Talk:University of Mississippi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Mississippi (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (marked as Top-importance).
 

FYI to current and former students[edit]

Please see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) and add yourself by placing the userbox on your WikiPedia page. -- ALLSTARecho 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ole Miss/plantation owner[edit]

While the first cite I removed didn't appear to support the assertion that this was the source of the nickname, the Sesquicentennial History connects the dots fairly explicitly. I think it can stay on the article now -- other opinions?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"The University of Mississippi: A Sesquicentennial History" by Sansing (1999) does not state this is why Elma Meek chose the name. Additionally, the sentence mentioning this goes unreferenced and unsupported with any further writing. Sansing (1999) states the following, "In 1897 the Greek societies established a college yearbook, which they titled Ole Miss, a name suggested by Elma Meek, a student from Oxford. The term "Ole Miss" was a title domestic slaves in the Old South used to distinguish the mistress of the plantation house from the young misses of the family" (p. 168). This statement has been the basis of the claim "Ole Miss" was chosen due to slave connotations ever since, appearing in numerous newspaper articles and books after this one was published. To this day, there is no definitive proof Elma Meek chose this name because of this connotation. In fact, the term "ole" is a folksy term commonly used in the middle nineteenth-century to show reflective endearment, as per the New Oxford American Dictionary. The abbreviation "Miss." was the official government and postal abbreviation for the state from the mid 1800s until 1963, when the two character convention was accepted. With these facts in mind and no record of her actual opinion, it is reasonable the name had nothing to do with slavery connotations and is only an inadvertent homonym. Personally, I find it hard to believe a student would want to refer to a university as if it were her slave mistress. There is no endearment in that idea, and endearment is the university's stated purpose behind the nickname. 89.211.58.141 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Really, the ultimate origin is unknown." statement by Dr. Charles Eagles, William F. Winter Professor of History at the University of Mississippi, on the Massachusetts School of Law's "Books of Our Time" broadcast series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.216.41 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And if you continue listening he then offers his professional opinion on the most likely explanation given the available evidence. That's how history works - you put together the best available evidence to create the most likely explanation or account of events. Dr. Winter is eminently qualified to offer his professional opinion on this topic and he has done so not only in that video but presumably in the book about which was speaking. That he holds an endowed chair at the University of Mississippi strengthens his claims considerably since he (a) presumably has excellent access to the institution's archives and the resources of the local area and (b) is very unlikely to be making this claim with an interest to hurt or besmirch the university.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that this institution has deep historical roots in prejudice and slavery. But that's the university's history, good or bad, and it should be included in this encyclopedia article and not hidden or erased. ElKevbo (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, something being "likely" does not equal a verifiable fact. The original yearbook is on display in the library and there are dedications to Ms. Elma Meek in other yearbooks, as well. All support the official university stand and none say anything about it being related to a slave term. Wikipedia content must not be original research and offer a neutral point of view. Saying that Ole Miss is something "likely" against the verifiable citation from official University website is against the terms and purpose of Wikipedia. Specifically listed: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.216.41 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you misunderstand (a) Wikipedia's practices related to edit warring and conflict resolution, (b) Wikipedia's policy related to original research, and (c) the academic discipline of history. The university's self-serving denial of its roots in slavery are no excuse to whitewash the article by omitting the work of professional historians.
Given the specific nature of this material and your insistence on it being censored, I can't help but wonder if you have a particular interest in this subject. Can you please clarify if you have a bias or conflict of interest? ElKevbo (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement in question represents on opinion as a certain and verifiable fact. This goes against Wikipedia's neutrality tenet, one of the three basic tenets of Wikipedia. Additionally, Dr. Eagles never suggests slaves were forced to use a term, but that the term "ol' missus" is eye dialect. To say they were forced is also misleading from this reference. This is the reason I am removing it: it misrepresents opinion as fact, and is against Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.216.41 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you be ok if the assertion were attributed and did not use the word "forced?" ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I would still not support the assertion with only the term "forced" removed. It is still not a verifiable fact and not encyclopedic. The certainty is "Ole Miss" was Ms. Elma Meeks' idea, and her reasons for that idea are unknown. To assert she derived the term from another without a citation from her or her estate is supposition, not fact. Due of the nature of the term, it could be seen as somewhat slanderous. Additionally, I understand "Ole Miss" is a little homonymic to "ol' missus," but that does not constitute etymology. To assert so is misleading. In the end, the statement in question is not a neutral statement. However, I believe this is something that should remain on the discussion or talk pages.(66.8.216.41 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
The professional opinion of a tenured historian is notable; your opinion is not. Your censorship of this article will not be tolerated. ElKevbo (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(unident) Just so we're all clear, here is the specific passage from Dr. Eagles's book "The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss:"

When students in 1897 named their new yearbook Ole Miss, they began the university's long association with the term. According to tradition, the name had two possible derivations. One suggested that Miss was simply the diminutive name for Mississippi, whole Ole referred to the antebellum and Confederate periods. A more likely explanation claimed that it came "from darkey dialect." [emphasis added] Previously, the shortened phrase referred to the "Old Mistress," the name slaves used for the wife of the antebellum southern planter. It captured the "beauty of the tender affection of the slaves for the gracious ministrations of their owners" and "the glamorous days when the lovely lady...within the sphere of her domain reigned supreme. Therefore, the term 'Ole Miss' is one which is redolent of the romance, the chivalry, the beauty, the culture, the graciousness and the finish traditions of the Southland." It again conjured up "the love and all the wonderful incidents thereof inspired in the hears of those to whom 'Ole Miss' ministered in the slave days."

Dr. Eagles cites a 1932 article from the Ole Miss Alumni News and a 1939 article as a footnote for this paragraph.

According to the author's webpage, the book won several awards, including the McLemore Prize from the Mississippi Historical Society for the best Mississippi history book in 2009, the 2010 Mississippi Institute of Arts and Letters Award for nonfiction, and the 2010 Lillian Smith Award in non-fiction. The university was also not shy about trumpeting these awards.

This, of course, is in addition to the clear statement above from Sansing's 1999 book "The University of Mississippi: A Sesquicentennial History." So you're expecting us to believe that your opinion is more important and trustworthy than these sources, at least one of which (a) was written by a historian with impeccable credentials, (b) was peer reviewed and published by a university press, and (c) received multiple awards, including awards from regional historical societies? That strains credulity and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you that the derivation is unknown, just as Dr. Eagles says. If you wish to state, "The etymology of the term Ole Miss is uncertain," then that would be factual and neutral. There may be opinions from people with impressive credentials, but these opinions are still not fact. For example, Dr. Sansing's statement in his book has no citation or reference. That's because they are opinions, therefore may be biased and are not neutral. Wikipedia's neutrality tenet says do not treat opinion as fact. The goal is to be encyclopedic. It would be different if you had a citation from Elma Meek or the 1897 Ole Miss editorial board, who did not state a slave mistress was the derivation in their "Raison d' Etre" in the 1897 yearbook. I am not stating an opinion, just that the statement that was deleted was not neutral. Neutrality is the reason I stand by the deletion.(66.8.216.41 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
No, the correct claim would be something like: "Official university sources state that the nickname "Ole Miss" comes from... However, other sources authored by professional historians offer an alternative explanation..." How's that?
And please, please, PLEASE read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Information published in reliable sources is rarely open to the kind of criticism you're trying to level; if you believe it's incorrect then the proper course of action is for you to publish your criticisms and then we can cite that. And NPOV only applies to Wikipedia authors. Others are allowed to have opinions and in fact they usually should have opinions. In this instance, professionals in the field have published in reliable sources their opinion as supported by the available evidence. If we follow your recommended course of action, we'll need to go through every article on every topic and add "In the opinion of __" to everything we write. That's not how we work; it's unworkable and unreasonable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV says opinions should not be presented as facts, to avoid seriously contested assertions as facts, use non-judgemental language, and accurately reflect the relative prominence of opposing views. The phrase in question was, "The name Ole Miss originated from a term of respect for a plantation owner's wife that the slaves were forced to use," without further qualification. That violates all four NPOV I listed at least and is why I deleted it. It appears you now agree the phrase is not neutral, so I hope we can move the discussion forward. However, I must assert that an opinion published in a reliable source by a reputable person is still only an opinion, and it should not be presented as a fact. It should be presented as an opinion of the author as stated in WP:RSOPINION. The facts remain Elma Meek came up with it, it won a contest for the yearbook in 1897, and was adopted as a term of endearment for the school years later. There is a copy of this book in the university library. There is a raison d’être in the book that makes no suggestion a slave term is the source of the title, and there is no further evidence from Elma Meek. Therefore, it is contestable and judgmental to now say Elma Meek stole the term from slave vernacular with such certainty. Lastly, I can tell you are determined and passionate about this subject, and I respect that, but please remain civil and know my intentions are in good faith. I am only deleting a statement that was in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. (66.8.216.41 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
Stop wasting our time with your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and historiography and answer the question. ElKevbo (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What question is going unanswered? Perhaps we should seek conflict resolution.(198.228.223.130 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
No, the correct claim would be something like: "Official university sources state that the nickname "Ole Miss" comes from... However, other sources authored by professional historians offer an alternative explanation..." How's that? ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. How about leave the current paragraph since that is cited and official from the university, and make an ancillary section after the mascot discussion devoted only to the relatively recent contention on the sobriquet? It needs to be proportional and provide proper weight, but cover all the information available. The university stance went uncontested for 102 years before a source offered a differing explanation, and Dr. Eagles does admit the origin is truly unknown and possibly unrelated to black jargon of the time. Thoughts? (JillPope 7 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
Why should the "official" explanation take precedence over the one published by eminent scholars in reliable sources? And where do you come up with the idea that the explanation "went unchallenged for 102 years?" Have you conducted a thorough review of the literature? Did you even see the sources cited above from the first half of the 20th century?? ElKevbo (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The University of Mississippi; Its first hundred years (J.A. Cabaniss, 1949) describes the inception just as the university does, and the dedication to Elma Meek in the 1945 yearbook does, too. From the 1897 yearbook to Sansing's book is 102 years, so that's where I got that and it's just demotic. As far as source material, Sansing's assertion is unreferenced, so this is considered a primary source and hard to use. Eagles is better because its a secondary source, but when he admits, "Really, the ultimate origin is unknown" and gives multiple likely origins there's too much uncertainty and opinion. In the end, it's the university's intellectual property, and the official tune that it was a just made up phrase (akin to "Mizzu" or "Wazzu") hasn't changed since it began to be used. The fact the school never used "Ole Miss" like it means a plantation wife is significant, too. For example, the university has voted for a "Miss Ole Miss" for homecoming since the 1920s. If it meant something different, why not just vote for an "Ole Miss"? Just a thought. (JillPope 7 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC))
I suggest that a combination of the above should be possible, with something like "The etymology of the term Ole Miss is uncertain. Official university sources state that the nickname "Ole Miss" comes from... However, other sources authored by professional historians offer a potential alternative explanation...". Allens (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! ElKevbo (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Time for "Ole Miss"[edit]

Virtually everything about the University of Mississippi, including the football helmets and even the web site (www.olemiss.edu), now front the "Ole Miss" designation. Is it now time for Wikipedia to reverse the redirection from Ole Miss to University of Mississippi so that the article is titled "Ole Miss"? This change, if it occurs, has the added advantage of obviating confusion over the names of the three doctoral-granting public universities in Mississippi--Ole Miss, University of Southern Mississippi, and Mississippi State University. Rammer (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah. ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mascot and Nickname[edit]

The student-led effort to bring an on-field mascot back to Ole Miss ended on October 6, 2010, with the selection of the "Rebel Black Bear" concept. This was only a proposal to the university, who then turned the idea over to the athletics department for further development and eventual implementation 1. The final, official on-field mascot will not be presented until after this process is complete. Therefore, to place "Rebel Black Bear" concept as the school's mascot on the Wiki page is misleading and should be removed until it is official. It is very possible the final on-field mascot will have a different name or look that the initial concept. The name "Rebels" remains Ole Miss' official athletics nickname 2. This is similar to Purdue University who has a nickname and a mascot ("Boilermakers" and the "Boilermaker Special"), which are not one in the same 3. Ole Miss' Wiki should reflect a similar distinction once the on-field mascot is official. (89.211.58.138 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

Enrollment figures for Ole Miss[edit]

The enrollment figures for Ole Miss listed include ALL Ole Miss campuses, yet the location listed is "Oxford". There are only about 15,800 students in Oxford at Ole Miss. Putting 19,500 as the enrollment of Ole Miss is deceptive. If that is the standard, then the University of Alabama's all-campus enrollment is 50,000. Nobody does this. There's no need to pad the stats. Ole Miss is unique because it is a smaller campus and tight knit community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.0.83 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Relating to the enrollment figures, I know that I'm replying to an old message but the best figures to use are probably the fall figures put out by the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. They are available here http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/ihl/newsstory.asp?ID=1254 for fall 2016. Mississippi universities typically don't have their official numbers until after the final day to drop without owing money. The University of Mississippi numbers here are presented in three ways, University of Mississippi (underlined) (24,250) for all students in the UM 'system', including the students at the UMMC institution in Jackson, A University of Mississippi number (not underlined) (21,260) which is just the Oxford, MS campus students, and then a UMMC number (2,990).Traicovn (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We take different approaches in different articles so whichever one you decide to do here is fine as long as it's (a) clearly labeled for everyone to understand and (b) supported by high quality sources.
I also caution our colleague who tried to edit this article and the University of Southern Mississippi article earlier today to state that USM enrolls more students: Don't make a false comparison by limiting it to comparing the enrollment in one UM campus to the total enrollment of all USM campuses. That's dishonest and unethical. If you must make the comparison, it has to be a legitimate one comparing things that are, well, comparable e.g., just the two main campuses, the combined enrollments at all campuses. ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Largeness[edit]

The first sentence says that it is the largest university in the state while at the same time, the last sentence of the first paragraph says it second largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.53.194 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion[edit]

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:Mississippi Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

racism at Ole Miss[edit]

I am not familiar with this subject, but maybe someone can look at the following CNN video and see what, if anything, should be included in this article, per:

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on University of Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for Flagship University Designation edit[edit]


In reference to an ongoing debate about the title, "flagship" and which university within the state of Mississippi that should carry the title — according to [Flagship#Education], "The College Board, for example, 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."

While the same entry notes that state universities often self-designate themselves as the "flagship" institution, I'd like to submit the following stories for discussion that the University of Mississippi should be designated as Mississippi's flagship institution per CollegeBoard.org and the recent announcement of R-1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education

RyanWhittington (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing this discussion, the editor who requested this edit unilaterally performed the edit one month later. Altamel (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-opening it. An editor removed the flagship designation today. I restored it per the College Board link above specificially designating it a Flagship university, but the other editor removed it again. Other opinions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University of Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Faulkner in the lead?[edit]

Should we mention Faulkner in the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

In order to illustrate Frank P. Gates, could someone please upload pictures of (Old) University High School, Barr Hall, Bondurant Hall, Farley Hall (also known as Lamar Hall), Faulkner Hall, Hill Hall, Howry Hall, Isom Hall, Longstreet Hall, Martindale Hall, Vardaman Hall, the Cafeteria/Union Building, and the Wesley Knight Field House on Wikimedia Commons please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677:Not sure if you can help with this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I am on campus and can help with these (I am sitting in Lamar Hall right now). You may wish to check here, too. Lyceum–The Circle Historic District I will notify you on your user page. Bob Cummings (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Please ping me when you have taken and uploaded them!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

BobCummings - please express your concerns regarding any inaccuracies introduced in the lead on this TP rather than on my user TP. Also, please read MOS:LEAD, which states that the lead is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. I would suggest that the lead section follow the guidelines of College_and_university_article_advice and be factually correct. As it currently stands, the lead section gives WP:UNDUE to the 1962 riots; while they are certainly important to the history of the University and essential to its identity, roughly one-third of the current lead section is dedicated to this event. The current version of the lead section also contains at least one factual error, indicating that a president of another university was president of the University of Mississippi (which has never had "presidents.") I ask you to reconsider your edits. Thank you. Bob Cummings (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. The riots were not only historic, they were pivotal and it does belong in the lead. WP doesn't censor such important historic material. I fixed the error you mentioned, and updated/modified the last paragraph a bit to reflect the university's long standing commitment. Atsme📞📧 03:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits.Bob Cummings (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Only flagship or one of two?[edit]

A few editors are in disagreement about whether this university is the state's only flagship or if it's one of two flagships alongside Mississippi State University. We have at least one reliable source that includes both of these universities as flagships. Since the flagship designation is usually an informal and unregulated one, it's common for some states to have multiple universities that one or more experts have legitimately recognized as a flagship. That's the case here.

I propose that the following questions need to be answered:

1. Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that the University of Mississippi is a flagship university? 2. Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that Mississippi State University is a flagship university?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" then we need to include that information in both articles.

I'll notify the editors who have been involved in this discussion at both articles and also drop a note on the Mississippi State University Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

To begin, see WP policy WP:EXCEPTIONAL. There are multiple RS that support Ole Miss being the flagship - one would not be enough to substantiate such an exceptional claim. Following are the RS that support Ole Miss as flagship: CBS, Mississippi Today, U.S. News, NBC News, The Guardian, and on and on. I have requested that this article be semi-protected and will be happy to change my position if RS substantiate the exceptional claim (exceptional claims require exceptional sources) that the state has 2 flagship universities Atsme📞📧 14:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the answer to the first question ("Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that the University of Mississippi is a flagship university?") is yes. So we now turn to the second question ("Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that Mississippi State University is a flagship university?"). First, it's entirely plausible that more than university in a state can be considered a flagship; our own Flagship article makes this point quite well. So it's not an extraordinary claim but an ordinary one that still requires sufficient evidence.
So we're not looking to see evidence that could support the claim that "Mississippi State University is a flagship university?" We've already brought up the 2006 USA Today source which is clear but not as authoritative as a scholarly source and over a decade old. It's unsurprising that Mississippi State University itself has made the claim several times (e.g., here, and here); it appears to be or have been at some point part of their boiler plate language describing the institution. That claim is repeated at Mississippi.org, the website of the state's "lead economic and community development agency." (Amusingly, the same website has both university's claiming to be the state's flagship university; presumably the agency allowed each university to submit their own description with minimal oversight or editing.) A quick search doesn't turn up many other promising sources supporting this claim; I am omitting several unreliable ranking systems and websites that support the claim but can't be taken seriously.
I recommend letting this discussion remain open for a reasonable period of time so (a) others can participate and (b) additional evidence can be found and evaluated. ElKevbo (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Then by your own admission regarding the lack of RS, please self revert, and call an RfC if you want consensus to decide. That is a much better option than edit warring over an unverifiable claim of two flagship universities. Atsme📞📧 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have contributed in 2018 (other than just copy editing) and have an interest in this article (I'm not sure how IP pings work but feel free to add them if they can be pinged or if I've missed any others): Zigzig20s, Jon Kolbert, Zchrykng, L293D, Bongwarrior, PlyrStar93, SarekOfVulcan, BobCummings Atsme📞📧 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the conversation. I believe that this is a question of definition, i.e., (a) which definition of “flagship” applies, and (b) does the institution meet that definition?
(a) which definition of flagship applies. In the discussion above, there are several definitions of “flagship” offered. The Wikipedia entry, definitions used by the College Board (and other institutions which reference an institution as flagship, such as the US Department of Education, Standard and Poor’s, state higher education agencies, etc.). I would offer that we also ought to consider any definitions offered by Wikiproject Universities; I searched there and did not find any. Thus, the first question is to determine which of these several (or others yet to be identified) definitions of flagship should be used. I have looked at several discussions about the use of flagship on talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brigham_Young_University/Archive_2#Flagshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brigham_Young_University/Archive_3#De_facto_Flagship?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brigham_Young_University/Archive_3#Flagship_issue_at_BYUhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Association_of_American_Universities#"Flagships"_etc.and most of them reference the Wikipedia entry on the term flagship to attempt to clear up disputes. Therefore, it would seem in keeping with current practice to apply the definition of flagship as laid out in the Wikipedia entry on Flagship.The entry on flagship makes it clear that while the term has several common features (best-known institution in a state, oldest institution in the state, public institution, largest institution in the state, most selective institution in the state, most research-intensive university in the state), it does not offer one clear definition for flagship.It does also not indicate if any of these characteristics are exclusive, i.e., if an institution is not public, it cannot be a flagship.The entry also makes it plain that more than one institution can claim the term flagship.
(b) does the institution meet the definition Since there is no clear definition of flagship, and more than one institution can claim to be flagship, I would conclude that as long as the institution itself claims the title of flagship, then it is due the title. I could imagine that a state agency might weigh in and make an official designation of flagship, but as far as I can tell, this is not the case in Mississippi. Further, I would suggest that the lead be reworded to mention that the University is one of two universities in the state to claim flagship status, and that the other institution (Mississippi State University) be mentioned in a footnote to that statement. I would suggest a similar wording for the Mississippi State University article. My reasoning is that each article should be dedicated to describing its subject, and that introducing the title of another subject so early in the lead section shifts the attention away from the primary subject.
Thanks again for inviting me to the conversation. Bob Cummings (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)