Talk:Chapman University School of Law/Archive 1

Archive 1

ABA Approved

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 think its fine to say that its the only fully ABA approved law school in Orange County, but I don't think it should talk about the other two --if anything it makes Chapman sound like it has an inferiority complex, which I doubt it does considering the issues its competition in having. --Bobak 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Updates to Page

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)

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)

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)

You are fooling no one. Expect admin intervention shortly. --Eleemosynary 02:55, 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)

Wrong. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the basics of Wikipedia. You are removing properly sourced info and replacing it with POV advertising. That's vandalism, and has been reported as such. --Eleemosynary 10:34, 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)

You have now been officially warned on your Talk page, from an admin. No one owes you a one-on-one tutorial on the basics of Wikipedia, especially after you have repeatedly vandalized the page. If you'd like to contribute constructively, I suggest you learn this site's guidelines. But if you're going to continue to make such claims as "all the info I posted is objectively true, to my knowledge," I fear you are past the point of good faith discourse. --Eleemosynary 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Twasn't a request for a one-on-one tutorial -- I merely ask what *specific* basics you were alluding to -- a reasonable request, given that, if you print up the tutorials, its a substantial *ream*! I'm trying to get through it, as I can find the time, but, really, with a job and a *life*, its quite a lot to go through! (Incidentally, if you look at the page about "Tendentious Editing" you'll note that one of the signs they cite is calling someone *else* a vandal! You are the person who first made that charge of me! Yet: the Vandals were a barbaric hoard who willfully destroyed for the sake of destruction. I was trying to add information which, being familiar with this institution, I reasonably believed to be valid -- you are the one who removed that information, wholesale -- not a particularly sentence here or there which could be justifiably construed as showing some bias. So, whose behavior is the closer to the model set by the Vandals?) As for good faith discourse -- you *led* *off* with accusing me of being a "sock" and of providing "astroturf". What footwear and landscaping have to do with the issue, I'm not sure, but from the context, I gather they aren't complimentary? If so, you can hardly claim to have *started* this discussion in good faith, or premised on a mutual assumption of good will.

I'm just trying to improve this article, and bring it more in line with the articles for comparable law schools in the area. What's wrong with that? Hyperion357 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

H, there's no problem with the fact that you are a friend and admirer of the subject of this and other articles that you edit, especially if you admit your relationship so that you won't be unfairly suspected of WP:COI. But you have to subjugate that friendship a bit and not let it come through as a biased point of view (see WP:NPOV) in your edits. Here's what I recommend you try, if your purpose is actually to improve the article: add material a little bit at a time, with sources. If you want to use material copied from someone else's web site, post an item here on the talk page pointing out where they have given a license for unrestricted use of that material, including right to modify it and use it commercially; otherwise, wikipedia can not accept it (sorry, I don't make the rules). As you do small edits, you'll have only small arguments, and you can learn how to format your contributions, how to attach citations, and how to make them fit wikipedia policies and guidelines. Before long, you'll be a productive contributor and people will stop calling you a vandal. Everybody agree? Dicklyon 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Finally!--some _positive_ information as to what needs to be done, as opposed to pointless flaming! I'll look into what I need to do to get such a license. Hyperion357 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that getting a license is not the preferred action here, and not what I recommend. Especially in an article about a controversial subject, it's better to write a neutral report than to use their own words. So if you get a license and post their words, you'll just be making a lot of work for others to try to turn it into something neutral. Don't be too surprised if they just delete it instead, as being too biased to fix. Dicklyon 22:44, 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)

You should definitely learn to edit wikipedia articles yourself so you can help keep things balanced (not that I agree with your assessment of the problem here). Start with small edits, learn a bit of wiki formatting by looking at what others do, and above all, use the "Show preview" button so that we don't have to wade through a history of your failed attempts to get it to some out the way you want. Dicklyon 14:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. I will see what I can do.Arctura 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Spamming?

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)

See above comments. --Eleemosynary 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Information from Princeton Review

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)

Source: http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/profiles/rankings.asp?listing=1035828&LTID=5&intbucketid=

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)

Judging from your snide manner, personal attack (now removed, per Wiki standards), and characterization of the "U.S. News" ranking as "the opinions of some out-of-state legal scholars/judges, who obviously do not have a clue about the current development at Chapman Law," you seem to be the latest Chapman U. employee/devotee intent on turning the article into an advert for Chapman. I hope that's not the case, however. --Eleemosynary 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blah, you can deny/remove my dead on analysis of your nature, but anybody who looks at your talk page will know exactly what I am talking about, you being trigger happy with the revert button, starting edit-wars, and being blocked on several occasions. And you can call me whatever you want (cause I don't give a darn), but I will beat you at your own game by following the rules.

By the way, I ask for suggestions in this section, if you don't have anything constructive to say, then start you rant in a new section. And just to be extra nice, here is a fine article for you so you can educate yourself about the ranking system of the U.S. News: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_college_and_university_rankings_%282007_United_States%29 Arctura 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, try resisting the urge to put PR into the article. --Eleemosynary 09:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pleeez . . . Who's attacking who? You just said I am a vandal hiding behind a different ID down there. And I am nice enough to not remove your entry. Arctura 10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Laureate in Economics

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)

Good idea. The WSJ source is the most independent, so that would be a good one; or use both if you want, but if you add info that's from Chapman's own site, and is controversial at all, you might need an independent reliable source to back it up; or state it as Chapman's opinion as opposed to a sourced fact. See WP:V and WP:RS. Dicklyon 03:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good evening Dicklyon. :) What if I add an additional source from the Orange County Register, the largest newspaper in Orange County to supplement the link to Chapman's own web page? I will put the WSJ article first, the OC register's article second, and Chapman's own page third. I hope this will resolve any lingering issues of reliability.

OC Register's Article about Dr. Smith: http://www.ocregister.com/news/smith-chapman-team-1788191-students-virginia. Arctura 03:40, 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:

6. DeBenedictis, Don J. “Nobel-winning economist to joint Chapman School of Law.” Los Angeles Daily Journal 27 July 2007.

7. http://www.chapman.edu/law/about/dj7_27_07.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctura (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking

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)

Accreditation History

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)

U.S. Supreme Court Law Clerks at Chapman

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)

Hi Dicklyon, thanks for coming back. After reading your comment on the history page, I went ahead and read WP:OR in detail, and I think I finally understand what I was doing wrong. I was synthesizing four sources to advance a position, right? If so, perhaps the following source, which states that Chapman Law's faculty includes "four former Supreme Court clerks," will work?

The source can be found here: http://www.llm-guide.com/university/559/chapman-university-school-of-law. Thank you sir. Arctura 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. Dicklyon 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Then I will proceed to insert the information along with this new reference. Thank you for your help. :) Arctura 22:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and Observations

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)

Then I look forward to adding refs to all those other pages. That would go a long way to dispel the notion that you're shilling for Chapman, under several Wiki IDs. --Eleemosynary 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely, you are engaging in personal attack right now. Why do I have to prove anything? If you want to make unfounded accusations and call me a vandal, then it's up to you to prove that. And no, I am not going to remove your unfounded accusations. I will let others who read this page judge who is the real vandal here.

And after visiting your talk page, I think I know a little bit about your political leaning. Do you dislike Chapman Law because it has a conservative reputation? If that's so, then I would like to inform you that many professors at the school are liberals. Whether you believe that or not is out of my control, but I want you to have the information anyway. Arctura 10:06, 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)

This continual attempt to "work the refs" by sucking up in overly effusive language isn't going to work with Dicklyon, me, or any other editor. --Eleemosynary 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to suck up. I am trying to show respect. And as to you, Eleemosynary, you do not warrant that respect, hence the difference in tone. Arctura 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Plain facts from the sources are fine, but Arctura tends to paint a rosier picture than reliable sources support. Arctura should also defer to other editors in regard to arguments about article order and emphasis, since he has demonstrated a pretty severe conflict of interest with respect to this topic. Dicklyon 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dicklyon, please help me by pointing out what information you think should be changed to make this entry more objective. I am willing to learn how to edit correctly, but please understand that I can't learn to edit like a seasoned pro overnight. And sure, I will defer to other editors in regard to article order and emphasis.

I will be away from my computer for most of the day, but I will get back on the project as soon as I come back. I hope to hear more of your suggestions. Thank you sir. Arctura 18:28, 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)

The following is what I left on Dicklyon's page:

Ok, sir. I understand where you are coming from. And I apologize for not following the rules closely and not engaging Eleemosynary in a civil manner. I will try my best to follow the WP:RS rules and I hope to fix all the glitches soon. Please come back to the page regularly, and if you notice anything that's not objective enough (or needs better sources), please kindly let me know. Thank you. Arctura 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bar Pass Rate Necessary?

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)

Why would it be controversial? If you've got new data, well sourced, add it, including relevant date and citation. I reverted the last guy who changed that number, not because there's anything controversial about it, but because the edit was indistinguishable from any other drive-by vandalism: no edit summary, no citation, no reason to belief it's not random misinformation. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Dicklyon. I am not sure if the information is necessary (other Southern Cal schools do not have such info on their pages). Do you think it should be included? Also, I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone when I said that the topic seems controversial, I guess I was just being overly cautious this time. Arctura (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New Dean -- Tom Campbell

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)

Scholarship retenion

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chapman LawSchool siteLogo.gif

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)