Talk:University of Florida/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA On Hold

Please see my comments here. miranda 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am almost done with reviewing the history section, and should be done reviewing the article soon. Many improvements have to be made for this article to make GA. miranda 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have failed this article. miranda 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Student Government

I have completed the merge of University of Florida Student Government to the Student Life section per the AFD consensus.--SevernSevern (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Flagship issue erupts - again

This issue has been exhaustively discussed before as noted below. UF cannot declare itself the "flagship" university of Florida without recognition in law and history and such are not present. The references declaring itself the "flagship" from UF websites are not credible. Newspaper articles with such references are likewise not credible as there is no official recognition from the State of Florida. The best UF can do with this is, in terms of official recognition, what then Gov Bush said around 2001 which is to say UF and FSU share this designation (from a reference on the FL SUS discussion page):

   The most authoritative source I have found that categorizes universities in Florida's SUS is here:

In this article we find that then Gov. Bush explicitly calls FSU and UF "flagship universities": Among the notable impacts of One Florida: Of the additional 3,202 first-time-in-college students entering the university system whose race and ethnicity could be determined, minority student enrollment accounted for almost 40%, or 1,234, of that increase. Each of the 10 universities increased the percentage of its entering class who are African-American. Furthermore, the rate of growth for minority students at Florida State University and the University of Florida far outstripped overall university system growth and the growth of white students. For example, while system-wide enrollment grew by approximately 11%, the number of African-Americans at Florida State University grew by 21% and the number of African-Americans at the University of Florida grew by 33%. In addition, the number of Hispanics at Florida State grew by 24%, while the number of Hispanics at the University of Florida increased by 19%.

In addition, the "cascading" effect, or the reduction of minority students in our flagship universities that many critics of the One Florida plan predicted would happen, did not occur. In fact, minority enrollment actually flowed upwards toward the flagship universities. Combined, Florida State University and the University of Florida enrolled 577 more African-American and Hispanic first-time-in-college students than were enrolled last year. Governor Bush and Chancellor Herbert were joined by presidents and provosts of universities that showed some of the greatest minority gains, including University of Central Florida President John Hitt, and Provosts Larry Abele of Florida State University, David Colburn of the University of Florida, and Richard Osborne of Florida Atlantic University.

One of 2 flagships?

An anonymous editor changed the statement in the lead paragraph naming UF as one of two flagship universities. I assert that this statement must remain. It's explicitly supported by one of the references cited specifically to support the statement, a USA Today "survey of tuition and fees at 75 public flagship universities in 50 states" (not only does it specifically list both UF and FSU but it also implicitly supports the notion that states can indeed have multiple flagship institutions). An older version of the same survey was also cited in a Florida Board of Governor's document which seems to lend it some validity. Additionally, a quick search found a 2006 speech by the president of FSU in which he says that "both of the major candidates for governor have endorsed the concept of the University of Florida and Florida State University as flagship institutions." I'm sure other supporting evidence could be located but this seems sufficient to require that we include the claim. Documented disputes of the flagship status of either institution would be welcome; if extensive, perhaps a new article could be written. --ElKevbo 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Florida State always wants to be UF, but they can never quite reach UF's standards. Anyway, UF has been regarded as the state's flagship university since 1906.

You can read through:,0,3742642.story?coll=orl-news-education-headlines

Therefore, I am confused at why FSU is not considering itself a flagship? There is only one University System in Florida unlike other states with multiple flagships. UF is the flagship of the state by far, with FSU and USF contending for second. By these grounds, I would assert that this "two flagship" business should be put to rest and the facts should stop being spun by FSU.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauncey (talkcontribs) 03:28, April 6, 2007

First, this is not a contest between UF and FSU. So please cease making derogatory remarks about FSU.
Second, it seems pretty clear to me that this is not clear-cut and there is evidence to support both claims. Therefore to unambiguously state that one claim is correct and ignore the other is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --ElKevbo 10:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The correct answer is that UF and FSU are the co-equal flagship universities in Florida as both were created by the same statute in 1851. This is cited on the FSU page and referenced to the Florida Archives, the most authoritative source in Florida. As fans of both schools have tried over the years to trump one another with "the oldest" title, the best resolution is the 1851 date consistent with the Archives references. Since UF has many Journalism graduates, and has one of the few Journalism programs in Florida, any newspaper article should be viewed as biased towards UF and disregarded, in view of many such journalistic attempts to re-write or diminish the actual history. Note that this is a gift to UF as actually the primary predecessor to the current UF is the Florida Agricultural College, established in the 1880s, not the East Florida Seminary - which was at best a bit-player in the university named UF and created in 1906. Wikipedia states that a flagship is the first created university in a system, so I suggest we leave it at that - 1851 for both and the "one of two statement", which comports best with the State of Florida Archives.Sirberus 12:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there was no true University system until 1905 in the state of Florida so when it comes to flagship, there could not have been one until the system was created. For all intensive purposes, the Buckman Act changed everything in the state. If you honestly want to put FSU as a "flagship" then you must put Florida A&M in there as well. UF is by far the most prestigious and well-respected school in this state and regarded as the flagship university by most within and outside the state. The New York Times said it best:

"For much of its history, the institution that is now Florida State University here has struggled against an academic inferiority complex. The State Legislature dictated in 1905 that it serve only as a college for women, while men went to the full-fledged University of Florida in Gainesville. After going coed and achieving university status in 1947, Florida State became most famous for its football program. And even the team’s recent championships have been marred by players’ off-the-field crimes."

The most respected newspaper in the state, St. Petersburg Times:

Three years ago, the UF trustees decided to up the ante by hiring as president an acclaimed academic, Bernie Machen. His experience included administrative positions at the esteemed flagships in Utah, Michigan and North Carolina, and he started drawing a blueprint to propel UF into the Top 10 public universities.

This year, having been denied more state money and higher tuition, Machen wants an "academic enhancement" fee. But Gov. Charlie Crist and key lawmakers already are shaking their heads no again. Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican who graduated from Florida State University, acts as though excellence is a dirty word.

"I'm not so sure that in a state that has 11 universities," King told a reporter, "I want to say, 'Gosh you're the flagship, so you deserve to charge more because you're better.' I don't buy into that."

Maybe King and Crist and other lawmakers think UF should be satisfied with offering what amounts to the Blue-and-Orange Light Special. It charges the lowest tuition of 75 flagship universities. Its student-faculty ratio is half-again as big as that of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and it ranks 123rd on measures of "faculty resource."

How about Kiplingers:

Three hours north at the state's flagship university, in Gainesville, Fla., the atmosphere could hardly be more different. Think big: Big campus. Big buildings. Big-name football team in a stadium that holds 90,000 screaming fans.

The University of Florida also includes many of Florida's highest-achieving students, the nation's fourth-largest student body and some of the world's top research facilities. President Bernie Machen hopes to secure UF's spot in the uppermost tier of public institutions by lowering class size and improving graduation rates.

UF describes itself on its site as:

The University of Florida is the Flagship university of the State of Florida. It continually achieves national and international recognition and prominence for multiple academic disciplines and groundbreaking research.

Either UF and everyone else do not know what they are talking about, or wikipedia has gone off base again. As I search, the only mention of FSU as one of two flagships is on wikipedia. You will never see "one of two flagships" anywhere else. FSU will not make that claim on their website, but only that they believe they are "one of the flagship universities" in the state. This is an ambiguous claim that they only make a few times in passing.

Its slightly hilarious, because the huge debate going on in Tallahassee right now is whether UF, as the flagship university of the state, should be able to charge an extra fee that USF, FSU, and UCF don't charge. Like I said, if you want to make FSU a flagship, be my guest, but then please give Florida A&M its due as a flagship also.

Finally, USF, UCF, and all other academia in the state consider UF the flagship.

This makes it pretty clear:

It has never been a debate of who is the flagship university in the state except by a a few FSU alumni and wikipedia now.

The idea of "two flagship universities" in one system is ridiculous. The definition of a "flagship" according to the dictionary is "the best or most important one of a group or system." How can their be two bests? That is contradictory. Similarly, UF is definitely the most prestigious and academically respected school in the state. How there is any debate about this is beyond me.

UF is only recently the best rated university in Florida - and please note in it's areas of specialty only. There is no law declaring them as a "flagship" and if being the oldest counts then FSU actually is older if we consider predecessor schools like UF fans like to do with the East Florida Seminary. Further, FSU was awarded the Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa in the 1930s, long before UF, so FSU obviously was the better academic school at the time, consequently FSU should by all rights be declared the sole "flagship", since they were first in Florida with regard to the oldest and best known historic measure of academic quality. FSU had a football team and was issuing graduate degrees before the doors of the current UF opened in Gainesville in 1906. Additionally, FSU has a much more involved history with the origins of Florida than UF in early days, for example, the soldiers fighting as an identifiable unit of the institution in 1865; the fact that they are located in the capital city and so forth. At that same period there was no institution recognizable as the present UF in operation. Obviously FSU was the "flagship" school back then, correct? Since a flagship technically is where the flag officer is located; so then with FSU's being a short walk from the Governor of Florida puts them closer to the "flag" officer, and thus again a better claim to the title.
The bottom line here is that UF's claim to this annoying and pretentious title is newly found. There is no history declaring them so, other than suspiciously sympathetic reports from the Florida media that started only recently. FSU's lack of zeal for a suspect title obviously speaks well of the gentlemanly conduct of their Administration. Only when UF fans have begun to push this claim has a reaction, and consequent recitation of factual history, occurred. Even the name "University of Florida" is still assigned to Florida State University in an 1880s law that is still in effect; so any claims to that title as well are very suspect indeed anytime before 1906.
The point is that FSU has as good or better claims to this dubious title as UF. The co-equal status is an equitable way to stop bickering about a meaningless, yet obviously sensitive imaginary status. Texas has two "flagships" UT and TA&M. Wikipedia's definition of the first created universities fits and is appropriate in Texas and in Florida.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to get the facts fairly presented; not play to the urges of a fervent fan base.Sirberus 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way...almost forgot. FAMU was created in the 1880s, and has no known claim to a predecessor school traceable to the original 1851 law creating FSU and UF.Sirberus 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as two flagship institutions. There's only in the State of Florida, and it's UF. I'm going to need FSU and other institutions to stop trying to "up" their schools and grey the facts that their schools are better. They're not, get over it. UF is the flagship university.

Again, you fail to even comprehend the argument I was making concerning FAMU. There was no state university system in Florida governed by any body until 1905 and the Buckman Bill. Education before this point in Florida was incredibly disorganized. In 1906, UF in its current state was opened up along with Florida State College for Women and the State Normal College for Colored Students. Florida Agricultural College was the first Florida land grant school in the 1880's. But there was no defined university system until 1906. Using common sense, the female college was not the flagship school of the state. Social norms dictate that fact whether fair or not. Likewise, the African-American school was most definitely not the flagship of the state during a very racially prejudiced time. Again, common sense tells us the University of Florida was the flagship institution of the state and has been regarded as such since that time.

You are incredibly mistaken to say it is a recent phenomenon for UF to claim the flagship. Actually, it is a recent phenomenon for Florida State to attempt to consider itself a co-flagship. Texas and Texas A&M are separate university systems. The University of Texas System is different from the Texas A&M system. They govern themselves. That is why they are both flagships, just like the UNC and NC State systems, or the Cal State and UCal systems. That is not the case in Florida where we are governed under one system. So again, your argument makes little sense.

Feel free to post a link to any Florida law declaring UF the flagship university. Also, the SUS argument does not work. If UF believed it was created from clean whole cloth in 1906 why does their seal reflect 1853 and not 1906? You cannot separate state history from a modern marketing campaign by UF and UF fans to brand themselves as "flagship". Wikipedia's definition is correct as to flagship designation - the first created universities. Florida started this process around 1823 and enacted the first specific law in 1851. Despite the best efforts of UF fans, they are stuck with Florida state history...and FSU as a co-equal "flagship" or perhaps even THE flagship, if you read the histories.Sirberus 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is an excellent discussion of what a flagship university is from the Chancellor of UC Berkeley: Clearly, FSU was founded as the flagship classic liberal arts university in Florida and UF as the flagship agricultural university in Florida. Both were created with the same law, both fit this profile perfectly, which is duplicated at other states in the United States. This works.Sirberus 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa does not award chapters on the basis of sex. There is no "women's Phi Beta Kappa" and "men's Phi Beta Kappa". It awards chapters on the basis of academic excellence.

Sir, what you fail to realize is until there is a system governing the universities, there cannot be a flagship. That system began in 1905 with the creation of the one university and two colleges. If you want to get right down to it, the school in Tallahassee never reached "university" status until 1947 while the school in Gainesville was a University since 1906. There can be only one flagship for every system. This is clear. UF was created for the system as the university, and Florida State College and the State Normal College. Finally when there were too many men wanting to attend UF after the GI Bill, they decided to create a new UNIVERSITY in Tallahassee. There has never been a UNIVERSITY in Tallahassee until 1947. FSU did not even has significant graduate programs until the late 1960's, early 1970's and still cannot even compare to UF. In the article you gave, He also argues that graduate programs are the key to a flagship. Well UF has DOUBLE the graduate students FSU does. FSU didn't even get a medical school until 2003?! Sounds like a flagship to me. Finally, because UF was created as the first and only university for the first 40 years of the system, and is the most prestigious and honored University in the state, basically everyone outside of Tallahassee would call UF the flagship of the state university system.

Again, the three qualities your Berkley article talks about, it the oldest university in the system. That would be UF since it was the first university created in the system, or in the state overall for that manner. That should be common sense to understand the flagship. The article states, "It was in the context of this massive expansion, then, that the term "flagship" came to be used to refer to the original campus of the system."

Second, the flaghip should be the leader in graduate education. Well since UF has DOUBLE the graduate students that FSU has then this would probably point to the University of Florida once again. Actually USF has a slightly larger graduate student base than does FSU. So FSU comes in third for this category, with FIU a close 4th. So watch out FSU because you may drop to 4th soon with the new medical school being built in Miami.

Third, the flagship must be the research center of the state. Well, this one is very easy and is the knockout punch. The recent study by the Pappas Group which was approved to be done and financed by the Board of Governors says, "The University of Florida is the only significant research university in the state."

You are in a jam now. So your article basically proves UF is the flagship of the state. Likewise, the other article you cite from USA Today would be laughed at by the man from Berkley, since it lists UCLA as a flagship? I don't think Berkley would agree with that, at all. It even lists Georgia State as a flagship, which started from a night school at Georgia Tech?! This is fascinating, and shows how wrong that article was to use the word "flagship" to describe these schools, including FSU. UF is the flagship university of this state, however you want to spin it or not. The facts speak for themselves.

Well said. Now, let's keep the wording and stop the revert war: There is one flagship university, UF. Rlove 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy that you know your own definition of "flagship" but can you provide any verifiable citations or is that original research and opinion?
The problem here is that there is no universal and agreed-upon definition of the term flagship. We can't rely only on our own preferred definition; NPOV demands we accept the views of others and present them accordingly without giving any view undue weight. --ElKevbo 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion about FSU not being a "university" until 1947 is incorrect. Please see the law where FSU was declared by the Florida Legislature to be the "Literary College of the University of Florida" in 1885. Since at the time there was NO other University of Florida, FSU was it for the entire state. This law is still in effect. So much for that assertion.

On your other point that the State of Florida had no university system until 1905 with the Buckman Act, it too is incorrect. The Buckman Act did not create a new system, it was merely a reorganization of a system formerly in existance in Florida since 1851. This is easy to prove - if the entire system was created in 1905 FSU, UF and FAMU would all have the same establishment date. They do not. Secondly, FAMU and Florida Agricultural College were both Reconstruction Period federal Morrill Act (1863) projects of the 1880s. Both FAMU and FAC were land-grant schools...UF is primarily the descendant of FAC; not the Seminary East of the Suwanee. It is interesting to point out, however, that UF's first date on it's seal was 1905...which was later changed to 1853.

On your point that UF currently leads in several areas - no problem. Such leads change hands over time - as with FSU and the Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, UF now has more research dollars. FSU has the only National Laboratory in Florida...UF doesn't. It does not change history.

It is also interesting to note that UF has never been declared the "flagship" by the Florida Legislature. Believe me, if the UF alumni had their way, they would have a statue to this effect. However, FSU alumni outnumber the UF alumni at least this year, so take it to the bank you'll never see this in law. The history is very clear about the entire matter...FSU and UF are the higher educational forces in Florida and have been from the beginning. UF's marketing campaign and UF alumni from the College of Journalism cannot change history, much as they might want to.

An interesting sub-note is that UF's attempt to gain some additional revenue via a tuition increse is the brain-child of...FSU President TK Wetherell. Here, as in many places, the "flagships" cooperate.

Consequently, there are two "flagship" universities in Florida. UF is one, FSU is the other.Sirberus 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I know you are just talking out of your ignorance, or you are lying because it is pretty well-known that the Buckman Act created the FIRST university system in the state of Florida.

Second, FSU even says that technically it was only a college until 1947. And was originally called the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida in 1947 after John J. Tigert called on there to be another campus for men. It was only after they threw out the Buckman Act later in 1947 that Florida State College for Women and the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida merged to form Florida State University.

"The 1905 Legislature, via the Buckman Act, shut down seven small, state-supported schools scattered around the peninsula, and replaced them with two colleges--FSCW and Florida A&M College for Negroes, both in Tallahassee--and a single university to be consolidated in Gainesville.

The three institutions were to be segregated by race and sex. FSCW was reserved for white females, while Florida was for white men only. Florida A&M was allocated to black students, both men and women.

Even before the war ended, Gainesville was feeling the effects of the G.I. Bill. War-surplus buildings were dragged to central campus and set up as emergency housing for the returning vets. But such measures proved woefully inadequate to accommodate a horde of ex-G.I. applicants in the summer of 1946. Faced with a waiting list of some 2,200 men wanting to enroll for the fall semester, UF President Dr. J.J. Tigert appealed to Gov. Millard Caldwell for help.

Probably never in the annals of Florida higher education was a university president's request handled with such alacrity. In only two days, a deal effectively making FSCW coeducational was struck between UF, the Florida Board of Control (now the Board of Regents), the governor and cabinet, and FSCW (see "The Great Transition," above). By the end of the 1946-47 school year, a total of 954 men--almost all of them G.I. Bill students--were enrolled in a legalistic creation called the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida (TBUF).

The door for men at the Tallahassee school soon opened wider, as the absurdity of TBUF began to be apparent even to the hardiest critics of coeducation. The dam finally gave way in May '47 when the Florida Legislature threw out the Buckman Act and made both FSCW and the University of Florida co-educational. Equally important, FSCW was accorded full status as a state university.

When a spanking new Florida State University opened for business in the fall of 1947, 4,400 students signed up--double the enrollment of fall 1945. Of the enrollees, 1,054 were men, and 890 of these were paying their way on the G.I. Bill. Interestingly, 25 G.I. Bill students enrolling that first semester in '47 were women."

Anything else but calling UF the flagship university in this state is revisionary history by some over ambitious recent Florida State alumni and fans.

Game. Set. Match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauncey21:45, April 7, 2007 (talkcontribs)

Your assertions or interim reorganizations cannot change the Florida Statutes. The 1851 law remains; the 1885 law remains, the history remains. The Chancellor of Berkeley's assessment remains. Your interpretations of what you want UF to be are clear; but there will be no agreement on this issue. By the way, The California Policy Center does not write law for Florida; not to mention that it is closed: The opinions of the author of War Child are just that.
One final attempt here at finding common ground - The basic facts are that the State of Florida set up two schools of higher learning in 1851. This is the start of Florida's educational system, no matter how feeble it appears today. Both would become what today are known as FSU and UF. Both passed through numerous changes in name and organization. UF had more organizational changes than FSU, but it's not that uncommon. Each university recognizes this entire history officially. Neither start their history only in 1905. The laws of Florida also support this view officially.
There are NO others like these two in Florida. None. Nothing even close. One school focused more on what today is known as liberal arts the other on agricultural sciences. The pattern set in 1851 remains evident today. Laws passed that reflected changes in society or population or other pressures like world war had only a temporary effect on the basic pattern set in 1851. Neither university can dominate the other in the Florida Legislature; UF had preferential legislative treatment for a period following 1905, but FSU had the same in the 1990s and before 1905. Rankings fluctuate up and down over time; neither university really is a clone of the other - they each specialize in areas the Legislature dictates.
To me, this is extremely simple. In Florida there are two primary universities that are the center of higher academic work in Florida. Any other interpretation denies clear and uncomplicated well-documented fact. Both UF and FSU are Florida's flagship universities.
I suggest mediation is warranted by a disinterested third party.Sirberus 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur - mediation seems to be necessary. There are clearly sources supporting both assertions.
And once again, Dchauncey, cease the inflammatory remarks and unwarranted hostility. I've never even been to the FSU or UF campuses much less attended one of them so your claims that this discussion is motivated by "ambitious Florida State alumni and fans" is ridiculous, insulting, and unproductive.
Finally, please sign your posts. You've forgotten to do this several times and it's beginning to get tiresome. --ElKevbo 03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC) LightSpeed1 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That article again says UCLA is a flagship. This makes no sense. Berkley would not approve of this article, and neither would Virginia, in which this article says Virginia Tech is a flagship. I forget to sign my posts, but they sing themselves. It happens. But, USF is just as much a primary institution as FSU. It has more graduate students than FSU and has a much more reputable medical school and other graduate programs, than does FSU. Again, there can only be one flagship for every system. UF is that flagship for the Florida State University System. In all reality, West Florida Seminary was not established until 1857, which was four years after East Florida Seminary was created. Again, if you can find me a system where there are two flagships, I would consider putting FSU as one. If not, UF is the flagship, and by far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauncey (talkcontribs) 02:35, April 8, 2007

Flagship status is not determined by the med school of a university. It cannot be awarded by a university to themselves just because they think they have the best magazine rankings. Flagship status can only come from origin, legislation and history. It does not matter that you cannot find a state with what you think is a parallel. The chancellor of UC Berkeley, an esteemed educational professional, has clearly laid out the characteristics of this troublesome title in the text of his 1998 speech. If you give it read a fair reading you'll see that FSU and UF fit perfectly into his analysis. I'll post this link to the text for convenience:
In reality, FSU could claim 1843 as the starting date as much as UF can claim 1853. FSU absorbed a seminal school in the same manner as UF and is, by the way UF uses the date 1853, perfectly entitled to claim that date. Apparently, they decided to conform to the 1851 law, with the permission of state officials, and thus avoid the inevitable complaints from UF. Sirberus 09:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Dchauncey, your posts do not "sing [sic] themselves." That signature is added by either a bot or, more likely, another editor. In the most recent two cases it was added by me. So please behave as if you're a member of this community if you're going to interact with us and save us the trouble of having to literally do some of your work.
Back to the topic at hand: Once again, you're making the assumption that there is a universal and agreed-upon definition of "flagship." There isn't such a definition. Hence NPOV demands we include all credible claims and related information rather than deciding on our own which definition or claim is the "correct" one and ignoring all others.
If you're still deadset of finding other examples of states where this is similar jockeying position and abuse of undefined words like "flagship," you should look at Michigan, particularly the recent decision by its legislature to treat its leading institutions (or "flagship institutions," if you prefer to use the vernacular) differently when considering their budgets. --ElKevbo 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

An important political aspect that should be considered is that FSU and UF, as flagships, really need each other as allies now and for the foreseeable future. This is why FSU President Wetherell is working closely with UF President Machen to pass the tuition fee. Everyone knows FSU will impose it the second UF's "test" is completed, just like UF will. The Governor of Florida supports the concept of FSU and UF being designated the flagships in Florida law to protect a status earned over 150 years of proven worth at both schools. In no way am I suggesting at the moment that FSU will beat UF to Top-10 national status overall. I think UF has a lead right now due to favorable legislative treatment invested years and years ago in areas like medicine and engineering, which are emphasized by many ratings services. FSU, in those areas, has to catch up. However, FSU will beat UF in it's areas of emphasis like meteorology, nuclear physics, the arts, certain business areas and so on. Therefore, I still suggest the 1851 law co-flagship compromise - the "one of two" statement - due to the most authoritative evidence available from the Florida Archives. Both FSU and UF can live with it. Sirberus 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is only one university system in the state of Florida. Michigan has four separate systems with four separate flagships. You can only have one flagship for every system.

Likewise, FSU and UF should be partners since they are run by the same system and that is great. And if you had read my earlier posts, I went by the qualifications of the Chancellor of Berkley on what a flagship should be.

1. The first university in the system - University of Florida (FSU was a women's college until 1947, when it became the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida, and then became the full fledged Florida State University the next semester.

2. The leader of graduate studies - University of Florida again

3. The leader in research - University of Florida

These were the guidelines of the Chancellor for a flagship.

Again, there can only be one flagship in every system.


And there has been at least one reference that has stated contradicting your assertion and the sources you have provided. Even more confusingly, if you look all the way up to my first post on this topic, the BOG themselves cited the reference in question and thus gave it some appearance of validity. Once again, NPOV demands we not pick and choose among the possible references and only include the "facts" that support our favored viewpoint. To state that this is a settled conclusion while ignoring the other viewpoints is misleading and dishonest. --ElKevbo 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you cannot ignore the efforts of the state to start a system as far back as 1823. I agree with ElKevbo. Sirberus 11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FSU was labeled the "University of Florida" in 1885 by law. There is only one system of higher education in Florida and it started in 1851 by law. Here we have UF self-proclaiming a title, given the BOG reference provided. In the past, UF also stated on their website they were the "oldest" university, which is also deceptive. Yet we then have reports of the Governor of Florida supporting the two flagship (FSU and UF) point of view. Obviously, there is disagreement within state offices...however, there is no law which establishes UF as the only flagship. Establishment by Florida law must be controlling, since all lower state offices answer ultimately to the Florida Legislature, including the Board of Governers. Precedent shows this is how official titles are bestowed in Florida. For example FSU's Ringling Museum of Art was declared the State Art Museum of Florida in law. I guarantee other museums would have preferred to have that title themselves, but the Legislature wrote it into Florida law. It is certain FSU alumni (including the other universities) in the Legislature would stop any such official label unless FSU was included given the history of Florida.

Perhaps the best solution is to dispense with this reference altogether, if no agreement can be reached. An alternative is to have competing references on the FSU page, as we have now.Sirberus 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the term were omitted altogether. It's a pretty meaningless term without context and history anyway. --ElKevbo 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attached is a link to the 1838 Florida Constitution in which Article X establishes Florida's educational system on December 3, 1838. Sirberus 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a system of governance of colleges and universities. All that did was give the legislature continued power of funding education, and put restraints on what the legislature, could and could not do. Buckman in 1905 was the beginning of a system of higher education in Florida. I do not know of any expert or historian that disagrees with that.

Likewise, there are very very few sources stating FSU is a "flagship" university.

This is from FSU's performance indicator study for the school, which says UF is the flagship and what it compares itself to:

T.K. Wetherell has used it a couple times in passing reference of where he wants to be. T.K. has said "we are on the verge of building a flagship university" and "both governors support FSU and UF as both flagships" but nothing substantial. But other than that, there are very few sources stating FSU is a "flagship." T.K. has even said a few times he considers them a co-flagship, but even that has been very very few and far between. On the other hand, there is an abundance of sources stating UF as the flagship. At this point, UF is the only school in the state, except for a few passing references from T.K., to claim itself as the flagship institution.

Jim Horne, Secretary of the Florida Board of Education, who spoke on the subjects of State University System governance and the state's education budgets. Mr. Horne extended his appreciation to the Board of Trustees, stating that the University of Florida is the flagship institution of the state university system.

More to come when I have time. Hopefully someone can list all of FSU's references as well.

Dchauncey 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Save the electrons...more self-promotion from UF does not make your point. If it's not in the Florida statutes - with regard to major state universities - it's mere opinion. Florida law is controlling. It's obvious we must continue to disagree about the authority of law, the creation and nature the educational system of Florida with this title business. You could write in the UF page that it's the opinion of some UF is the flagship; but what would be the point? It's obvious many UF fans think that, but that does not make it fact.Sirberus 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing you might to see how many UF self-proclaimed "flagship" documents you can find for UF dated before 1980. Then go back to 1960. Then go back to 1940...and all the way back to 1906, obviously there would be clear references to this status in the formative documents establishing the modern variation of UF, correct? Please post them if you can find them. Sirberus 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

im still laughing at DChauncey previous statement LightSpeed1 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

UF being the dominate research leader is questionable not they are not in the top but UCF is massive research univeristy and I would venture that they are a dominate player for research leader. If you can't get this fact right then It's hard to trust you on the rest of your facts. 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. UF is one of two of Florida's flagship schools. The other is FSU. This has to do - again - with Florida law, history and origin. UCF is not on the map. In the interests of fairness, I am restoring the "one of two" statement to UF main page. UF should be protected and preserved as one of the flagships. Clearly, they are the top ranked university in Florida at this time. Note that this current rating does not make FSU less of a flagship than UF. Both are the primary universities in Florida.Sirberus 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To call any state university in Florida the "co-flagship" alongside UF is patently ludicrous. There's is absolutely no basis for such a false assertion. FSU is not comparable with UF in any academic category, and I'm being unbiased when I say's just fact. If any state school would have an argument to make that claim, it would be UCF, not FSU. KyuzoGator 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added back the removed "flagship" sentence. Are the detractors of the flagship sentence in this article fighting the validity of the term "flagship" at other universities with a similar state system? (The answer is "no"). References solidly indicate Florida as the (singular) flagship university of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:15, April 28, 2007

Please re-read the cited references. They do not support your assertions. Two of the references don't mention UF as a flagship at all and the other includes both FSU and UF as flagships. --ElKevbo 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Florida Senate has just unknowingly contributed to this discussion. SB1710, just passed by the Senate 28-10 Friday, shows that only FSU and UF qualify as "Funding Level 1" (defined here: [1] ) Research Universities in Florida. No other universities, especially not UCF or even USF, are presently close to meeting the required criteria specified in the Florida Statutes for this funding (See Senate staff analysis here: [2] . If this bill becomes law, then Florida will effectively have a "tier" system with FSU and UF in the top tier. If this happens - and it looks pretty good at this point, it will tend to corroborate the 1998 analysis of Dr. Berdahl. The pattern set into Florida law in 1851 would then appear to continue. Sirberus 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents.

Good Sirberus, after looking through your history, it appears that you gave up the fight on the FSU front. Why do you insist on fighting it here?

This is from, which renders your argument moot:


noun 1. the chief one of a related group; "it is their flagship newspaper"

There is no way that two universities could each be a flagship within a system. Either UF is or FSU is, not both. --DodgerOfZion 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can cite to settle this discussion. Disregarding the validity of that source in this context, it's OR.
I agree that it's weird and counter-intuitive to have two institutions labeled "flagship." But there are sources that do so and we must respect those sources. To not do so is to force our POV into the article. --ElKevbo 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
While this may not fit into common notions of intuition, we're discussing universities here. The Berdahl document (Berdahl was the Chancellor of UC Berkeley...see above in one of the posts for the link) shows how such a definition is in fact common among state systems. Further, FSU and UF fit perfectly into Berdahl's educated analysis of university structure - which does not really fit the context. This supported by Florida law and history. I suggest then, as I completely disagree with your definition based on these facts, that the FSU and UF pages then have their own interpretation of "flagship".Sirberus 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As to the location of discussion, I agree - this is not the ideal place, but that happens. It's not my practice to edit the UF page; as I would certainly hope such respect would be reciprocal on the FSU page.Sirberus 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has been a very fruitless discussion. I would just like to see just one University System in this nation with two flagships. Again, not two separate systems in one state like UCal and Cal State, or Texas A&M and UTexas, but just one System with two flagships. It is almost contradictory to have two flagships.

Therefore, I propose that the "flagship" name be stripped from both schools on this site and put in the past because there can be no fact of a flagship, unless wikipedia is into making its own facts.

Dchauncey 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before: I think that removing the "flagship" reference in both articles is an amicable solution to this disagreement. There are multiple conflicting sources so either we detail the controversy or we avoid it altogether. Avoiding is the easier choice and detailing it would be difficult without getting sidetracked into OR and POV issues. --ElKevbo 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Sirberus is upset that Free Shoes University hasn't won a national championship in a while.

You might consider taking another read of Dr. Berdahl's speech. ( I find that it fits Florida extremely well. It is also used on the Wikipedia "flagship" article as a reference document. It also speaks of what may happen if Florida tries to create too many research universities. Schools like FSU and UF are extremely expensive. It makes other schools want to emulate them, but there just is not enough money.Sirberus 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't feed the trolls, Sirberus, hungry as they may be. :) --ElKevbo 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The point you miss there, is the fact that the University of South Florida is just as large a research school as FSU, and has been for years.

But, I think it is clear to remove the flagship title from both schools, since it is only perception in what schools are flagship in the state. I move to remove the "flagship" statements immediately. Dchauncey 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your suggestion, Dchauncey. As there are no emergencies on Wikipedia, I am considering it.Sirberus 11:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
After consideration and looking at a lot of other university pages on Wikipedia, I have asked for a peer review of the FSU page. This is where the best of the editors (this means bona fide Wikipedians, not those with pressing POV) will closely examine a page and ensure that all elements meet the highest standards of Wikipedia. The finest articles on Wikipedia undergo this periodic review. I am content to leave things as they are and see what that crew comes back with in terms of the flagship discussion, if anything. Secondly, this flagship uncertainty, as evidenced by the conflicting information as revealed in this discussion, is really an accurate snapshot of where Florida is right now with regard to higher education. There is much uncertainty and discussion - especially pertaining to the Pappas Report and the Florida Board of Governors. It so happens that Dr. Berdahl's speech text figures right into that process now. Further, neither page is harmed by the claim or diminished in any way I can see. Lastly, even if we agreed to remove this flagship statement it would most likely reappear as if our discussion never took place. The process would then repeat itself. Sirberus 15:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comparing this page to the FSU page shows that at least the FSU "flagship" cites have a basis in fact and they do not ignore nor diminish the importance of the sister school UF. This middle ground is more credible than the UF self-serving cites from some arcane intra-university websites currently being listed. I suggest the authors of this page delete these references and adopt the external sources FSU uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Florida Pictures

You think anyone is going to care if we get pictures off the UF website? Ufgatorman (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I am not sure, but it would be ideal if we could get someone to go to campus to take pictures. Unfortunately I don't live in Florida anymore, or I would take them myself. Jccort (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I might have some pictures from campus that I took the last time I was there. But it might have people in them. Ufgatorman (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Try to crop them out as best you can. Thanks! Jccort (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok here are the pictures I uploaded (I wish that van wasn't in front of Walker Hall). I'm sure all these pictures are on wikipedia somewhere:

Well, looks like a lot of those shots have already been taken and uploaded on wikipedia. I will have to do more searching for pictures. Ufgatorman (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I could only use the McKnight Brain Institute, the rest are not applicable to the newly created articles that are lacking pictures. Keep up the GOOD work. Jccort (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just put whatever UF building pictures I was able to find in a particular folder I had. I have a picture of Library West but it only shows part of the building. I needed a wide-angle lens to get it all in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufgatorman (talkcontribs) 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I have reverted User:AtlCrash three times now for his deletion of a huge chunk of the article. He apparently does not want to explain why he feels the need to do so, as there has been no discussion on the talk page, and no edit summaries left. When I attempted to discuss it with him, he dismissed me with no attempt to justify his deletion. If those who watch this page would keep an eye on it, I'd appreciate it. Horologium (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an admin needs to stop this vandalism. Thanks Jccort (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll help out with policing the page until an admin can take a look at the situation. Let me know if I can be of any more help. Fliry Vorru (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rankings of Princeton Review

There is a dispute as to whether or not Princeton Review rankings should appear on the University of Florida page, so let us discuss this is a more appropriate manner. The page should be left AS IS, without the addition of the rankings in questions until this issue is resolved. If the consensus is that the rankings are relevant, valid, and should be listed, then it shall be so. Please help us out and contribute by voicing your opinion. If there is little or no written feedback on the subject the addition will be denied.

Thank you for your cooperation. Please begin discussion below. Fliry Vorru (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this is a rather arrogant way to begin a discussion. I particularly like the ALL CAPS and bold text. Second, you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. This is not a democracy. No consensus is required in order to make something worthy of inclusion. Third, I welcome your referral to administrators, and you may want to go ahead and refer yourself. Fourth, and to the point, the inclusion of the Princeton Review ranking is valid and relevant. The Princeton Review is an established and respected company that deals exclusively with undergraduate and graduate program preparation materials, as well as aids to help individuals choose the best program. The Princeton Review publishes annual rankings of colleges and universities in a variety of categories. One of those categories is "best party school." Clearly, this is factor that students consider when making a college choice, whether a person wants to attend a "party school" or does not. The Princeton Review does not engage in trivialities, silliness, or ridiculousness (to name a few comments on the addition of this ranking to the UF page). For example, the UF page has an entire section on athletics. Many people may find this information trival, silly, and ridiculous for inclusion on an article about an academic institution. However, people form opinions about an institution based on these things. The fact that UF ranked as the number one "party school" in the latest Princeton Review rankings is as relevant a fact about UF as how many national championships the football team has won. It should be included, whether you like it or not.Ufuncecu (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The message above looks a lot like ownership to me... --ElKevbo (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I also add that the number of undiscussed reversions by experienced editors related to this topic is rather disturbing. Many involved in this silly edit war should know better. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well this is not ownership per-say. These are members of the Wikiproject University of Florida who are concerned about a ranking that seems to have no substance. Basically only 350 students filled out the survey for Princeton Review. If you do the math that is less than 1% of the student body, and overall this is an unfair representation in my opinion. But seeing as how this is an encyclopedia then it might not be bad to add it to the list of ranking. Lets make sure to establish validity first. Rothamell (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If the aforementioned message came across as ownership, I apologize. I did not intend it to be as such. I have modified the previous message to be less harsh and will modify my tone in further messages to avoid this. Secondly, as for how Wikipedia works, I seem to know enough to give you, Ufuncecu, the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the 3RR. Multiple times we tried to invite you, Ufuncecu, to a discussion of the addition so we can all agree on something without
The point we are trying to make is not that the addition is invalid because of its nature of partying. What we are trying to establish is threefold:
1. Was the study valid? As noted before, the sample size is extraordinarily small. We must take this into account.
2. Can the new info be backed up with citations? You seemed to have provided one, so that step is done. But we need to establish validity first before moving on.
3. Where should the new text go? Though the rankings are from the Princeton Review, the subject matter is decidedly on-academic. Where would be the best place to list this, among the other rankings that UF has achieved outside of the classroom such as one of the best intramural sports schools and one of the most active greek schools.
Again, please accept my apologies for the harsh and owning tone in previous messages. Frankly, I think this addition should be made once we have decided if step #1 has been cleared. However, let's do it together and not bicker childishly; I'm talking to everyone including myself. Fliry Vorru (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether the study is valid is disingenuous. The Princeton Review rankings are from a reputable organization that has been advising students regarding academic program choices for years. It is the ranking itself that is giving everyone a heart attack. If the Princeton Review named UF as the number one “research institution in the US,” that would be added to the article without discussion, and likely with much fanfare. This is an exercise in cherry picking from what appears to be an academic elitist group. It is quite true that people evaluate an institution based on many reputations, and the reputation of being a “party school” is probably more discussed by potential undergraduate students than “gee, what kind of chemistry department do they have?” Some students may say, “I do not want to go to a party school where I will be distracted,” and some may say, “I want to go to a party school because that is what I am looking for.” The Princeton Review understands what factors are relevant in a student’s decision process when looking for a college or university. This is clearly one of them. Further, why should the ranking be removed from the article during discussion? If I were to decide, unilaterally, that a discussion of athletics on the UF main article was trivial and unworthy of an article on an academic institution, and as such, delete the section, and then say, “Let’s discuss it, but in the meantime leave it out of the article,” this would be a ridiculous position for me to take. However, it seems to be the position that has been taken in this instance. There is a double standard here, and I am not sure why. The ranking should be included in the article during discussion. In addition, this notion of needing a consensus in order to include something in an article is insane. If there were a consensus that George W. Bush was not the president, or that the University of Florida were actually located in Wisconsin, or that 2+2=5, a consensus would make these things no less false, and to include or exclude them from an article is communistic. The fact that there is even a discussion of this is ultimately frustrating, and it is being propagated by paternalistic academic elitists. It seems that Fliry Vorru, Jccort, and Horologium, have attempted to appoint themselves the final arbiters of what is worthy of inclusion and what is not. I reject this attempted “self coronation.” And finally, Fliry Vorru, you need to work a little more on revising your opening paragraph, because it remains, as Ufuncecu said, “arrogant.” Are you sure you have the authority to deny inclusion? Show us your badge, please. Sorry if this sounds like “childish bickering,” but I am only following suit. (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Look this whole this is alittle unsetteling. The original poster has already had a history of being blocked. Now this possible sockpuppet may be advocating for the exact same thing. Jccort (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Though I don't appreciate the childish way in which you presented your argument,, I understand your points and I agree with them. You make especially convincing arguments that we should include the ranking, which I have agreed with now on multiple occasions, but I don't think the current location is anything close to appropriate. If the opinion of some people is that the way by which Princeton Review ranked these institutions is valid then I have no objection, as long as long as at least some people agree. I know we're all doing what we think is best for the betterment of the article so let's do our best to work together on this. I promise I'll make every effort to.
At this point I think we need to figure out where the rankings need to be listed and expounded upon. Not only do we need to include this ranking, but the other ones in the article as well. If someone could compile a list of the rankings and post them here, that would help greatly. We need to decide where this information should be listed.
Right now the ranking is listed under "academics", but I don't believe this is appropriate. I think we can create a separate section under "Student Life" that would allow the information to fit well. Perhaps if we moved "Housing" below "Recreation" and then in between the two we can create a new section entitled "Princeton Review rankings". That would result in the following order to the section: 4.1 Career development and internships, 4.2 Greek life, 4.3 Recreation, 4.4 Princeton Review rankings, 4.5 Housing, 4.6 Student government, 4.7 Alma Mater.
How can we make this concept better? Any suggestions? Does this general concept seem acceptable to everyone? Fliry Vorru (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(After E/C)The question is not whether the ranking is accurate, or whether or not it's "defamatory", or whether the Princeton Review said it or not; the question is whether or not it's something that needs to be included in the article. If the Princeton Review said that the UF Medical program was in the bottom 10% nationally (to pull an example out of thin air), that is something that is relevant, even though it's quite unflattering; I'd support its inclusion. If the Princeton Review said that this was the most strait-laced school in the country (as opposed to the top party school) I'd still argue against its inclusion, because it's not something that needs to be included in the article. It's a rather frivolous category added by Princeton Review; it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia for any of the schools listed. Horologium (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Horologium has nailed it! Why does this need to be on Wikipedia? Jccort (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be there because it is as relevant as anything else that is included in the article. Distinguish, if you would, the difference between having a section about UF Greek life, Athletic program, and this ranking? The argument against its inclusion is inconsistent with the different sections that make up the article. It should be included, because it matters to potential students as much as the previous examples. It matters because it is a relevant fact about UF. I agree with Fliry Vorru that a section of rankings would be appropriate, that includes all of UF's rankings as determined by the different organizations. Consequently, let's watch the name calling there, Jccort (sockpuppet). Ufuncecu's history appears to be innocuous, and was blocked after trying to keep the inclusion of this ranking from being deleted. I'm not sure how he was blocked and others weren't, given the history page. (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I can understand both sides of the situation here. On one hand perhaps it is worthy of note in a section lower/later on in the article, but it does not need to be a banner subject for the article nor should it be included in the "Academics" section as it is currently. On the other hand, this ranking is fine and comes from a reliable source, but are we ready to include every ranking by every reputable source in every educational institution's article on Wikipedia? Seems like an unnecessary endeavor. I think the rankings are fine, but are they necessary? Fliry Vorru (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Two things. First, I like the rankings section Ufuncecu added under the student life section. This is a good place for it. Second, in response to Fliry Vorru above, why should we worry about every educational institution's article on Wikipedia? That is an impossible task. I personally think every article about a university or college should include relevant rankings, but I do not think it is our job to make sure that this happens. Let's do what is best for the UF article, irrespective of what other articles do or should do, and don't do or shouldn't do. (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, . Funny that Jccort thought that you were me. We obviously think alike. Anyway, I hope that my addition of the rankings section under the student life section satisfies everyone. I do agree that this is a better place for these types of rankings (which definitely deal with student life explicitly), than under the academics section. I also added a Princeton Review ranking regarding career placement under the academic section. I think this ranking fits there nicely.Ufuncecu (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Jccort turned out to be Makes sense now, he was the first one to bring up the "sockpuppet of Ufuncecu" possibility. Pure genius, as illegal and illegitimate as it was. Here's an idea though, why don't we just put all the rankings in the top paragraph, where a lot of that sort of stuff already seems to be? Suigetsu 01:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved and is not in question any more. Please feel free to contribute to the description of the rankings in its current location. Thanks! Fliry Vorru (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is its current location. Was just giving a suggestion, no need to start automated responses. Suigetsu 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Football National Championships

As there's no playoff, or any NCAA sanctioned selection of National Championships, there are often multiple 'national champions' in a given year. Some schools claim national championships in years that only a few 'selectors' grant. In the case of Florida, there were a number of selectors who declared them National Champions in 1984. See [3]. However, THEY DO NOT CLAIM THIS ONE, for whatever reason. In otherwords, you can argue that Florida actually has THREE national championships, but this would be debatable on whether it's two or three. On the other hand, it is not debatable that Florida CLAIMS only two. NPOV, Verifiability, and all that jazz. This is why I changed the wording. If you wish to change it back, please explain why. FrYGuY (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)