Talk:Flagship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

sci-fi - capital ship

In the context of sci-fi, wouldn't "flagship" be roughly analagous to today's "capital ship"?

Not necessarily. These two terms are separate now and have remained as such in most works of sci-fi that utilise naval terms. There is usually only one flagship in a fleet - from where the chief officer of the fleet commands the fleet, whereas there may well be many capital ships which have lower-ranked commanding officers than the chief officer on the flagship. For example, today, HMS Ark Royal is the British Flagship, but HMS Illustrious, which is of exactly the same class and firepower, is a capital ship. This system is still implemented in many works of sci-fi. For example, in Star Wars, the Super Star Destroyer Executor is the flagship of Darth Vader, but the other 13 Super Star Destroyers, which are all capital ships and essentially the same as the Executor, are considered capital ships rather than flagships in many situations [apart from where they were employed as a flagship for individual task forces]. Of course - ultimately it depends on how the author utilises these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.12.180 (talk) 17:21, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The other 13? There were only two SSDs of that kind at that time, the Executor being one of them. All the other accompanying vessels were ISDs--Topperfalkon (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of the term flagship for the Enterprise in Star Trek is absolutely silly. The E has been a flagship on occasion, although the occasions were very few. In most cases, she sails alone, with no flag officer aboard but just whatever captain is in charge. Only in the definition "coolest ship in the fleet" is she a flagship yet fandom, often, and sometimes the show itself calls her that. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Flagship university

I rewrote the lead paragraph of the section.

First, "flagship" used to have a clear meaning: it meant the oldest and original campus in a system. Second, we should not ignore the fact that italways carried a presumption of academic superiority... and lately the meaning has drifted so that the word is sometimes taken to mean superior campus.

This is the reason why there is so much tapdancing around the issue, why there is sometimes an official recommendation to avoid the term, or, conversely why some campuses have sought official designations as "flagship" campuses.

The situation of having more than one "flagship" campus in a system is ludicrous, but if there were a Wobegon University System, all of the universities in it would be flagships. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a crack at editing this language. See Talk:University_of_Maine#Flagship_RFC for further discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue is as much political as it is historical. For example in Florida, Florida State University is the oldest university but one of two of the original public universities. Consequently even the governor of Florida has conceded that both FSU and the Univ of FL are "flagship" universities, which I think best comports with the historic record in this state.--Sirberus (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Private Ship" section

What is the point of this section? It does not seem to add to the article, it does not explain a question that might come up, and it consists of one awkwardly-written sentence. The term "private ship" does not appear elsewhere in the article, and is not normally associated with the term "flagship" such that it requires explanation in the article. I'd delete the section outright, but I don't know what the context is or the point of the section. If others cannot come up with a reason for it to exist as a separate section, then please, someone, delete it or fold it into another section, with appropriate context added. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyT (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Holy (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to sign earlier. One more thing: I'm a naval officer with 20 years total service (including Naval Academy education) and I've never heard the term "private ship" come up in any discussion that involved the term "flagship." I've never heard of a fleet composed of several ships, in which one is a flagship and one or more others are "private ships." I've never heard the term "private ship" in any context whatsoever such that any reader or listener would have confusion with the concept of whether or not such a ship could be considered a flagship. Holy (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fashion Biz" section

I have removed the section shown below from the article. It is very poorly written and normally I would attempt a re-write. However as the section is also entirely unreferenced, and I have no knowledge of the "fashion biz" it is difficult to know which parts are relevant (if any) and which are conjecture on the part of the editor.

I also kind of feel that what this section is trying to say has already been covered to the necessary extent in the section dealing with retail "flagship stores" and so question the whole rationale behind this section.

Views anyone?

"Flagship Storing: it is is a store from a retailer or producer (usually a main store, but more often in certain field as well as fashion or design it is simply a communicative event designed to enter tactically into a market) and designed to offer a special overview on modified products for a certain market. Sopeaking about its similar shop, the temporary one, it is designed indeed to show of and sell adaptd products. sure, it is not a fixed rule, but usually working. In other cases a FS could offer an overview on a certain kind of products, styles, ideas, tendencies as well as communicative values."

Moreover, such FS could be opened also without any profit or direct immediate profit instance, but in order to communicate only, or to show-off to a predefinded target elsewhere or elsehow not reachable anyway. Flag-Shopping could be seen as the uppest shopping at a scale of shopping tactical ways, while sister shops should provide a certain monthly/weekly/daily income, a FS should provide a certain support to cìsister shops and temporary stores should take advantage form certain conditions not repteable in certain areas or not-physical conditions.

In high-end Fashion Biz, upscale retailers operate flagships worldwide and temporary stores too. The difference stay (cfr Scaini, Rose, Mishin) in the fact that a temporary is a meant of profit connected with a certain condition, while a flagship is usually a form of marketing investment enlonged for a long time, despite it could provide certain incomes to compaies, often higher the sisters-shops even located in adjacent areas.

ColourSarge (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

merger proposal

I think the article Flagship university should be merged into Flagship#University_campuses J3ff (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. JohnInDC (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I'd recommend merging the information here into Flagship university. Schools aren't even mentioned in the lead and this is a different usage of the word. A disambiguation page would also be useful by cutting out all the other usages of the word. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Summarily merging them here truncated and obliterated an active discussion about how to write up and prose-attribute "flagship university" so as to be consistent with WP:NPOV, which was unrelated to the merger proposal. Now nobody can find that discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not strike me as a good idea to maintain two separate Wikipedia entries that ought otherwise to be merged, merely for the sake of preserving a Talk page discussion on one of them in situ. The relevant discussion can be found here, and anyone interested in pursuing it can continue it there and Watch the page, or move the thing wholesale to this spot. Frankly I'm not sure that either is really the right place for the discussion in any event - surely there is somewhere centralized in Wikipedia that's more suitable. WP:WikiProject_Universities, perhaps? JohnInDC (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not have a short summary here with a {{main}} hatnote to Flagship university? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the main article was about the length of the entry here and it seemed like either a lot of duplication, or running around to get to one little bit of information which was, when you came down to it, not much information at all. At least that's how I thought of it. JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Also because having "Flagship university" as a main article seemed to draw a bit too much attention from people who thought their school should be on a list (or someone else's not). JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Muddled material about flagship universities

I'm not sure what to do with the following muddled and unreferenced material:

The term is not applied to private universities, even when the private school is better known than a peer state-funded university. For example, the flagship university of Massachusetts is University of Massachusetts Amherst, not MIT or Harvard University.

Given the generality with which the term is defined, there is no comprehensive, objective and definitive list of schools constituting "flagship" universities or campuses.

This seems to be referring to the erroneous idea that "flagship" is a synonym for "elite." There is no such thing as "the flagship university of Massachusetts" because the term does not mean "best university," it means "oldest campus within a system." It is only applied to campuses within a system. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not a system of campuses. Nor is there any system of campuses including every university in Massachusetts.

The University of Massachusetts is a system of campuses and the Amherst campus is its flagship.

UMass/Amherst is the flagship of UMass, not the "flagship university of Massachusetts."

Harvard cannot be the flagship campus of UMass/Amherst because it is not part of the University of Massachusetts. Harvard cannot be the "flagship university of Massachusetts" because there is no statewide system of campuses that includes it.

If a private university has multiple separate campuses, it might properly use the word "flagship" to refer to the original and senior campus. Thus, St. John's College, with campuses in Annapolis and Santa Fe, might conceivably use the term to refer to its Annapolis campus. However, I don't know of any examples of such usage by private universities, probably because private universities tend to view themselves as single, unitary entities rather than as loose systems of independent entities. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding Kansas State University to the list of flagship schools. Its flagship status has been added to KSU's article and is cited there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.30.66 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The cited article is not really a credible source. Flagship status is a tricky topic. Also, that citation is from a 2006 take on tuition.

There are a number of institutions that qualify for flagship status in various states, but the point of my chart was to explicitly designate the sole flagship University. There really isn't any resource that does that on the internet. Given how much students use Wikipidea to research colleges, I think it's an important thing to clear up. This page receives quite a number of daily views.

I think you could argue UCLA being another flagship. Michigan State being another flagship. Auburn University being another flagship. Georgia Tech being another flagship. North Carolina State University being another flagship. SIU being another flagship. Virginia Tech being another flagship. Arizona State being another flagship. However, THE flagship university for Kansas is indeed the University of Kansas. A flagship university is designated by (in no particular order) enrollment, age, size, endowment, research expenditure, ranking and Kansas is one of those weird states where it's hard to designate the flagship. The acceptance rate at both schools is 90+%. Kansas is AAU, K-state is not. If you compare the endowment: Kansas at 1.25 biln, K-state at 374 million, Kansas has far more resources to better serve the state and its mission as flagship. Kansas also has a higher graduate student enrollment which is characteristic among the flagship. Undergrad enrollment is more or less the same. K-state has a 99% acceptance rate(due to the relatively scarce population in Kansas) while Kansas is near 90%. Kansas also has a much bigger campus than K-state. These quick factors lead me to believe Kansas to be the true designated flagship university.

I think the problem is people equate flagship status being inherently better. It isn't always the case. I'll be revamping the entire article shortly to better explain flagship status. I'll include anomalies with citations and all. I have reverted your edit, please do not add K-State to the list of flagships. I will be sure to note that other universities may qualify as flagships, but there can be only one flagship.

In regards to the previous comment, private universities are NOT factored into flagship status. A private university, even if publicly supported cannot be the state's flagship university. Emory is not Georgia's flagship. Duke is not North Carolina's flagship. Miami is not Florida's flagship. USC is not California's flagship. DMB112 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The citation for Kansas State's flagship status is inconsistent with any established definition of Flagship University. It appears that the article's author believed that "flagship" was synonymous with the Carnegie Foundation's "High Research" designation. Under that criteria, there would, at present, be hundreds of Flagship Universities. By definition, flagship is superlative and two separate universities cannot each be the Flagship University in the same state. This is evidenced in the Higher Education Coordinating Board's 2009-2010 "Tuition Fees and Rates: A National Comparison", (which is itself cited by the State of Washington's WSAChttp://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/state-tuition-and-fees-flagship-universities-2012-13-and-5-year-percentage-change-tuition among others) the College Board, http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/state-tuition-and-fees-flagship-universities-2012-13-and-5-year-percentage-change-tuition, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute, and the Dellums Commissionhttp://www.jointcenter.org/hpi/files/manual/Black%20Male%20Students%20at%20Public%20Flagship.pdf. Claims that colleges such as the University of South Florida or Kansas State University are "one of" their states' Flagship Universities are not only unsupported, but directly denied by official sources. Specifically, Kansas State University's president acknowledges that the University of Kansas is "the state's flagship school" http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/26/k-state-president-discusses-drive-secure-nbaf-fund/ and the State University System of Florida's Board of Governors refers to the University of Florida as the state's only flagship university. http://www.flbog.edu/about/_doc/budget/tuition/2012-13-College-Board-Tuition-and-Fees-By-State.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.92.43 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "flagship" in regards to universities is typically a colloquial term that has no official definition and varies in meaning across the states. Each university on the table should be independently cited. The only citation that should be acceptable is an official one, from the state government, referring to the institution as a flagship. If this leaves the table with less than 50 flagships, so be it. If this means individual campuses are replaced by systems (eg University of California), then they should be. If that means the article should remove the table, than it should be so removed. It is Wikipedia's goal to provide precise, accurate information per WP:TPA, not conduct original research or base it on what an editor "thinks" is right, particularly being that this is such a nebulous and ill-defined term in the first place. In fact, I recommend removing the table (and the plethora of campus photos bordering on WP:BOOSTER) and placing it on this talk page or in a sandbox until it is properly cited. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I do believe flagship is an official designation used by many official sources. As cited by the anon IP, many university systems base public funding depending on flagship status. Because public flagships tend to have a social contract with the people of the state to serve through research and outreach, flagships may receive public funding. In fact, many flagships have bolstered public higher education in general. For example, UNC-Chapel Hill and University of Georgia are considered to be one of the three schools claiming the title of oldest public university in the US. These two schools were also the united State's first state-chartered public universities. All states have some sort of university system. In many cases, there is only one university system(with exceptions, like in Texas) I agree with you regarding citations. I think that would be a great idea. I've long felt this article to be incomplete. The number of views this page garners calls for more information. I will go ahead and find citations for the general article as well as the flagship designations. I do think the table should stay. I believe it adds to the article and is consistent with WP:TPA. Removing the table and only citing larger flagships will result in everyone steadily adding their own school to a "list" of flagships. That would be quite messy. Regarding the images, I tried to select pictures for flagships from every precinct of the United States. I think they highlight flagship universities for what they are. If anyone has any objections, or if we would rather only have a few flagships, we may remove some. Edit: The sources added seem worthwhile, especially the Collegeboard citation. Thanks for your word. DMB112 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Flagship University Definition to Discuss:

FOR DISCUSSION:

Each state in the United States provides public university education through one or more university systems. The phrase flagship institution or flagship university may be applied to an individual school or campus within each state system.

Some states designate official "flagship institutions" and there is no standard definition for the term. The College Board defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established, and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities. These schools are often land-grant, sea-grant, or space-grant research universities. However, there are published lists of "flagship universities" that contain schools that do not fit each of these criteria.

According to Robert M. Berdahl, interim President of the University of Oregon, the phrase "flagship" came into existence in the 1950s when the Morrill Act schools were joined by newer institutions built in a wave of post-war expansion of state university systems. Berdahl notes further that because flagships are generally the oldest schools within a system, they are often the largest and best financed and are perceived as elite relative to non-flagship state schools. He comments that "Those of us in 'systems' of higher education are frequently actively discouraged from using the term 'flagship' to refer to our campuses because it is seen as hurtful to the self-esteem of colleagues at other institutions in our systems. The use of the term is seen by some as elitist and boastful. It is viewed by many, in the context of the politics of higher education, as 'politically incorrect.' ... Only in the safe company of alumni is one permitted to use the term."

Nevertheless, the term "flagship university" is still sometimes used in publications of the U.S. Department of Education and post-secondary research institutions, and is also used in official contexts by some state university system boards of governors and state legislatures. Additionally, state universities often self-designate themselves as flagships.

While many listings of "flagship" universities, including those of government agencies and state education committees, confine the designation to one school per state, there are many instances in which more than one school in a state has claimed to be, or has been described as, a "flagship". In February 2012, Idaho's State Board of Education made a controversial decision to strike the word "flagship" from the University of Idaho's mission statement. The Board's President Richard Westerberg explained that this revision was made as part of the Board's many changes made to multiple Idaho universities' mission statements in an effort to ensure all statements were consistent and collegial in nature rather than comparative or competitive.

I can look for cites to state statutes that designate "flagship" (if any) and those that do not, to support the point asking for a citation.-Kgwo1972 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the definition of original research, which is not permitted. Find a source that says some states designate official flagship institutions and some do not. Or find sources that say "this state designates an official flagship institution" and sources that say "this state does not designate a flagship institution" so that you can support both clauses of the sentence while avoiding original research. Eidolonic (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the entire introduction is fine. Idaho does not designate a flagship. The ref is already cited in the article and the cite can easily be repeated here. And, while I doubt there is any serious dispute that some states do designate flagships, I would take up Kgwo1972 up on his offer to find one or two to lay this issue to rest. (I would not necessarily confine the search to statutes however.) The rest of the paragraph is self-evident and flows logically from the premise, namely, that there is no one single definition for the term. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

"The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

"This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

Neither of the Idaho articles on the main page says Idaho doesn't designate an official flagship. If that's really true, then you should be able to find a reliable source that directly supports it. Eidolonic (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh good grief. The board expressly instructed the University of Idaho not to describe itself as a flagship because the term appears to elevate one school over another and they don't want that. The headline in the newspaper says, "University of Idaho no longer state’s ‘flagship’". Followup articles in reliable sources reported, among other things, "In a surprise action last February, the Idaho State Board of Education stripped the University of Idaho of its flagship status". http://chronicle.com/article/Standing-Out-From-the-Crowd/131141/ (The same article contains a variety of other useful quotes like "most states designate one public university as the flagship" and "the criteria used to determine flagship status will vary from state to state", laying any lingering sourcing complaints there to rest as well.) Finally here for good measure is yet another Idaho article, this one headlined, "University of Idaho fights losing 'flagship' designation". http://www.idahopress.com/news/state/university-of-idaho-fights-losing-flagship-designation/article_9a3377e0-5939-11e1-bfab-001871e3ce6c.html . Please now stop with the specious objections. JohnInDC (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That Chronicle of Higher Education article can be dropped in as a source in several places in the article. It discusses for example how an official designation as "flagship" may be beside the point when it comes to a school's de facto status as a flagship (i.e. definitions and designations can vary); it also describes how over the years, the identity of some states' flagships has become less clear, and offers the specific example of Florida, where it says Florida, FSU and USF describe themselves as "co-flagships". Rather than place them into the article now, I'll edit the foregoing proposed passage to include it, plus the Idaho ones and two reliable sources stating that NY has no flagship either. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the New York articles states that the state of New York has no flagship university. The New York Times article says that the SUNY system has no flagship, the New York Daily News article does not say either. Additionally, the only Idaho-related article that says Idaho's designation as flagship was removed was written by Idaho State University's recently-retired provost. According to Wikipedia's reliability standards, we need multiple high-quality sources to support this kind of claim...one source from an interested third-party with a conflict of interest cannot provide sufficient support. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I only have an issue with a few of the choices in the definition. I notice one paragraph was changed to remove the word "official" from the Department of Education's publications, the word "committees' was deleted, and the word "sometimes" was added for some reason. "Nevertheless, the term "flagship university" is still sometimes used in publications of the U.S. Department of Education and post-secondary research institutions and is also used in official contexts by some state university system boards of governors and state legislatures." I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but those three changes combined together rub me the wrong way (feels like weasel words when you remove favorable descriptors and insert a mitigating qualifier to a statement counter to your position). The Department of Education's publications using the term are official, just like the state university systems', and the term is used prevalently by the Department and post-secondary research institutions and committees. The word "some" was added before the state university systems portion as well, but that is more accurate and I have no issue with it. I propose restoring the sentence to "Nevertheless, the term "flagship university" is still used by post-secondary research institutes and higher education committees, as well as in official contexts by the U.S. Department of Education and some state university system boards of governors and state legislatures." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that if Kgwo1972 can work through the thoughtful comments provided by IP 173 and arrive at something they're both okay with, that this section be moved into the article. JohnInDC (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather busy today elsewhere, but will certainly try my hand when I get the opportunity. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah, no rush. In fact taking a little breather may not be such a bad idea - JohnInDC (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the necessity of a list of US flagship universities

Let's set aside for a moment any issues related to defining flagship universities and address whether such a list belongs in this article at all. Someone above opined that such a list may not belong in this article at all and I think that needs to be addressed. I find the argument that such a list doesn't belong in this article convincing. Why would we want to include a list of flagship universities from one country in this article that discusses the term "flagship" in its broadest contexts? How does that help our readers understand the general concept of "flagship" (not "flagship university," mind you, just "flagship")? ElKevbo (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Another way to consider that may be whether "flagship universities" should have its own page restored or remain part of the "flagship" page, where it was moved in the somewhat recent past. I don't believe there's much doubt that the majority of traffic to this page is for universities, not navies. If Flagship Universities is kept as part of this article, rather than given its own page, then the flagship page should strive to treat each aspect of flagships with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Given the term's popularity in research journals, academic publications, and higher education analyses (particularly those related to accessibility of higher education for minorities) I believe including the list of schools that is used nearly universally by the reliable academic sources is not only appropriate, but necessary for the article. Excluding it would leave the Flagship University section notably hollow (a disservice towards the amount of readers the page receives for that very section) and more importantly, would be intentionally omitting the most prevalent use of the term by the majority of Wikipedia's preferred sources. Aside from intermittent use by local newspapers (which cannot seem to agree even within their own paper which schools they should call a "flagship"), the term is primarily used by the academic community in comparative analyses using the schools from the list provided. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This list also is contradicted in the references contained in the explanatory text, wherein there are no less than 9 references so far (and I could add more regarding Florida) which point to more than one flagship university in a particular state. That the College Board or some federal study author may find it convenient to paint with a broad brush for some articles doesn't mean it's accurate or acceptable in the particular state affected. I would suggest that any such list on Wikipedia contain the official position of the particular state, since this issue is a deeply local matter. Sirberus (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Even the text of the list as it is now on the page doesn't claim to be every flagship in the country, only a list that is nationally recognizable and widely accepted. I'm not really sure what you are arguing, but let's take a breather for a day or so and we can review my attempted drafted text for the list when I've completed it. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sirberus, can you please step back a bit to consider whether the list belongs in this article at all? ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, ElKevbo. Consider it done. Sirberus (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

_{Derailing my own thread: I'm not sure if these institutions are used as comparison groups as often as you think they are used. Despite having worked at or attended several, it would be rare for me to use this as a comparison group in either practice or research. It's not often that "flagship" is a characteristic in which researchers or scholars are interested when making comparisons; usually we have much better characteristics to define groups such as the various Carnegie classifications, data in IPEDS, or self-defined groups e.g., institutions' peer and aspirational groups, membership in organizations like the CIC or AAU. The obvious exception is public policy work, particularly state-level work focused on funding, where the term has some real meaning in that it usually indicates which university gets preferential funding from the state government. ElKevbo (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)}

Since this question hasn't generated sufficient discussion - I only see one other editor other than myself who has replied - I'm going to launch an RfC to get more input. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Listing "flagship universities" is a bad idea

Even though it's obvious that a lot of work has gone into the creation of that list, I think it's a bad idea and should be removed. I say this for at least a couple of reasons. First is that this is an article about "flagships" generally, and that long list associated with just one of the meanings threatens to overwhelm the article. Second, the notion of "flagship schools" is muddied and incoherent. There are lots of sources describing lots of schools as "flagships" (often the websites of the schools themselves) and few if any apply the same criteria. And thus for that reason, third, a list like that is just a magnet for POV pushing, unsourced edits, and edit wars. Lest anyone think I'm speculating about this, I invite a review of the edit history and talk page of the former page, "Flagship university", which displayed all of these intractable problems until the school-by-school content was eliminated and the page redirected here. Here is the edit history of that page, and here is the Talk page. It was a mess. Let's not go down that route again. JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree - just Boastful Superlatives (aka - BS) in these listings! It is high time to sink that section. - CZmarlin (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

To put some meat on the bones of my general concerns, here are some specifics, drawn in part from the prior discussions:

• Is "flagship" singular or not? I am (personally) in the singular camp but the State of Michigan (to cite one example) is not. Cite here (read fast - it redirects quickly). Per that University of Michigan source, the state has at least four flagships.
• What *is* a flagship? Does a state get just one, or does each university "system" within the state get its own? Whatever the answer, a flagship is not expressly the oldest school in a system, nor the largest, the one with the biggest budget or the one ranked highest by, oh, US News. There seems to be general agreement that "flagships" must be public, rather than private, schools; and maybe large(-ish) research universities, but beyond that? I defy any person here to supply a definition that 1) finds agreement among other editors and 2) is broadly employed by the various sources who apply the term to different schools. As I said at one point during the prior discussion, the only way to ensure that a list like this is not just a collection of POV / OR / opinions expressed by Wikipedia editors or third parties with widely varying qualifications, is to define the list very specifically, e.g., "Schools designated by a state educational authority as 'flagships'" (or - less usefully - "Schools that have been described by third party sources as 'flagships'"). At least those are objective, and that's a crucial improvement over simply calling them "flagships", because no one knows, and no one can say, what the heck a "flagship school" actually is.
• Who gets to say which schools are "flagships"? The schools themselves? Their alumni? The governor, the state department of education, the legislature? How about independent educational professionals writing op-ed pieces in newspapers? If we can't even say what a flagship school is then how do we evaluate who's qualified to make the assessment; and conversely if anyone is qualified, then really, what is this list other that a compiliation of schools that someone, somewhere, has referred to as a "flagship"?

The problem is finally that the entire notion of "flagship university" is vague at best and incoherent at worst. That makes this a minefield, a never-ending struggle to keep the list confined to criteria that cannot be stated, let alone agreed upon. I think the list needs to go. JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is Governor Jeb Bush talking about Florida's two flagships, Florida and Florida State. Link. USA Today listed 75 (!) flagships in 2006, here. The former chancellor of the University of Texas system discusses that state's two flagships here and opines that a third should be added. Lastly here is Eliot Spitzer talking about - well, I'm not sure how many flagship universities in NY. Link. My point with these links is that, it's clear that a list of flagships cannot be limited to one per state, if we're going to go where the sources take us; and if editors find perfectly qualified sources to add various other schools to the list of flagships, they'll do it, at which point it's hard to know what the heck the list is supposed to mean. JohnInDC (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The articles for these schools, none of which are currently included in the list, describe them as "flagships" of the university systems of which they are a part, or as a separate, additional "flagship" in a particular state: Troy University, Michigan State University, Colorado State University, Andrews University, Oregon State University, Texas A&M University, and University of California, Los Angeles. These are just examples; I think I could find many more. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to remove the list and to restore the broad, general language from one of the earlier iterations of this page, say about here - perhaps removing the specific schools listed there as well. Certainly we would, should, discuss the most suitable language and phrasing we'd want to employ (personally I think the best we're likely to do is to acknowledge what sort of a hopeless muddle the issue is, and leave it at that). JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should outright remove the list. I think the section should be fleshed out to include information. There is not enough information in this article regarding flagship universities - believe it or not. It's an important term. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that most of the views that this page receives comes from university articles - and not someone researching sailboats. It's an important term, and it's important that information regarding flagships be accurately conveyed. It is my experience and understanding that flagship is becoming more of an official jurisdiction. Kansas State University has had the same vandal causing editing wars with several users for the past month. You all may want to check out the talk page of Kansas State. The term of flagship is in itself an elitist. That's why some get offended, however, we can't allow some hurt feelings to get in the way of the notability and legitimacy of the article. University articles who incorrectly list flagship as a designation need either an official citation or removal of the term. Alternatively, each individual school could be given an official citation or removed from the list. Instead of listing all flagships, we could list the flagship universities noted by the state legislature. Alternatively, all designated flagships could be listed, but I'd question the accuracy of that. There is usually only one flagship. Every state has a school that tries to "catch up" to the initially established flagship. The two schools may have arisen from political disputes or regional differences over time or whatever. These schools are not flagship universities. That doesn't make them any less universities, it just means they aren't the flagship.

DMB112 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just commented at the K-State page. I think the designation as a flagship should stay in until there is consensus that a state can have only one flagship - a position which seems to be pretty clearly contradicted by the facts. The problem you have with making a list as you suggest is that you're going to have to 1) decide which of many possible, many extant sources are "legitimate" for determining flagship status and then 2) get other editors to agree with you. I don't think that's possible. There are too many people with too many credentials, and too many axes to grind (or burnish) to be able to say that some sources are okay and some are not. I also don't think it's proper. We do not pick and choose sources and determine which are qualified for a particular purpose, especially when to do so would mean, in effect, taking sides from the get-go. There is no definitive definition for "flagship university" but rather just a bunch of notions kind of floating around in the ether, and by saying "X source is good" and "Y source is not", we're necessarily choosing one - and all by ourselves, without a source for it. JohnInDC (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus list of the same 50, and only 50 (1 per state), flagship universities from far too many official and nonpartial sources for us to sweep it under the rug. As discussed in this talk page and Kansas State's, these sources include the College Board, governmental agencies, commissioned reports for research and public interest institutions, research journals, and the boards of regents for individual states' university systems (the people who manage the public universities in their states). Those sources all list the same 50, and only 50, flagship universities. That list, used consistently by a variety of official sources over what appears to be decades, is the list reproduced on this page.

The broad accord of those sources strongly evidences that "flagship universities" exists as a proper term. Lack of consistency/consensus comes into play almost exclusively from individual universities' (outside of the consensus 50) own publications stating they are "one of the flagships" in their state, as well as isolated generic references in local newspapers or the 2006 USA Today article which was apparently written by an intern and names 75 flagship schools. Looking at the Kansas State talk page, USA Today has directly contradicted that article numerous times and stayed with the consensus of 50 schools, and the veracity of the list of 75 schools is, at best, heavily dubious.

When the regulatory/managing/supervisory and governmental sources are all in agreement towards the use of specific terminology, it's a rather hard sell to overcome that consensus with a generic use of the same term by interested parties. If we need to, we can sandbox some sort of distinction in the body of the article explaining that, outside of each state's flagship university, there are other schools that claim flagship status, but deleting the list supported by every variety of official source is a disservice to users of Wikipedia who come to this page seeking information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

To say it another way. There is no definitive meaning to the term "flagship university". Indeed if there were, this would not be such a morass. We would know what a "flagship" was, and someone reliable would have created a list based on that definition, and we'd cite it and that would be that. But there's the rub: There is no definition of "flagship university". Flagship schools have many common characteristics, but none of them is definitive and for every one you can list, there's an exception to it. Compare Michigan and Michigan State. Michigan State is a land-grant college, it's the largest university in Michigan, and - of course - exists to serve the educational needs of the citizens of the state. (I'm just guessing but I bet MSU has a higher percentage of in-state students than Michigan does.) Michigan is not a land-grant college, it's not the biggest in the state, but it's older, and has a bigger budget. So which is the flagship? The only way to tell, finally, is to resort to one or another list. "Well, Michigan's been on more lists." Or, "really, Michigan's what you think of when you think of 'flagship' in the state." The definition, being so vague and qualified ("may", "many"), provides no useful guidance whatsoever. (Remember - as important as telling you what a flagship is, a definition must tell you what a flagship is not.) So we must go to the lists. But, whose lists? Anyone's really, anyone's. "Flagship university" isn't determined by whether the legislature says so, or the chancellor of the university system, or the university itself. No source says that! And if no source says that then what business do we have making up a list of "flagships" that includes what some people say should be on it, but excluding what others say?

So I dispute that we are able to create a table of "flagships" that is anything other than a listing of schools that someone, somewhere, described as a "flagship". There is in particular no source or justification for limiting the list to one per state. And for those reasons I dispute that any list we might create would be in any sense "valuable" or "accurate". It will be, has to be, a compendium of schools that appeared on one or another list that someone made, applying their own interpretation of a hopelessly vague and arbitrary definition. The separate article on Flagship Universities was merged into this one because the separate article (which was really never more than a list) was unworkable and the constant target of POV pushing. This list simply recreates the problem in this new location, to the detriment of the Flagship article and to the (objective, reliably-sourced) benefit of no one. JohnInDC (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've provided several sources above showing many instances where people in a position to know, or to opine, have identified more than one flagship in a state - Michigan, Texas, New York, California to name just four. If this article's list is going to exclude sources like that, it needs to explain, for objective and well-sourced reasons, why those sources are not legitimate as well and must be excluded. Why, for example, cannot "Texas A&M" be listed as the flagship of the "Texas A&M system"? I mean, it says so itself! Who says that the "University of Texas" system is the only system of several in Texas that may be accorded "official" recognition? But more to the point, if there are so many definitive, clear sources for what a flagship is or isn't, then where are they? The article cites to about four articles, which all happen to list (about) the same universities, but that's all I see in them. Where did they get their lists, how did they compile them? Were they all pulled from the same original source, or from one another, or - where? I like the idea of a clean list of 50 but there are loads of reliable, credible sources that go beyond that 50 and there is no (Wikipedia) justification for excluding them. JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(BTW you should be sure you're logged in when you comment.) JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In this WSAC study, one of the cited studies, they list at the end the schools that were considered in the study. I would note for Michigan and Texas, the two schools that also lay claim to flagship status (MSU and A&M) were not included at all. Now, I don't know what that means - I really don't care to go through the whole study - but it at least makes me wonder how definitive their list of "flagships" is when some important schools don't appear to even have been in the running. Really this just underscores the point I was making above, which is that of the four studies listed, none of them ever really say what "flagship" means or how they picked the ones they did; they're just lists, and as such no better or worse really than the USA Today article that gave us 75. JohnInDC (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The WSAC study you mention supports the notion that each state has only one flagship university...MSU and A&M claim flagship status, but a governmental agency (the Student Achievement Council, formerly the Higher Education Coordinating Board) does not recognize their claim.

A state must have only one flagship for the same reason that a naval fleet must: the word "flagship" itself is an attributive superlative. The two definitions of the word are "1. In a maritime fleet, the ship occupied by the fleet's commander (usually an admiral); it denotes this by flying his flag. 2. The most important one out of a related group." The second definition obviously suits this dry-land discussion. Each state cannot have two universities which are both "the most XXX."

Perhaps most telling is that the College Board, to which every United States public university (including MSU and Texas A&M) is a member, lists that same total of 50 and only 50 flagship universities (only one per state) with each state's school consistent with the other authoritative sources discussed supra.

To reiterate, every United States public university is a member of the College Board, and the College Board lists only 50 flagship universities - one from each state. While we may not know the criteria by which the College Board and the other official sources determined which university from each state was the flagship, we do know that such a determination was made, and that all of these authoritative sources are in accord not only as to there being only one flagship university per state, but as to the identity of each state's sole flagship university.

Perhaps the distinction that will solve this is designating the list of 50 as each state's flagship university, rather than a complete list of all universities which claim to be a flagship. This makes sense with the examples you provided - Texas A&M may be the flagship, or most important, university in the Texas A&M system, but it is not the state of Texas' flagship university (that would be the University of Texas). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Only one flagship per state" is a linguistic fallacy. States are not navies, and schools are not ships. I've abundantly illustrated that many states routinely describe themselves as having more than one flagship. Governors, chancellors, the schools themselves. As I said elsewhere, "two flagships" may offend our linguistic sensibilities, but there is no getting around the designation, by people who to all appearances are qualified to provide it, of dual or multiple flagships. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive - we take things as we find them, not as we wish them to be. If it helps any, one Navy may have many fleets, and so, many flagships. Think of it that way.

I don't credit "The College Board" with any particular authority in this area. It's a private organization that - among other things - creates and administers tests. It is not a state organization, it has no authority other than as a voluntary collection of schools. But that being said, if the chart were described as "Flagship Universities as Listed by the College Board" then at least the table would match a source. It would not solve the problem of defining the term, which again is so muddy that it is meaningless. I would therefore give a very short description of what the term has been said to mean in the academic context (with a clear acknowledgment that it really doesn't mean anything, or means several things) and then offer up the table, as qualified, as an example of a list of flagships, if you stick with one per state, but not a definitive list at all. You can't do more than that, because you don't know how the College Board arrived at its list. It certainly did not do it by applying anything like the definition here. The photos would have to go too. The article is about flagships, not schools, and the pretty photos are just clutter. People can click on the wikilinks to see pictures. In this area, (reliably sourced) clarity is essential, and short is good. This might work but I want to think about it some more. My instinct is still to leave the list out altogether. JohnInDC (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would point out too that any list that appears here, an just an example of the class (which is all that it could be) would have no bearing on whether schools not on the list, but with suitable sources, could properly be described in their Wikipedia articles as "flagships", or be included in the Category Flagships. There is some value to a handy table that corresponds 1:1 with a reliable and (arguably) authoritative source but you can't make more of it than what it is. JohnInDC (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The College Board is a not-for-profit organization of 6,000+ schools as members, member-run, with a member-appointed board of trustees supervised by three national assemblies. Literally every university that has been discussed on this page is a member. You may not credit the College Board, but the very universities that appear to be claiming unrecognized flagship status do. And this same organization has stated that there are 50 flagship universities...one per state.

The College Board is hardly alone in this. The State University System of Florida's Board of Governors, the group *in direct control of and administrators of* the public universities in Florida, has determined that the University of Florida alone is the flagship university of the state (regardless of a comment made by an elected politician within the state), and that there are 50 flagship universities...one per state. The Higher Education Coordinating Board, a government agency, has determined that there are 50 flagship universities...one per state. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute, an internationally-recognized public policy institute, has determined that there are 50 flagship universities...one per state. The nonprofit Education Trust has determined that there are 50 flagship universities...one per state. The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education has determined that there are 50 flagship universities...one per state. I'm not sure that it's reasonable to not credit any (or more specifically, all) of these organizations and agencies.

Regardless of whether one of us wishes to use "flagship" as a generic term, where universities are involved, the authoritative and official voices are in one accord in using the term to distinguish ONE university (unanimously the same university) from each state. Perhaps legitimate confusion could be introduced if at least one authoritative source such as a state budget or educational government agency report was found indicating that any of the flagship claims made by universities outside of the 50 were recognized by any official organization or agency, but with respect I'd suggest there's a reason that none have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the National Science Board, the governing board of the National Science Foundation, states the following: Flagship institutions are the best-known institutions in the state, were generally the first to be established, and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities. http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2012/nsb1245.pdf This is the same definition used by the College Board, which again, all of the universities described above are members of. For both organizations, as with all authoritative sources found so far, there is only one flagship per state. And now we have a definition as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what some reliable sources may say, if other reliable sources say differently; and it is a classic example of begging the question to contend that, e.g., that an elected official is not competent to define flagships "because the authoritative sources disagree". The sources you cite are not more authoritative because you say they are, nor are they so because they (apparently) agree with one another. Indeed - again just by way of example - if the State University System of Florida's Board of Governors is authoritative, and if it is the last word on the subject, then how can reliable sources such as the Sun-Sentinel describe Florida and FSU as the state's "co-flagship" universities? Of course, they couldn't. If the Board of Governors were the last word, then why would the Florida Senate even introduce, let alone back down from, a bill that apparently would have designated UF alone as the state's flagship? Link. It would be a waste of time. And more broadly, who "authorized" the College Board, or any of the other entities you named, to tell the state of Texas - definitively, and without appeal - that the State of Texas is forbidden to say it has two flagships? If the College Board is "authoritative" why hasn't it demanded that Texas toe the line, and demand that A&M stop describing itself as a flagship? These facts directly contradict your (already self-contradictory) assertion that "the very universities that appear to be claiming unrecognized flagship status [credit the College Board with authority to determine flagship status]".

The sources you cite are not "authoritative" and they are not definitive. They are not "authoritative" because they have had no authority conferred upon them (at least, not that much of the public or many of the schools themselves seem to respect) and they are not "definitive" because they in fact "define" nothing. What you call a "definition" of flagship university is not that, but instead merely a description of 50 schools that have, through an unknown process, found themselves included on a particular list. As I have already observed - repeatedly now - qualifiers like "generally" and "frequently", and vague terms like "best-known" are useless as tools for figuring out what institutions are in, or out. Again - tell me what about that "definition" explains why the University of Michigan is the state's flagship and MSU is not, when MSU seems to meet as many of the criteria?

I would like to see more about these many authorities you cite - for example, documents in which they analyzed the issues of flagship status, or explained why some schools are in and some are out. Did they think about it or just re-print a list they had handy? Do they actually say, "of course there can be only one flagship university per state because two does violence to the language", or is it more just a matter of sticking with what they've always said? You've cited several sources - please link to the actual documents that reflect these determinations. At the very least please link to those documents, so we can see how these determinations came about and so we're all arguing starting from the same information. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here BTW is a release by the Fla. Board of Governors reprinting (without objection or comment) a news article discussing that state's two flagship universities. JohnInDC (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And here is a news report that the Board of Education in Idaho removed the "flagship" designation from any of the state schools. JohnInDC (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the University of Idaho link, it appears we may need to remove UI from the table (or if not, footnote it, though I believe removal may be more appropriate). I have not found any source since that 2012 date indicating that the Idaho Board of Education has reversed its decision, though there appear to be efforts underway to do so.

Regarding the idea that a state can have more than one flagship...your response is that the government agency in charge of Florida's postsecondary education system is not authoritative because "reliable" sources like a local newspaper have printed something that disagrees with it. And you believe that finding an Orlando Sentinel article linked as a newsclip on the Florida Board of Governors cite somehow diminishes the Board of Governors directly stating that Florida has only one flagship university. The bill you are referring to, SB 2442, was not amended simply because it referred to the University of Florida as the flagship university. It was amended because it granted funds to all public universities in the state that met certain criteria, including flagship status, which only the University of Florida satisfied. SB 2442 was eventually amended to lower the criteria for the funding(which included removing all reference to flagship status) allowing both Florida State University and the University of South Florida to also be included. In no way, shape, or form does the bill make a statement as to Florida's flagship university.

It's apparent that there we are going to need dispute resolution here, as you don't seem to believe that primary/governing sources are more authoritative than local newspapers because they "have not had authority conferred upon them", and I'm honestly not sure what to say anymore. Are you sincerely contending that the State University System of Florida's Board of Governors has no more authority conferred upon it regarding Florida's public universities than a local newspaper? I just don't see how you can, in good faith, sustain your position.

I just conducted a quick search for more references to states only having one flagship university from official sources, including state house of representative journals, U.S. Department of Education abstracts, and reports from the Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education. I doubt any of them meet your criteria of being an authoritative source, but for anyone else reading this talk page:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/nrcflas-ca-la.pdf

http://www.ilga.gov/house/journals/93/2004/HJ093218R.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/partnerships-GA-NM.pdf

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/164870NCJRS.pdf

http://nnlm.gov/sea/newsletter/2011/06/page/2/

http://nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/E4000/B035-2004s.pdf

This argument has seemingly devolved into numerous government agencies or well-established international educational organizations being cited definitely stating that each state has only one flagship university, followed by a counter-argument that a local newspaper disagrees and so there is no consensus. I would ask that you please support your position with a citation from at least one source as authoritative as those cited above (the U.S. Department of Education, the governing body for Florida's public university system, etc.). Something that requires less strenuous speculation than a linking on the Florida Board of Governors' news-clippings site to an Orlando Sentinel article which you allege was reposted "without objection". If there is any merit to the argument that the voluminous government agencies and educational organizations already cited are all wrong, please provide at least some supporting reliably authoritative cites. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what those links are supposed to prove. The first few I looked at simply described a particular school as "the" flagship of a particular state. Okay, the University of Maryland is the flagship of Maryland. I agree. It's not Towson or Salisbury. Some states may in fact have only one flagship. What you need are authoritative sources that say, "here is what a flagship is, and there can be no more than one per state, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong".

Also I would like to see a link to a statement by the Florida Governors that Florida has one flagship, the University of Florida, and no more, and any other designation is impermissible. That is what Idaho did with UI - it made it remove the designation from its mission statement. That is authoritative. But in any case you continue to miss the larger point. There is no "official" definition of flagship. There is no single entity that can say whether a school in the United States, or isn't, a "flagship". Some state authorities can, and apparently have, conferred or withdrawn the designation formally but in most cases I venture to say, they don't care - or, they know enough to stay out of the way. And where there is no official, authoritative statement from an entity with actual authority, then the issue is up for grabs. The College Board can stick to its traditional 1-per-state listing (which in fact appears to be factually incorrect) while some schools, with at least the acquiescence of the governing state entity, can confer the title upon themselves (Texas A&M). And that is before we even get to popular usage. Why can't people within a state consider that they have two, or three flagships? If the public, or reporters, want to use the term that way, and the usage becomes popular and generally accepted, the College Board can't stop it. (Just as, despite how much professional grammarians detest it, "begging the question" has now come to mean, "suggests the question".) Dispute resolution is fine with me. I have offered a dozen or more reliable governmental, academic and popular sources that both officially and colloquially, refute the Only-One-Per-State model that you are exclusively advocating. There's really not much issue here. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the Board of Governors' decision was recent? Here is an article from 2000 lamenting UF's failure to achieve official "flagship" status in the state in spite of the common sense that it is indeed the state's flagship - link. There's also a Facebook page urging the state to designate UF as the official flagship. I can't see why any of this would be necessary if the determination were already made. And until SB 2442 removed the reference to "flagship", everyone was excited - or up in arms - about it, because it would require the Board of Governors to rank the state's schools and designate as many as qualified as "flagship". Link. Only UF would have qualified. So, first, if that was fait accompli then why the fuss about the designation - and why the revision to the bill to remove the term? And second, the legislation expressly contemplated more than one flagship, which makes no sense if the state has in fact already said there is and can be only one. JohnInDC (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(I'm assuming you mean something other than this chart, cited further above on this page, wherein the BoG simply reprinted a list and data supplied by the College Board.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here the New York Times says that SUNY hasn't got a flagship. Consistent with that, an editorial from the NY Daily News describes SUNY's chancellor as having "resisted talk of elevating flagships, preferring to pretend that 64 scattered junior and senior colleges with vastly divergent profiles and reputations are really a single, organic whole." Indeed in 2008, then-Governor Spitzer complained about the state's failure to designate and fund a flagship in the SUNY system, link. It appears that, like Idaho, NY hasn't got a flagship either. JohnInDC (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot understand your requirement that a governing body disprove your negative by stating "there can be no more than one [flagship] per state, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong." The disastrous hypothetical results of applying that standard to other articles is amusing, but the standard itself has no merit. If a government website states that John Doe is the Mayor of Citytown, it is not reasonable to argue that there might be more mayors not listed because the website did not say "John Doe is the Mayor of Citytown and there are no other mayors of Citytown other than him". I do not understand your reluctance to accept over a dozen sources as authoritative, regardless of whether they are from research institutes, boards of regents, or governmental committees for postsecondary education, due to newspaper articles saying otherwise. There is a reason Wikipedia credits government resources, research journals, and academic publications above newspapers. In any case, if we are going to use newspaper articles, here is an article from less than three months ago that states "the University of Florida is, after all, our state's flagship university." http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-01-15/news/fl-editorials-gov-scott-aspirational-promise-20130115_1_tuition-hikes-public-universities-president-bernard-machen Do you have a source from later than January 15, 2013, indicating otherwise?

I may be misreading you, but it sounds like you are suggesting that a school can just declare itself a flagship and that public misconception would force the inaccurate to become accurate. People are free to "consider" that their state has two or three flagships. They are also free to consider Pluto a planet rather than a dwarf planet, but that does not make it accurate - governing organizations specifically created to make determinations and decisions regarding that field have stated otherwise, regardless of the mistaken beliefs of the public (and in some cases, reporters). Speaking of space, here is a NASA document that states the University of Florida is the state's flagship university http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://nepp.nasa.gov/mapld_2008/mapld_2008_program_final_revd.pdf Here is a report from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy) that states that the University of Florida is the state's flagship university http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/900293-Bf8Yg5/900293.pdf Here is a Florida House of Representatives committee report that states the University of Florida is the state's flagship university http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg42964/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg42964.pdf Here is a release from the Florida Board of Governors citing the Education Trust's findings on flagship universities (the Education Trust is one of the above-cited sources that determined each state has only one flagship university) http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/newsclips_detail.php?id=7953 And finally, here is the Florida Board of Governors' tuition and fees information page http://www.flbog.edu/about/budget/tuition.php As you noted, the Florida Board of Governors adopts the findings of the College Board, uses the College Board as a source, and designates only 50 schools (one from each state) as flagships...including, of course, the University of Florida as Florida's flagship university http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZepgGihedlAJ:www.flbog.edu/about/_doc/budget/tuition/2012-13-College-Board-National-Tuition-and-Fees-Comparison.xlsx+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this. I'm going to create a Wikipedia article called "Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor", and it's going to list Nicky Hilton. Just him. She only shows one husband, because people can have only one spouse. There are thousands of sources showing this. John F. Kennedy only had one, Lyndon Johnson only had one, and Hilary Clinton only had one as well. I know I could come up with more. Plus the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce so any husbands or wives after your first (if they didn't die that is) don't count.

You don't get to pick and choose sources. The College Board picks one school per state. That's swell, but it is not definitive because - as we have seen, some states claim more than one flagship, and some claim none. Why does the College Board's essentially arbitrary listing (since there is no rule for choosing and none can be discerned) trump all the others? JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And please, stop saying that these various sources "determined" anything. They didn't. A determination is a conclusion that follows review and analysis. None of the sources you cite did anything more than simply repeat what has already been said elsewhere (albeit not, apparently, by the Florida legislature because too many Floridians disagreed). At most, your sources are consistent with a single flagship in Florida. (And, just for now.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Florida Board of Governors created a report with a graph labeled "2012-13 Undergraduate In-State Tuition & Fees at Flagship Universities By State". That graph used the University of Florida's tuition under the column labeled "Florida" and no other university from the state. Is it that you think the Florida Board of Governors forgot about the "other flagships" under its governance, or is it that you don't agree that the Florida Board of Governors has the authority to designate its own flagship university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

They reprinted a useful report by another entity. That is not a "determination" And - what was their alternative anyhow? Add in data for FSU, without knowing whether it was comparable or not to the original report? JohnInDC (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tuition and fees are set by the Board...FSU's tuition and fees for 2012-2013 was $6,403. Pretty sure the Board could include FSU if they wanted to. More to the point, they did not simply reprint the College Board's report. They used data from it to create their own report, which they circulated and distributed on their website for the public to use for information. http://www.flbog.edu/about/_doc/budget/tuition/2012-13-College-Board-Tuition-and-Fees-By-State.pdf Why would they do this if they believed the information to be inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be "incomplete" rather than "inaccurate" - and given the kerfluffle that accompanied the legislative effort to add flagships, or limit flagships, a prudent Board would probably be best advised to reproduce the report as originally written and not invite a firestorm. But of course I'm just guessing. One thing that remains clear in any event, again, is that it "determines" nothing. JohnInDC (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would contend that between the Florida Board of Governors creating a report comparing flagship universities (having a column labeled "Florida", and using only the University of Florida's data for that column) combined with the previous sources for Florida (NASA, Florida House of Representatives, etc.) and this Florida Department of Education press release http://www.fldoe.org/news/2003/2003_10_10-2.asp , the status of the University of Florida as the state's flagship university is determined.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with Elizabeth Taylor...she had multiple husbands, but never more than one at a time. It is legal in the United States to divorce and remarry, and the government recognizes spouses after your first. If you created a wiki page for an individual, you would put her current spouse in the "Spouse" line of the info box and list her previous spouses elsewhere in the article if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the trouble with metaphors. Sometimes you can push them too far - the singular meaning of "flagship", for example. Anyhow my point was that Elizabeth Taylor had loads of husbands and they should all be listed even though 1) at least one authoritative agency does not recognize spouses after the first, if the first marriage ended in divorce; and 2) even though there are millions of examples of people who never had a second. The College Board may say that each state gets only one flagship, and there are tons of examples of states that really do have only one flagship, but that doesn't mean more are impossible or forbidden - or today, even remarkable. JohnInDC (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why are we unable to find any government agency or committee report that includes them? We've found dozens that show only 50 or refer to a university from one of the contended states as "the state's flagship university".

Texas A&M declaring itself a "flagship", without objection from its overseers, on its public and publicly-funded website, taken in conjunction the many third party references to the same effect, is good enough for Wikipedia. For starters. Why woudn't it be? (Please sign your comments.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Silence is agreement? Mm. The University of Texas says on its site that it's the state's only flagship university, without objection from its overseers, etc. That logic can't hold up both claims. Again, if it's legitimate, why can we not find any government agency or committee report that includes it?173.170.235.213 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse, "flagship" is used not only as an official government designation but also a popular designation awarded by non-government sources. It would be really nice if this were only used by official government sources but alas the general populace uses the term, too, so we're forced to acknowledge that in our articles. You might be able to dodge the issue by explicitly limiting specific tables or sections to discussion of "officially designated flagships" or "state-designated flagships" or something similar but that may end up excluding some institutions that are widely considered to be flagships despite a lack of state legislation or executive action. ElKevbo (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be the best way. Relabeling the current list as officially designated flagships would let us include another section for other claims of flagships if desired...something like "Claimed Flagship Universities" with a line preceding the list explaining that these universities have claimed but unrecognized flagship status? 173.170.235.213 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I support relabeling but there is nothing "official" about the current listing. I also contest the use of the word "claimed" to caption any other table. In some cases they are recognized as flagships - just not by any entity you would acknowledge. If the tables are going to be renamed then we pick neutral, descriptive captions that say what the lists are, and nothing more - e.g., "Flagship Universities included in College Board studies" for starters. JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first section, please keep in mind that it is not simply a matter of the College Board listing only those 50 - at this point we have over a dozen government agencies, research journals/institutes, etc. that all make reference to "each state's flagship university" (singular), "the 50 flagship universities", or otherwise limit the number of flagship universities to 50, and through all of this back and forth we've been unable to find any government agencies, research journals, or similar sources that include any universities other than those 50. What are your suggestions for the names of the two sections? 173.170.235.213 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What about "State Flagship Universities" for the first group? That would acknowledge the language from the above sources ("the state of Florida's flagship university" "each state's flagship university" etc.) and illustrate the distinction between them and other universities, such as those stating they are the flagship campus of their own systems? 173.170.235.213 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that doesn't seem to address the issue. For example how does that address multiple officially-recognized flagships in Tennessee? ElKevbo (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That may actually be a good example. The University of Memphis is recognized as the flagship university of the Tennessee Board of Regents system, but the University of Tennessee-Knoxville is recognized as the state's flagship university by the Tennessee government and other sources.(http://www.tn.gov/finance/OSA/documents/OctSUB12.pdf)(http://tn.gov/sos/bluebook/05-06/8-governor.pdf)(http://www.csm.ornl.gov/archive/HL_01-02.html)(http://www.y12.doe.gov/news/release.php?id=207). UT would go in the State Flagship Universities list, University of Memphis would go in the second list. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? The Board of Regents system is no less a creature of the State than the UT-Knoxville system. Likewise the University of Texas and Texas A&M. I had originally proposed "Selected Flagships in the US", keeping the criteria vague because - well, the criteria for the College Board list are vague (inscrutable actually) but you reverted it. The College Board list is not "official". It's just - common. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Flagship universities (as designated by the College Board)". Or - instead of two lists, a table. States run down the LH side. The first column is labelled something like "College Board flagships (one per state)" and each box contains the name of the single school. The next column is something like, "Flagships designated by other sources" and each box contains the name or names of the schools (or in the case of Idaho, "none"), along with a link to the RS that supports it. By defining the first column with reference to a specific, identified source you can keep people from messing with it - if it's not on that very list it has to come out. No quibbling about meaning or propriety. It's very simple. The second column, open to all comers, requires only a proper citation. (And I would envision this to be pretty liberal, to eliminate pointless and endless squabbles over whether a 2006 USA Today chart is suitable or not. Reliable source? Put it in.) This suggestion is comprehensive, inclusive, and properly and transparently describes what the presentation is portraying. JohnInDC (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

John, I know that you are heavily against the College Board list (although you've never really explained why you don't credit it when it's almost universally adopted). I'm suggesting "State Flagship Universities" as this moves away from the College Board list while still providing at least some standard of recognition for inclusion. The Tennessee Board of Regents system is as much a part of the state as the University of Tennessee system. And each university is recognized by the state government and governing agencies as the flagship of its own individual system. In addition to that, the state government and ogverning agencies also recognize the University of Tennessee as "the state's flagship university", a term that (as you know from our discussions above) comes up constantly from state's governing organizations, always designating the same university from each state as the Higher Education Coordinating Board, the College Board, and other sources containing a list of each state's flagship university cited above. Why would this list of each state's flagship universities, universally used by a consensus of state governments, the US Department of Education, the Secretary of Education, institutional committees, and research journals, be removed from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.235.213 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the caption is wrong. Some states have more than one flagship. And for those states, why pick out one system to elevate over the other(s)? What is the principled basis other than, "this is what this list says"? There is none. And so that is what the caption should reflect - the actual, inarguable basis for inclusion on the list presented here.

More broadly I do not object to the College Board list as such. It's just a list. But that is all it is. We don't know when it was created, or who created it (I doubt the College Board did it) or how certain universities were deemed to be included or not. The list does not appear to reflect any sort of canvas or survey of the various states or state agencies (else it would say), and as far as I can tell, the list is static. It is just a list that someone once prepared, based on God-knows-what, which does not appear to change according to differing or evolving views on what is a "flagship". (I suspect that it retains currency because of, rather than in spite of, these reasons - it's old, it conveniently shows only one school per state, it's not subject to lobbying because no one knows who or how to lobby for inclusion, and the list never changes anyhow.) It is okay as far as it goes, but no more. Call it what it is so no one can quibble, put it in the left hand column where it will have a certain visual priority, drop in the ref and then let it alone.JohnInDC (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Flagship universities per The College Board" / "Flagships per other sources". Just playing with ideas. JohnInDC (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Something along those lines can work if we're able to navigate the redundancy of each notable source's independent list. We'll have to omit or footnote something about the state agencies/government departments/education committees/research journals that publish lists using the College Board as a source or else the page would be overwhelmed. We've got at least a dozen independent lists from research journals, books, and education committees, including those predating the College Board's (I've been unable to find any College Board flagship lists prior to 2006 so far...its Access & Diversity Collaborative was not commissioned until 2004, so that would seem reasonable. Here are some of the ones that have been subsequently cited more often:

The First Black Graduates of the Nation's 50 Flagship State Universities - Robert Bruce Slater, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 13 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 72-85 www.jstor.org/stable/2963173

The History of Higher Education - 2002 - Roger L. Geiger - books.google.com/books?isbn=1412805481

2003-2013 Washington State Tuition and Fee Reports, January 2004 (earliest), Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board -http://www.wsac.wa.gov/PublicationsLibrary/PolicyAndResearch/Tuition

America's Best Value Colleges - 2005 - Eric Owens, Princeton Review - books.google.com/books?isbn=0375763732

Black Male Students at Public Flagship Universities in the U.S. - Status, Trends, and Implications For Policy and Practice - 2006 - Shaun R. Harper - Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Health Policy Institute - http://www.jointcenter.org/hpi/files/manual/Black%20Male%20Students%20at%20Public%20Flagship.pdf

Examining the Status of Equity in Undergraduate Enrollments for Black, Latino and Low-income Students at Public Four-year Universities and Flagship Campuses - 2007 - Danette S. Gerald - books.google.com/books?isbn=0549453512

Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities Are Straying From Their Public Mission - Kati Haycock, Mary Lynch, and Jennifer Engle, The Education Trust, January 2010 - http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Opportunity%20Adrift_0.pdf

Public Policy Analysis of Opportunity for Postsecondary Education - July 2012, Number 241 - http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/241_712pg1_16.pdf

Incorporating some or all of these sources is much simpler than I worried - each of them names the same 50 universities as the College Board, listing them as "each state's flagship university", "the nation's 50 state flagship universities", "the 50 states' flagship public universities", etc. The term "state flagship universities" is used quite often in the various citations higher up in this page also. With consistent reference to there being 50 total state flagship universities (as opposed to a state's other flagship universities, such as those which are flagships of their own systems but not of the state itself) and numerous sources independent of the College Board giving a consensus of the same 50 universities, I believe it may be appropriate to label the first list "State Flagship Universities" and the second list "Other Flagship Universities", with the second list specifying what each university is the flagship of (e.g. Memphis - The Tennessee Board of Regents System...Texas A&M - The Texas A&M University System) with citations. In the alternative, we could instead call the first list something incorporating the range of sources. List Per College Board seems too narrow, as many of these sources' lists are heavily cited and pre-date the College Board's. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(Arbitrary break)

That's one of the things that makes me a little crazy about this List of 50. No one can say where it came from or when it was created or how some schools got to be one the list (or not) - it verges on Received Knowledge, authoritative because is simply Is And Always Has Been Thus. I freely admit (perhaps to your surprise) that I consider the List of 50 to be a spot-on list of the most obvious top-flight public research universities in each state -- but in about 1949 or maybe 1962. Who knows why it continues in such common use today, because it is plainly falling out of step with both colloquial and official usage of the term "flagship". As the sources increasingly illustrate, state legislatures, boards of education, the schools themselves and the general public are all evolving forks in the definition of "flagship" that depart from this original list.

I don't care what source we ascribe this list to, whether it's the College Board or some other entity whose recitation of it (though probably not original either) is earlier. I do care, and reiterate, that it is simply incorrect to describe this list as "State Flagships" because many states have more than one system, each system fully a part of the State, and each with its own flagship, and again, there is no principled reason for including some and leaving the others off other than the raw fact of inclusion on this list of indeterminate provenance. In addition it implies, incorrectly, that the list bears the imprimatur of each of the states whose schools appear on it, and that is pure conjecture. (It's like - it's like the Dow Jones 30 Industrials average. Everyone cites it, everyone reports it every day, everyone refers to it constantly. Billions are made and lost every day against it! But its virtue is its age and its consistency, not its substance - I doubt there is an economist or financial expert in the country who would agree that the 30 companies on that list are (as they may have been at inception) the most important companies in the U.S. economy today. Common use is not endorsement, it is not authorization. It is just - use.)

Of more immediate use to this discussion, I think the first list can be captioned after whatever entity we're using as the point of reference, with a short paragraph of prose nearby that says something reasonably sourceable like, "The foregoing list is frequently referenced by a broad range of entities including blah (ref), blah (ref) and blah (ref)". By captioning the table with the name of its source you provide an unassailable listing of the 50 (no more, no fewer) schools, and with the accompanying text you indicate the frequency of its use. And - you do this without loading the thing up with slippery, contestable words like "official", "authoritative", "definitive" or, yes, "state". JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll add this. Suppose you do call it State Flagships. Because several states have more than system and therefore more than one flagship, somewhere you're going to need to explain why, in the face of clearly contrary and well-sourced facts, this list of 50 "State Flagships" is confined to one per state. How do you explain it, what do you say? "This list is limited to 50 flagships, one per state, because..." - why? "Because that's what's on the source list" is not an explanation - it begs the question. Why is Texas listed as a flagship when A&M is not? It just won't do to say something like, well, states can have only one flagship because fleets in Her Majesty's Navy could have only one flagship. Both responses are, finally, arbitrary. Again, the better and cleaner solution would be to name the table after its source, which not only answers the question off the bat but avoids it being asked altogether. Clean, simple, immune to contention. JohnInDC (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

John, have we seen any reliable academic sources directly supporting your view that the above sources for the list of State Flagships is invalid? I know you believe it is incorrect but these sources are reliable, academic, well-cited, and many. I need at least several reliable sources, preferably well-cited ones, that would support your position (that these are all incorrect and there are no State Flagships) sufficiently to label it a significant minority.

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars...One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources 173.170.235.213 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume there are many official, formal State Flagships. I do not assume, because there is no evidence of it, that the List of 50 is intended to, or in fact does, reflect those flagships. It may or it may not. Or it may capture some but not others. Who knows? I haven't looked at each of the 50 states to determine that and I don't intend to - it's a lot of work to undertake to disprove something for which, in fairness, the burden rests with you to establish. (I would note in passing that the List of 50 seems to have got Idaho wrong now, maybe New York as well given the reliable sources reporting that neither has an official flagship.) My point here is as it has been from the outset, which is that different well-qualified people (or entities) mean different things by "flagship", and no one source can be put forth as authoritative or definitive, because, as reliable sources abundantly reveal, there's often disagreement in the particulars. JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And see, right about here is where you lose me. The New York Times and the New York Daily News are reliable sources, right? And one would think, particularly in matters relating to New York. But if I say, "The New York Times reports that the State of New York has no designated flagship, and the New York Daily News says pretty much the same thing", based on what you're claiming it would seem that your response would have to be something like, "well, those papers are wrong, because the College Board list establishes the flagships for each state, and the list says that SUNY-Buffalo is New York's flagship". Conversely if Texas A&M (or the Texas Railroad Board, whoever runs the show there now) says, "Texas A&M is a flagship, a flagship of the A&M System created and operated and funded by the state of Texas", you'd say they're wrong too because, whatever Texas A&M may have to say about its very own self, the issue has already been decided on the State's behalf by The College Board. You see the problem? The List of 50 is just a list. It's a fine list, and a popular and useful one, and probably the only single list that purports to say something about each of the 50 states, but the List of 50 does not, cannot, trump other lists, or other reliable sources, in particulars. Why should it? Who made it the boss of everyone else? JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that we cannot make assumptions, or stand on our beliefs alone. Instead, we must present reliable support. In this case, we have a majority of reliable sources listing the same 50 universities as "State Flagship Universities", and no reliable sources supporting a minority position. You are correct, the burden was on me to provide support for the labeling of the list as "State Flagship Universities". That burden has been satisfied through the sourcing of numerous academic, well-cited, published sources. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material" - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability The burden is now on you to provide reliable sources that directly support your belief that those numerous sources are incorrect. I haven't reviewed the New York Times or other New York article yet, but if they directly support your position, we would be able to include them as a significant minority opinion - academic publications are valued over newspaper articles by Wikipedia ("Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable source" - Wiki/Verifiability) but in this case it may be updated information and warrant a footnote or following paragraph as opposing information.

As a sidenote, the Idaho position is, at best, unclear - the Chronicle article you referred to below is the only one that goes so far as to claim that UI's flagship status has been revoked (rather than just the use of the term in its missions statement), and that article was written by the recently-retired provost of Idaho State University, an interested third-party. "Any exceptional claim" - such as a public university being "stripped of" its flagship status - "requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include...challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest." - Wiki/Verifiability. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times article states that SUNY, not the state of New York, has no flagship. Do you have a reliable source directly supporting the position that the state of New York has no state flagship university? 173.170.235.213 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list of candidates. You tell me which you think the state might conceivably designate, over one of the SUNY schools. List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_New_York. JohnInDC (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We cannot make assumptions or stand on our beliefs alone. We cannot for example take one list of 50 "flagships" and deem them to be the nation's Real Flagships and relegate all other flagships described by all other sources to some secondary, slightly suspect category of Pretend Flagships, shunted off to one side like the losers in the rush scene in Animal House. The College Board does not dictate which schools are flagships and it does not control the use of particular words in the English language. The article and this Talk page are now full of reliable sources - full of them! - showing multiple instances of "flagships" that diverge from the List of 50. I have cited to articles in the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and the Chronicle of Higher Education; I've cited Florida newspapers, Idaho newspapers, articles published by universities, university press releases, university web sites, think tanks, and yes, USA Today. The sources quoted by these indisputably reliable sources have included state governors, legislators, the former chancellor of the Texas university system, boards of education and their individual members. I really can't keep this up. The word means different things to different people in different contexts. Reality doesn't spring from the The List of 50!

Really, it's time for this to stop. Somewhere waaay up above (link), and at the Kansas State talk page (here), ElKevbo explained to you that "flagship" is a fluid term, a lot of people define it in different ways, and the article has to reflect reality, not what we wish the facts to be. Reality in Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources. If you won't listen to me, listen to him. You have provided many, I have provided many. Neither one wins. Both do. "Flagship" means lots of different things and this article, and the table, must reflect it. JohnInDC (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Pretend/Animal House rhetoric is necessary to this discussion. You have cited many newspapers, though most do not directly support the statements you indicate WP:CHALLENGE (and the one that does was written by an interested third-party with a conflict of interest WP:REDFLAG. The university sources designating themselves flagships are also not reliable under Wikipedia's standards, as they are first-party sources (please see WP:SELFPUB. The intern-written USA Today piece has been shown to be inaccurate, contradicted by USA Today in both prior and subsequent articles. Which Think Tanks were you referring to?

I will be taking the next day or so to draft a subsection for this article regarding state flagships, based on the "national recognizable and accepted list" given at http://www.lsu.edu/flagshipagenda/Flagship2010/peers.shtml, a statement directly supported by a multitude of sources which meet the highest standard of wiki reliability, including peer-reviewed well-cited academic publications, research journals, and government reports. If necessary, I may also include other reliable sources such as research commissions and national education organizations such as the College Board, as well as the numerous government agencies and publications which cite it (though for conciseness I may likely only use the highest-standard citations). Once I've put my draft on this Talk page, I'd welcome civil discussion regarding its inclusion. Thanks. 173.170.235.213 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be away from this discussion for a few days myself, so take your time. JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question: The think tank was the American Enterprise Institute, with this link, republishing a Houston Chronicle article. JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This organization is not an authority about universities. Moreover, the use of the term "two flagship universities" in the article by Edward Blum is (1) undefined and (2) has nothing to do with the topic of "race in admissions." Edward Blum's article could have easily used many other terms to describe these two Texas universities. CZmarlin (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose he could have used any word but he used "flagship". And so the article, published in a reliable, local source and reprinted in a national one, becomes one more reported use of the term that reflects an understanding that departs from the one-per state list. (Parenthetically, I'd add that concerns about definitional imprecision do not persuasively tip the scales in favor of that list!) JohnInDC (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Flagship universities do exist, but including them here is not appropriate

There are simply some things in this world that are colloquially understood but cannot be rigorously confined to encyclopedic standards. I think this is one of them. The complexities of the situation are apparent merely in the length of the discussion above, not just the arguments themselves. Isn't it enough to mention, as the article does, what some of the meanings of "flagship university" are, and leave out anything (read: the table) that seeks to define the term with any precision?

Just drop the table. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. This is a sinkhole. Indeed that was how the article appeared until just about three weeks ago. Here's a sample earlier iteration: Link.. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with HuskyHuskie. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)