Jump to content

Talk:Fordham University School of Law/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Is this entry really worthy of the section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.248.48 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

self referential

Any claim about citations should itself cite. John wesley 18:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Evening division

Just because Fordham is a top-ranked day program doesn't mean that it's evening porgram is the most competitive because of the day's reputation.; Your edit changes the substance of it. Evening and day standards can vary; if they do not, then citation should be given.--DavidShankBone 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely why did you revert all of PreferenceSeries' edits? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted this edit that you made, that is not sourced/cited, "Its Evening Division is one of the most selective in the nation, as no higher-ranked school offers an evening program.{{fact}}" That is not a sourced fact, but you added it; that's what I removed.
No problem. For the record, this is what you actually did: [1]. Good night. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article reads fine to me now with edits --DavidShankBone 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fordham Law Part Time is now ranked #5, not #2, as verifiable by the us news and world report page you cited.

Crowley Program in International Human Rights

This section reads more like an advertisement brochure than an encyclopedia. I think it should be gone over, edited thoroughly, and citations given.

I defluffed the section. This is all sourced against Fordham's website cited within that section. All is true, wording is neutral and factual. The program really is selective, meaning that many apply but few get in. I am sure that's factual enough. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Law Journals

A good project (for somebody else) would be to create pages for the journals, similar to Yale Law Journal, Columbia Law Review, et. al. Even just stubs with maybe inception dates and basic information, and a photo of a recent cover page of each journal. Editorial boards (not staff?). This will also raise each journal's profile, which would benefit the school. --DavidShankBone 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, but no editorial boards. The switch every year and the info is not included on any other such article. They're all NN, anyway, so their names would be encyclopedically inconsequential. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think senior editorial boards would be appropriate, and I don't think it would be difficult to keep them updated. It would be informative, and a person doesn't need to be notable to have a mention in an article, only to merit their own article. It doesn't make much difference to me; I wouldn't care if they weren't included, but I think there's a better argument for inclusion than exclusion (in this instance). Good projects for each journal to undertake. Right now there is no consistency in the format of other journal articles. --DavidShankBone 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If HLR not; YLJ not, Columbia LR not ---> Ford. J. Corp. & Fin. L. definitely not. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not the ultimate Wikipedia authority, but you talk like you are. It's not a decision for you, alone, to make. --DavidShankBone 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the intention. My opinion. Liable to be overturned by consensus. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My first instinct is that e-boards shouldn't be included. But, forget about HLR, YLJ, etc. - is there a general WP policy on scholarly publications? I do think that it'd be appropriate for notable journal alumni to be mentioned. Wl219 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK so I went ahead and created a stub for JCFL. You two go take a look. Wl219 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

News/Jonathon Edington

Should he be added instead to List of Fordham University people? Being accused of murder isn't particularly flattering, but nevertheless notable yes? Wl219 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Accused, eh? I think the parties have uh... stipulated to that one, WL... :) No, I don't think he's notable until he attracts "multiple non-trivial published sources" not all relating to one incident. In the first "15 minutes" after something happens, there's a tendency to memorialize that forever on WP. Let's wait a bit - he will probably be forgotton in a couple of weeks - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's keep an eye on him, though, and see if he turns into a John Mark Karr or not. --DavidShankBone 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
When are one of you going to address the first issue, that no caps are used?

Sigh. It seems we're in the middle of another revert war, this time about Edington. Admittedly 3 editors do not represent a wide consensus, but Crz, David, and I all seem to agree that he belongs under alumni. Not only because he is an alumnus. And as no other editors have commented here, I submit that this decision to include should stand. I'm open to further discussion and consensus-seeking, but in the meantime I think the article should be semi-protected against vandals. Wl219 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This article exaggerates a bit!

Fordham is a "top-tier" school? At 32 on the U.S. News list? You guys have got to be kidding. That is really excessive original research, especially considering that Fordham pales in comparison to Columbia and NYU. --Coolcaesar 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Top tier

For the last frickin' time, the US News rankings list all 190 ABA accredited law schools.[2] The top 100 collectively are Tier 1 & 2. Fordham is ranked 32, which by any measure puts it in the top tier. Wl219 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for improving Fordham Law page

I think we should resurrect the "News about Fordham Law" section, with Russian's suggestions in mind, and take the last three paragraphs of the introduction and make them more News-y and put them in there. There's too much wording at the beginning, which should be more a "snapshot of the school" as opposed to puffing it up. Check out the articles I wrote for St. Brigid's Church and Tompkins Square Park Police Riot to see what I'm talking about. Fordham Law, and its students, don't need to prove themselves despite random jerks like CoolCeasar. The school and its student body stand on their own merits. A sign of that is that Allen & Overy now recruit on campus; when I worked there for four years, they only went to the Ivy League. This may be due to the influence of Pamela Chapiga Rogers, who became a partner a few years ago; she is a Fordham alumni and taught clinics at the school. So, trying to prove ourselves in the beginning of what has become an excellent article is no longer necessary. Also, we need to put in Eddington's significance, like everyone else's. I can do all this, or one of you can. After we reach consensus. Lastly, I think someone should contact the editors of the journals to get them to have a staff member create the other journal pages. It's a small thing we can do that will help raise the profile of the school (which helps all of us). Once we get the page perfected, let's nominate it as an example of an excellent article. --DavidShankBone 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "postgraduates" in the info box I think it should just read "students." It looks weird and self-aware as postgraduates. --DavidShankBone 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Alumni cat

FYI, I have created and populated Category:Fordham University School of Law alumni. -- Y not? 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fordhamuniversityseal.jpg

Image:Fordhamuniversityseal.jpg 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 insure 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.

Notable Alumni (old)

I have moved this conversation from the top of the page to this section. As seen from the dates this conversation is old. --Burnsie510 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the late John Mitchell, Watergate atty genl, was a Fordham law alum, also what about Judge Denny Chin? John wesley 13:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Federal Judicial Center contains bios of all Article III judges, including the schools they went to. Judge Chin did indeed. Crzrussian 14:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So did John N. Mitchell as his article plainly states Crzrussian 14:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

First, WP:ELs go in the EL section (or the one used as a citation needs to be converted to a footnote), we do not use ibid on Wikipedia, and the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded. The lists need to be converted to prose, and the alumni list should really be trimmed down (maybe a List of Fordham...alumni?) and the trivia (i.e. popular culture needs to go). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fordham University School of Law. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference moved from main page -- did not refer to anything

[1] Greedyhalibut (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [News Ranks Fordham Law #30 in Nation]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fordham_University_School_of_Law/Archive_1&oldid=1192879128"