's a lot to address here.

The user has more or less only edited this page Everyone has to start somewhere. Joking aside, I relayed the COI interest regarding this in the subsection, although I'm not a staff member and disagree with the university administration's handling of Les Wexner. I'll likely edit other articles soon. I just don't have the time as a graduate student. I want the page to be neutral as well.

I made to the article based on a Columbus Dispatch article, which exceeds WP:RS criteria: The Columbus Dispatch only cites others. Some claim that she was "fired" because of Les Wexner; others disputed it. I'm not sure what I'm allowed to write on here, and I personally believe that Wexner is involved in a deeper way than is stated in news articles, but I don't think we should claim it is a fact or an infallible reason why. Protests by students and faculty about Wexner should be mentioned in the sexual harassment section.

We could also include information on the Wexner Center for the Arts article.

Removing significant amounts of information (including entire sections) without archiving it, preserving it, or notifying the talk page in any form. Inaccurate characterization. I asked multiple users and all personally approved of the changes. Shortly after that edit was performed, I reached out to 636Buster on my personal talk page and he personally confirmed to me that it was an improvement to the article. So did various other users either directly or indirectly (through similar complaints). The "information" that was removed included multiple paragraphs dedicated to events such as 2003 Columbus, Ohio arson, 2016 Ohio State University attack, 2023–2025 pro-Palestinian campus protests, and other various controversies that are unlike (to my knowledge) any other college history page on the website. Ohio University's article on Wikipedia - to give just one example - does not even mention the 2003 arson. There were more Ohio University students who died (3) than Ohio State (2). There's no purpose to having a subsection related to it.

Is it sad? Yes. Is most of it important for readers or related to the university? Nope. Having half of the pictures be subtitled with captions such as: "Police presence on the OSU campus, view from Curl Market" and "Officers arresting a pro-Palestinian protester at the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, April 25, 2024" also denotes an idea to the reader that the campus is uniquely violent or dangerous.

The information also continues to be displayed on Wikipedia on the history of Ohio State University article.

Removed an image I added to the 21st century section Refer to the above subsection.

Renaming Gaza war to Gaza War even though the article establishes that Gaza war is the way the term is capitalized on Wikipedia. At least in Ohio, war/wars are usually capitalized when addressing conflicts. I wouldn't revert an editor who changed it back to that. The current text states that they are "demanding financial divestment, academic boycott, financial disclosure, acknowledging the genocide, and ending targeted policing". Nothing in any important way has been negatively changed or otherwise hidden.

Removing a note that Thompson supported discriminatory policies towards black students It is very sad that segregation was a normalized feature of American life during the nadir of race relations. However, for the time period it was by no means exceptional. The Ohio government was the driving force. I'd argue that it would be inaccurate and a disservice to readers by incorrectly identifying him as a Great Man. By analogy, using "segregationist William Oxley Thompson" in the way that the previous version did would be similar to introducing President Theodore Roosevelt by saying "white supremacist Theodore Roosevelt". Thompson's positions on race, religion, and economics were all firmly on the left for the era's time period. There's a better way to cover this.

I'd be happy to work together to create one.

Removing entire paragraphs about Rhodes Scholars and other accomplishments. This was reverted. Not an issue.

an attempt to WP:CENSOR information on this page that is poor optics for the university I added significant amounts of negative (or would be interpreted by most readers as such) information about Ohio State. The only negative information that was removed was related to the above problems. I wouldn't, again, be strictly opposed to some of it being included again.

One was a January 3, 2026 edit to Anduril Industries and a similar revision was made on this page.

Both now read "In January 2025, the defense technology company Anduril Industries announced a series of Arsenal Projects, hyperscaling computer facilities for autonomous sensors and weapons. Anduril announced the construction of a manufacturing facility in Columbus, Ohio, to be named "Arsenal-1", with subsequent Arsenals planned. The facility has been noted for its close ties with Ohio State University, with Anduril Industries sponsoring the football program for the 2025 to 2026 year, close ties to the current college administration, and many of Anduril-1's employees hailing from its applied science programs at the university."

Les Wexner, Wexner Center for the Arts, and similar pages should mention the ties to Ohio State more.

If you have any other questions let me know.

Discussion

Feel free to ask me anything else here/suggestions. תִּקְוָה (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for talking this through. I'll read through your response in depth some time soon. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think? תִּקְוָה (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Pretty preoccupied with some national-level stuff at the moment — I have this written down on my page so I don't forget. I'll circle back as soon as my plate is a bit more cleared, apologies for the delay. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll respond to the points I still have major gripes with.

1. Power struggle between Kristina Johnson and Wexner

You changed this

Along with other public universities in the state, DEI policies were banned in 2025 with the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, which passed the Ohio State Legislature and was signed by Governor Mike DeWine. In 2023, Walter E. Carter Jr. took office as the 17th president after a power struggle between Johnson and Les Wexner, a billionaire and close affiliate of Jeffrey Epstein who was formerly a member of the OSU Board of Trustees.

into this

Along with other public universities in the state, DEI policies were banned in 2025 with the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, which passed the Ohio State Legislature and was signed by Governor Mike DeWine. In 2023, Walter E. Carter Jr. took office as the 17th president

removing this

after a power struggle between Johnson and Les Wexner, a billionaire and close affiliate of Jeffrey Epstein who was formerly a member of the OSU Board of Trustees.

Because

You say The Columbus Dispatch only cites others. Okay, well let's look at the article. The article is named Power struggle: Sources vary on clash between Ohio State's Kristina Johnson and Les Wexner. So in the article's voice, they are saying there is a power struggle. That is not due to "only citing others". I don't know where this idea came from.

You say Some claim that she was "fired" because of Les Wexner; others disputed it. Yep. Sources vary on the clash, but that very fact implies that all sources agree there was a clash to begin with. So again there is no contradiction.

2. Removal of images from the terror attack, Gaza war protests, etc

You say Ohio University's article on Wikipedia - to give just one example - does not even mention the 2003 arson. There were more Ohio University students who died (3) than Ohio State (2). There's no purpose to having a subsection related to it. This is a WP:OTHERSTUFF-y argument. If OU doesn't have important information in the article, then that doesn't really translate to this article. OU is a lower profile article than OSU and per WP:CONLEVEL I do not believe the way OU is currently set up should have any bearing on the OSU article's organization logic.

You say Is it sad? Yes. Is most of it important for readers or related to the university? Nope. Having half of the pictures be subtitled with captions such as: "Police presence on the OSU campus, view from Curl Market" and "Officers arresting a pro-Palestinian protester at the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, April 25, 2024" also denotes an idea to the reader that the campus is uniquely violent or dangerous. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our job to worry about whether something may or may not make a university seem violent or dangerous. Our only consideration is whether information is WP:DUE for inclusion, not university optics.

Your own summary emphasizes how 21st century OSU history was embodied by political infighting. Why not show an iconic picture taken at the university that conveys precisely this message? In my view this picture should undoubtedly be readded.

3. Gaza war vs Gaza War capitalization

Please see the move result here. This establishes precedent that in Ohio-related articles we use lowercase capitalization for the Gaza war. If you would like to overturn it you are welcome to open a new RM (move request) on that page. Until you garner consensus for your change proposal we need to keep it Gaza war per WP:ONUS.

4. Downplaying Thompson's segregationism

You say Thompson's positions on race, religion, and economics were all firmly on the left for the era's time period. There's a better way to cover this. Absolutely not.

According to The Lantern, As a member of the Columbus City Schools Board of Education, Thompson established de facto racially segregated schools in Columbus, starting in 1909 and lasting until 1977. At Ohio State, he maintained racially segregated student housing during his presidential tenure. So he specifically used his power to create a new policy that had not been implemented by any of the previous four presidents of the university to segregate against black students. If he was so "left-leaning" for the time then why was he pioneering new discrimination policies rather than inheriting them?

Second, saying Thompson was "not exceptional" violates WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH. Did The Lantern say his segregation was unexceptional? No. So respectfully, let's keep your ideas about the degree to which he was a bad segregationist out.

But even so... this is not important. It is notable that he is a segregationist. That has been cause for controversy, including coverage by WP:RS sources of protests over this exact issue. Giving it no mention again feels like WP:CENSORSHIP because you're worried about bad optics for the university. This information is WP:DUE and I seriously struggle to understand why anyone would disagree unless they deem segregationism not that important of a historical fact to mention. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

תִּקְוָה I haven't heard anything back so far — are we good to use my proposed version? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been overwhelmed with academics. תִּקְוָה (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So in the article's voice, they are saying there is a power struggle. That is not due to "only citing others". I don't know where this idea came from. I don't have an issue with mentioning much of it. My objection was merely to how the original sentence was written.

So he specifically used his power to create a new policy that had not been implemented by any of the previous four presidents of the university to segregate against black students I spoke to a journalist at The Lantern through text about this. Notice the language of the original petition. He maintained segregated tOSU student housing that had already been segregated by the time that he obtained the office. The new policies were in relation to "racially segregated schools in Columbus, starting in 1909 and lasting until 1977". This part isn't related to Ohio State directly. They were citing it as an argument for his moral character and how it relates to use of his name.

There is a controversial figure that we can mention in the article. More on that in a few sentences.

This is a WP:OTHERSTUFF-y argument. I don't see how a 2003 arson has anything to do with the university's history. A majority of the students were not even members of the university. My fear is that we're going to insert every minor event that occurred.

Please see the move result here I don't have a strong opinion about the capitalization.

If he was so "left-leaning" for the time then why was he pioneering new discrimination policies rather than inheriting them? Most figures of the time had beliefs on race that would be considered far-right today. These policies were almost always near-unanimously passed.

The Lantern say his segregation was unexceptional It says that he "maintained" the status quo related to segregation in regards to Ohio State. He unfortunately supported segregationist policies in the City of Columbus.

Why not show an iconic picture taken at the university that conveys precisely this message? I would be okay with this in the "administrative section" and in the context of the attempted expelling of Guy Christensen. I'm of the opinion that Les Wexner's controversy has been far more impactful than Thompson.That's why, if we're going to go into Ohio State's relationship with controversial people, we should discuss Ted Carter and Les Wexner. Does all of that sound good to you? תִּקְוָה (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds good, I'll add back a revised version of the power struggle sentence then.
• If you confirmed with The Lantern that his segregation wasn't a deviation from the norm, that's great but we can't include it on Wikipedia on the basis of your word. I have lots of anecdotes I've gathered through personal experiences that would improve other Wiki pages if added, but I'm not allowed to do this because we need WP:RS (third party) sourcing on events rather than anecdotes from Wikipedia editors, which are unreliable. If you can get The Lantern to publish something about this, then we could include it. But as of right now, the article says Citizen Advocates for Public Education — an organization that started in 2013 to support public education, quality curriculum learning and teaching experiences — also requested the removal of William Oxley Thompson’s name from the Thompson Library for the leading role he played in segregating Columbus schools. So again, he played, according to The Lantern, a "leading role in segregating Columbus schools", and in order to be faithful to WP:DUE information reported by the sources on the subject, it's our responsibility to include it as Wikipedia editors. Again, it is not our job to make moral assessments about how bad of a segregationist Thompson is relative to the history. He was a leading segregationist according to The Lantern, and it is our duty to report that per Wikipedia policy. If The Lantern writes an opinion about how Thompson isn't that bad of a segregationist, then we can mention it, but otherwise we can't.
• I don't want to insert every minor event that occurred, but I do think it's worthwhile to mention significant historical events that have transformed the university's culture. The OSU Gaza war protests are without a doubt one of those events. I'm fine if we keep terror attack sections extremely short, even just one sentence per terror attack. But we need more information about the Palestine protests in the OSU main article than just a sentence or two. I think an excerpt of the entire article lede would be appropriate because the happenings at the Gaza war protests were so shocking, historically significant, and well-documented by WP:RS sources.
• I'll fix the capitalization then.
• I'm of the opinion that Les Wexner's controversy has been far more impactful than Thompson - I agree, but I think the Thompson matter still deserves a brief mention, since this section is intended to be a survey of university history. I think the image belongs more in the history section than the administrative section. a 4-hour-long deposition with Wexner in the 21st century history section instead will not be listened to by 99% of readers and an image is much more appropriate in its place in my view.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard back, I am going to re-implement some of the article content from prior to your changes. Per WP:EDITCON, if you disagree with my re-implementation of some of the article content, please seek WP:CONSENSUS. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is Public Ivy/university rankings notable enough?

I've noticed that some university's articles include mention, some don't, but I don't see why it would be harmful.

University of California, Santa Barbara is what I have in mind. תִּקְוָה (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Certain rankings deserve mention in the body. But sweeping claims such as these [1] do not belong in the lead of this article, especially when the sourcing is poor or they are not sufficiently detailed in the article body. Jay-GH 02:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The Columbus Dispatch, City Journal, and The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities are reliable, as far as I can tell. They're widely cited by journalists for information about the university. Why do you believe the "sourcing is poor"?

As for BOOSTER, I used the favored wording is consistently rated among the best instead of alternatives that may have violated it. There's many articles & journals & books that state something exactly along these lines about Ohio State.

WP:HIGHERED REP just states that claims must be "directly supported by high-quality sources". Which applies in this case.

University of California, Santa Barbara's article was what I was taking inspiration from. This is because it is similarly ranked to Ohio State, has analogous prestige and acceptance rankings, and is also a widely known public institution. תִּקְוָה (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support the claim made. They need to both be high quality sources and directly support the claim. It is also not usual to include rankings in the lead. BOOSTER does not give "consistently ranked among the best" as "favored wording" but as wording that would need to be substantiated by references to authorities in the field. Robminchin (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's directly taken from The Columbus Dispatch, which is a local newspaper of record. I was deliberately narrow with the wording, using "among the top public universities" than the way it was used in the title. I'm of the belief that including in the sentence a phrase like "major university and college rankings" would degrade the prose and be redundant.

The Public Ivy designation is from The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities by Howard and Matthew Greene (2001). I don't know what would make Ohio State exceptional to exclude compared to University of California, Santa Barbara or the other university's list. I do think that there is a problem that there is no consistent criteria.

Side note, this might not be the best place for this, but just want to note while we're on the topic:

I've noticed a theme that the Big 10 (University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin, Northwestern, University of Minnesota, Ohio State) and SEC schools (University of Texas at Austin, University of Georgia, University of Florida) are excluded at similar rankings that universities in the University of California system and Northeast are included. I'm aware that there is no "THE editor" doing this, but under the current policy I definitely think there is an unconscious bias about this.

That's why I brought up University of California, Santa Barbara. תִּקְוָה (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The university's specialization in applied sciences is repeatedly referenced in a countless number of sources, is analogous to almost every other scientifically-focused land grant university's introduction, and is by no means being used in a "booster"-like way.

It would be a disservice to the reader to remove it. תִּקְוָה (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to cite those then, rather than the article from the City Journal that does not say that. Robminchin (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

City Journal does. I know that American web sites are often blocked under EU laws but here's the Archive.org version.

Two miles north of the capitol is Columbus’s true beating heart: the Ohio State University. With more than 60,000 students and more than 40,000 employees, Ohio State ranks among the largest universities in the country. It’s not the oldest in the state—that title belongs to Ohio University in Athens—but it is Ohio’s academic center of gravity. Staying true to its land-grant mission, Ohio State thrives in the applied sciences: biomedical research, engineering, computer science, and more.

תִּקְוָה (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That does not state that it is known for its applied sciences, and it doesn't mention artificial intelligence at all. There is nothing in the quote, or the rest of the article to substantiate your claim. Robminchin (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a sub-field of computer science. The article directly connects it (and robotics) to Ohio State through Anduril.

I wouldn't mind an alternative sentence. What would be your suggestion? תִּקְוָה (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind a sentence such as "Ohio State has prominent programs in the applied sciences, including in biomedical research, engineering, and computer science". Does that suffice? "Known" is the phrasing I've seen on here to describe "The university is known for or significantly focuses research on" in a shortened way that also doesn't raise other problems. Ohio State is unequivocally best known for its applied science programs. תִּקְוָה (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article cited to suggest that these programs are prominent, or that they are what Ohio State is best known for. You can state that unequivocally here, but unless you have actual sources to back it up - preferably from something other than a local news source that can only ever verify that it is known locally for these things - then you can't put them in the article. Per WP:HIGHERED REP and WP:SUBJECTIVE, "it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers". If this claimed reputation is only backed up by local sources, then it doesn't meet this criterion and would certainly be WP:UNDUE in the lead. Robminchin (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I second @Robminchin's comments. We have a stringent standard for how rankings and reputations should be represented in an article's lead, including requirements for due weight, sourcing, verifiability, etc. The use of a daily local news article by The Columbus Dispatch is definitely insufficient to put such a claim in such a prominent place in the lead. Jay-GH 19:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there a prohibition against using "local news article[s]"? תִּקְוָה (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No. But it's exceedingly unlikely that local news articles will be sufficient to support making these kinds of large, sweeping claims especially in the lead section of this article. This is a topic that has been the subject of frequent and continued scholarly study so we should be drawing on those high quality, expert sources. ElKevbo (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Related journal articles were removed on February 26, 2026 for "undue placement".

What references could I use? תִּקְוָה (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary for that edit also explicitly noted that the journal article is over 15 years old. I agree that a source that old should not be used to make a contemporary claim.

To answer your broader question, please read through the discussion and close of the relevant Request for Comments from 2020 that specifically focused on this issue. In particular, the closer wrote: "[T]o include text on "reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s)" in a lead section, such material must be compliant with generally applicable policies, including:

• maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view);
• following the general principles applicable to describing reputations;
• ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article;
• being directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH); and
• adhering to a neutral point of view, including:
  • by avoiding boosterism and puffery (which can come in the form of undue weight).
  • by using a descriptive, encyclopedic (rather than promotional) tone."

ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

How about the sentence Ohio State has prominent programs in the applied sciences, including in biomedical research, computer science, and engineering? תִּקְוָה (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It needs to be supported by sources that actually say this, which have not yet been shown to exist.

To appear in the lead, it needs to be supported by high-quality sources (which can be referenced in discussion in the body) that show this reputation to be widespread. That means multiple sources on a national or international level.

It needs to avoid language that puts subjective judgements (such as prominence) in the voice of the encyclopedia.

So if, for example, the Columbus Dispatch and the City Journal both said these programs were prominent (which is yet to be shown), you could put text in the body stating that these programs were considered prominent locally, but mention in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. Robminchin (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Wholly agree with Robminchin's comment above. Consider including the information in the body before fast-tracking such material in the lead, where it is given undue weight. Jay-GH 22:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That works with me - thanks! תִּקְוָה (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@תִּקְוָה Do you think those promotional-learning contributions on your part indicate that you have a Conflict of interest with OSU? I think it would be better for you to follow the process to request edits, rather than to make them directly, given that you are a single-purpose account primarily editing about the reputation about your alma mater. Jay-GH 19:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please amend..

from "Sexual harassment handling" as a sub-sub-title
to "Sexual assaults and sexual harassments mishandling" or such, include in History near the front of the article. The decade of abuse and the schools disregard REQUIRES that this section be expanded and highlighted much more, currently hidden behind misleading heading and depreciated paragraphs, no where near good enough!~2026-18850-09 (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)