This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chapman University School of Law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed the article to read that Chapman is the only fully ABA approved law school in Orange County, Ca, because the other two, Western State and Whittier, are either provisionally accredited or on probation. It merits a mention, but dunno if it is mentioned in the proper place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.227.194 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 July 2006
I have added more information, to provide a more complete picture of this University, on a level with other law schools in the area, such as Loyola Marymount. 10/12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion357 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added more information about this university, correct to the best of my information, about this university -- trying to bring it on track with neighboring, comparable, law schools Hyperion357 07:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You stated:
No, you've added several paragraphs of advertising and POV, plagiarized directly from the Chapman website. In accordance with Wiki standards, it has been removed. --Eleemosynary 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Advertising?
Everything now stated is true.
POV?
What statements are subjective in nature? Point them out, and I will edit them. To my ::knowledge, everything stated is objectively true, and, hence, no POV.
Plagiarized?
I'm concerned about the paucity of information about this fine institution, and have received permission to draw from their website.
If you have permission, and citation, then its *not* plargiarized.
-- Also, this is not a newly formed account. I've had it for years -- although I use it sparingly. Hyperion357 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
What for? Providing more substantive info than the article had before? I'm *trembling*! ;-/. What is your beef anyway? Admittedly some of the formatting is not optimal -- I'm still sorting through all the documentation for Wikipedia formatting, etc. but I have received official approval to use info from their website, and I have provided references -- therefore, its not plagiarization. To be "plagiarized", the source has to be unacknowledged and unapproved. Neither of those applies. Hyperion357 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of getting through the documentation for Wikipedia, but there is a *hell* of a _lot_ of it! Specific references would be appreciated-- what *specific* "basics" are you alluding to? That being said, all the info I posted is objectively true, to my knowledge. If there is any language that is subjective or shows a specific bias, point it out (as I've said before!), and I'll edit it to read more objectively. My edit provided significantly more substantive information than yours, and therefore would be more use to someone trying to get info on this law school. If you dislike my edit, add comparable substantive info -- not the same, barebones, two or three paragraphs. Undoing an article that has a lot of useful information for one that has very little -- *that* seems more like vandalism to me! Hyperion357 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I will be the first one to admit that I don't know jack about how to edit wiki articles. With that said, just one simple look at the conversation above shows who the real troll is, no?
Anyways, why does the article say that the 4th tier is "(the lowest ranking assigned)" by the U.S. News? While this is true, the source material itself does not actually say that, does it? In other words, the language should be removed because it's not supported by the purported source.
And I can't believe Eleemosynary actually suggested that the tier info is meaningless unless the "lowest ranking assigned" language is used. Just where is this "previous consensus" information that he/she is referring to located? And if such consensus (which makes no sense) indeed exists, then numerous law schools' wiki entries will have to be revised. Don't believe me? Just visit Thomas Jefferson School of Law and Whittier Law School's entries. I suppose Eleemosynary is the go-to person for this revision task because he/she is so passionate about following the rules. Ha!
And surely, anybody who is familiar with the U.S. News ranking system knows that this information is biased without further explanations. And by "further information" I mean that the entry should explain "why" Chapman is ranked so low. In other words, a simple mention that the 4th tier is the lowest ranking assigned is useless info at best (this is why I said that the "consensus" mentioned by Eleemosynary makes no sense). It does not serve any purpose other than disparaging the institution, and I would venture to guess that the insertion of such information is intentional, done with ulterior motives.
In conclusion, as it stands now, this entry about Chapman Law is incredibly biased and I am sure this is in violation of wiki's spirit. Perhaps I should learn how to edit the entry myself so I can put an end to the flagrant injustice that's being perpetrated here. Arctura 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
So ... when you reduce the amount of meaningful information about this Law School, its _editing_, but when I *improve* it, its _spamming_?
If you are going to float such accusations, you need to make the article more comprehensive, not less so. Hyperion357 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion357 ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear all,
The following is what the Princeton Review has to say about Chapman Law. This information is based on surveys of actual students, not the opinions of some out-of-state legal scholars/judges, who obviously do not have a clue about the current development at Chapman Law. Therefore, I submit to you that this information is more useful than what the U.S. News provides. While I am not advocating for the removal of the U.S. News ranking info, I do believe that the insertion of the information below will provide potential Wiki-users with a more objective view about the school.
Rank List #7 Best Classroom Experience #1 Best Quality of Life #5 Professors Rock (Legally Speaking)
With that said, I have to disclose that the source link ask users to create an account (free of charge) in order to view the information. I wonder if this is going to be a problem if we use the link as a reference/footnote? Any specific suggestions is welcome here.
Thanks! Arctura 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear all,
I also plan on inserting a brief mention of Dr. Smith's tenure as a Professor of Economics and Law at Chapman Law.
I have two sources for this. Any suggestions?
1.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/07/26/little-chapman-university-lures-big-name-in-economics/
2.
http://www.chapman.edu/law/faculty/smith.asp
Arctura
02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
To increase the accessibility to the article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal (which requires a subscription fee), I have crossed referenced Chapman Law's web page. Therefore, the citations are presented as follows:
"In 2007, Chapman Law added Dr. Vernon L. Smith, who won the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work in experimental economics, to the list of its faculty." Um -- doesn't he work at Chapman University (teaching Econ) and not Chapman University Law School. I am about 90% sure he has nothing to do with law classes (same name, and yes, they are across the street from one another, but different entities). This article doesn't make the distinction well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.40.105 ( talk) 03:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear all,
Chapman Law has two law journals. The first one is Chapman Law Review. The second one is Nexus: a Journal of Opinion. According to Washinton & Lee Law School's submissions and ranking system, Chapman's law review ranks 59/262 in the "general law review" category and 93/1424 in the "total law journals" category. I would like to add this information because judicial/academic references to a law school's law review is perhaps one of the best indicators of its academic strength. Before I proceed to insert the information, however, I welcome your suggestions in this matter.
Source: http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx.
Finally, if you have any trouble using the ranking system, feel free to leave me a comment and I will explain how it works, although the explanation link on top of the source page should be satisfactory enough.
Thanks! Arctura 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the accreditation history is a controversial topic, but I still proceeded to find all the references needed to support my revision. If you have any suggestions, please let me know in this section. Thank you. Arctura 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
They are: Celestine McConville, John Eastman, Lawrence Rosenthal, and Steven Krone. You can check the references in the main entry for that information. And if you want to cross-check whether they work for Chapman Law right now, please go here: http://www.chapman.edu/law/administration/faculty.asp.
If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thank you. Arctura 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Man, if what I am trying to do for Chapman Law's entry does not qualify as " good faith," then I really don't know what does. I just checked many law schools' wiki entries and they barely have any references! But no matter, I rather follow the rules than being called a vandal. :) Arctura 09:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr.
Dicklyon, if you are here, please post your thoughts about the main entry below. If I have done anything inappropriate, please kindly share your insights with me so I can learn from my mistakes. And I ask you to please inform
Eleemosynary to stop reverting the entries that other people made without first having a good faith discussion. Thank you sir.
Arctura
12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok,
Eleemosynary, I want to apologize to you for not following the rules closely. After discussing this matter with
Dicklyon, I have decided to ask you to help me.
I am new, and I don't know all the rules, so if you would, please offer me your assistance in becoming a better editor. I do want to learn, and if you can kindly tell me where I am doing wrong (and perhaps even show me how things are supposed to be done), I will really appreciate that. I look forward to learning from
Dicklyon and you. And I assure you that I will try my best to follow the rules and be objective.
Arctura
09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if listing the pass rate is necessary because other law schools in Southern California do not include this information on their wiki-pages. But if you guys find the information to be useful, you can find the most current official pass rate here (just run a "Ctrl + F" search for Chapman): http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/JULY2007STATS.pdf.
Because this seems to be a controversial issue, I won't edit the information myself and will leave it to other editors instead. Thanks! Arctura ( talk) 06:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chapman LawSchool siteLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Chapman Law has a new Dean, Tom Campbell. Citations: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202483266938&Chapman_hires_former_congressman_as_its_new_dean&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 http://www.ocregister.com/news/campbell-289714-law-school.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/former-us-rep-campbell-is-new-chapman-law-dean.html' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.146.89 ( talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems like we should just get rid of this section or at least substantially modify it, given the article's overall length, as this sort of seems like a bit of minutae. For example the expression "bait and swtich" seems like an especially harsh characterization of the scholarship retention policy: this whole section seems a bit like a particular bit of sour grapes from someone-- it may be a perfectly sensible policy for a school with such a high tuition for example. I'm going to delete this entire section (or substantially modify it) in a week from now unless I hear something on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter42 ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)