Talk:Cooley Law School/Archive 1

POV material
An anonymous editor, using different IPs, continues to place material into the article claiming Cooley is the worst law school. This clearly violates NPOV and so I have repeatedly reverted this material's inclusion. Claiming anything is the worst is subjective and the sources the anon uses are blogs, usually not reliable sources. SMP0328. (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ann Arbor Campus
Cooley recently announced that it would be suspending first year enrollment on its Ann Arbor campus, but official sources have not announced whether or not the school will be closing the branch for good. It's important not to speculate on the Ann Arbor branch's future.Bomberjacket5 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. The Ann Arbor campus is still open and Cooley has said that it will not permit first year enrollment for the Michaelmas 2014 term. SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Name/Affiliation with WMU
The ABA and Higher Learning Commission have merely approved the affiliation of WMU and Cooley Law, but it is not yet set in stone. Please refrain from changing the name of the law school until Cooley has officially done so itself. Additionally, most other law schools that have their own names but are affiliated with larger universities simply go by their law school name on their Wikipedia page (such as AU's Washington College of Law, CUA's Columbus School of Law, and Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law). As of now, the law school still plans on being called the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Even if it does change it's name, this is a page for the law school, not Western Michigan University, so the law school should not be referred to as merely "WMU."Bomberjacket5 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Both WMU and Cooley have said that the name of the law school would become "Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School" (Source). This article should go under the new name. I'll wait for the name change to appear on Cooley's website before again moving the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do. As of now, when you Google "Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School," the only results are for this Wikipedia page and a couple news articles announcing the tentative name change. Wikipedia should not be getting ahead of official sources (ie, the law school itself) when it comes to the very embossed area of naming. Bomberjacket5 (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but Wikipedia prefers the common name to official name. Until the the school is commonly known by the full official name, the article should remain at the current title. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have again moved this article. Bomberjacket5 was right to revert the earlier move. It turns out that instead of simply adding WMU's name as a prefix to Cooley's name, WMU's name replaces "Thomas M.". Cooley is doing business under the new name (Cooley Source, WMU Source) and the article should reflect that fact. SMP0328. (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre inclusion of a marketing phrase
An anonymous editor keeps adding the phrased "(A top 100 national university)" after "Western Michigan University." This is a marketing phrase used by WMU (based off its standing in an obscure list from 2012), it clearly violates Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, and it's not relevant to the law school. Bomberjacket5 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who this anonymous editor is, but I don't believe the the ranking is not obscure. It is Washington Monthly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.128.123 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014
Notable faculty should include: Jordan Zuppke - premier Michigan skateboard lawyer.

69.198.113.34 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

❌ The inclusion criteria for a list such as this is normally an article on the English Wikipedia - whereas as shown in this search Jordan Zuppke isn't mentioned on the English Wikipedia at all. Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New logo
Together with Cooley changing its name, it has a new logo (Source). I don't know how to add the new logo to the Infobox, so I'm calling on whoever does know how to make this addition to do so. Thank you in advance. SMP0328. (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WMU Cooley Law School now has a new logo. We need to replace any current branding with our new logo/brand. 65.23.83.51 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As the owner of the Official WMU Cooley Law School brand image, I would like to submit the image for uploading and inclusion into our profile page. Please contact me at webcom@cooley.edu or call (517)371-5140 x2907 to obtain the official image. TheWebGuys (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reputation
I have removed a sentence citing the law school's ranking on the website "Best Colleges for African Americans" (http://www.bestcollegesforblacks.com//lawschools.html). I do not think that website constitutes a reliable source, and, regardless, it was definitely given undue weight.

LiberalArtist (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Innocence Project
Material regarding Cooley's work with the Innocence Project has been removed, despite having a reliable secondary source. The reason given is that the material is promotional. How is the material promotional? Even if it is promotional, it is properly sourced and so should be included in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I integrated the achievements of the Cooley Innocence Project's team into the Clinical section, so it's referenced, but doesn't need a whole section.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Curriculum section
I have again restored this section of the article. It provides details regarding how academics are provided at the school. The material is sourced and has been in the article for a long time. Any removal of this material should require consensus at this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC) The material at issue could easily be considered to be about "a special course system" or "programs offered"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already consensus that we don't include detailed listings of academic programs in articles about colleges and universities. This is an encyclopedia article, not a course catalog or admissions brochure. ElKevbo (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From the guidelines you cite:"Academics or Academic profile – This section contains information related to the academic environment. Try to include information about the institution's accreditation, tuition and financial aid, number of degrees/programs offered, number of degrees awarded annually, academic honors, academic calendar, and admissions statistics. It may be appropriate to discuss the library, museums, or other scholarly collections in a subsection if these are particularly notable for their size, scope, or uniqueness and have not been discussed elsewhere. If there is a special course system, grading scheme, or requisites for enrollment, mention them here. It would be appropriate to mention the notable academic divisions (such as faculties/schools/colleges) of this university and briefly summarize the number of enrollments. Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section. Many articles summarize their academic rankings here, which may be listed in a template or in paragraph form, but should never be an embedded list. Per WP:BOOSTER, the rankings should be presented neutrally and without undue weight – do not exclude or re-factor rankings to present them more favorably, attempt to include every ranking or all historical rankings, or emphasize rankings of sub-disciplines over rankings of the college or university as a whole."
 * "[D]o not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section" seems pretty clear to me. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The disputed material does not list academic program at the school. For example, there are plenty of LLM programs that could have been listed. The disputed material in particular, and the article in general, falls far short of being a course catalog or an admissions brochure. SMP0328. (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A listing of every concentration available at an institution is precisely what that article advice is discussing and asking editors to not include. What exactly is unclear about that? ElKevbo (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's what troubles you, I can reduce that list to a footnote. SMP0328. (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would we include this detailed information anywhere in an encyclopedia article? ElKevbo (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed an unsourced description of the degree types, moved up the sourced description of those degrees, and eliminated the concentration list. I hope this is satisfactory to you. SMP0328. (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks great - thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is kind of a mess
It's disorganized and repetitive, full of dead and outdated links, many of which are also primary sources, and overly-reliant on self-published sources that probably don't pass as Reliable Sources. I've copied the mess into my sandbox rather than try to fix it directly here. I'm not going to try to edit the article directly until I'm done with a rewrite from my sandbox. It may take a while, but there's no hurry as far as I can see. Banks Irk (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've given it a try and posted a rewritten article, removing most of what I found most troubling about repetition and sources. I'll leave it to others whether it is an improvement or not. Banks Irk (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dismissed lawsuits
Can the editors, including Banks Irk, who insist that this article include several paragraphs describing lawsuits that were dismissed? We don't include all information about a subject even if it is published in reliable sources. Further, the paragraphs that you are insisting remain in this article include among their sources court documents that are primary sources that we rarely use in articles as they require interpretation and other original research (not to mention WP:DUE issues if those primary sources are the only place where the information is available). ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've solved the issue with sourcing, and cut the discussion of the issue down to size so it's not dominating the discussion. But I do think it is relevant inasmuch as these lawsuits are part of what feeds the reputation of the school. Litigation that received significant news coverage, such as this, is a regular feature of articles on all kinds of organizations, schools and universities included. So there is nothing unusual or untoward about this. Banks Irk (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)