Talk:Georgetown University Law Center/Archive 1

Famous alumni list formatting
The current format is confusing. I suggest this:


 * (1950) John Smith (1927-1990), U.S. Senator (1960-1966), CEO of Smith, Inc. (1966-1990).

Would there be any confusion over what those dates mean? I'm basically trying to avoid the silly parentheticals of deceased or retired that the list currently uses. Postdlf 19:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just have a problem with using Alive vs. Deceased... maybe we can do better here. (DP)  Might it be better to break them up by their background?  Say Members of congress... entertainment etc like the Harvard Law School Alumni is broken up?(DP)
 * I think the best way to do it is simply to organize by when they attended. Their relationship to the school defines them here.  Whether they are alive or deceased really shouldn't even be mentioned in this article.  As for "background", their field is actually subsequent to their attendance, so it's not really background from the perspective of this article at all.  And it isn't like members of Congress attended GULC in clusters...  And people may fit into multiple fields/categories of subsequent accomplishment.  Year of attendance/graduation is the simplest, and the most proper way to show how the alumni relate to one another in terms of their relationship to the school.  Postdlf 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting the year of graduation in a parenthetical at the beginning seems weird; I haven't seen any other similar lists put together that way. How about doing what some universities (e.g. Harvard) do: integrate the year (with apostrophe if the century is clear) into the text itself, like "John Smith '50 spoke at the meeting."  So we would have:
 * John Smith '50 (1927-1990), U.S. Senator (1960-1966), CEO of Smith, Inc. (1966-1990).
 * Alternatively:
 * John Smith (1927-1990), J.D. 1950, U.S. Senator....
 * Chaucer1387 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Date Meaning
I take it the first date is the year of graduation? Maybe to make it clearer, that parenthetical could be (J.D. 1950) or (L.L.M. 2001) or whatever (Did GULC ever grant L.L.B.'s?). --Libertylaw 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Postdlf 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Admission Statistics
Most of the law school pages have admission statistics, with median GPA's and LSAT scores. I'm not sure where to find this information, anyone want to add it in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstingily (talk • contribs) 07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A question
Why is it considered a law "center" as opposed to a law "school?" Amerique dialectics 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it was originally the "Law Department", and I think it took the name center when it moved the present location. They've started very recently to refer to the school as simply "Georgetown Law" in their publications, but the location is still "Georgetown University Law Center".--Patrick 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable Faculty List
I've moved Mari Matsuda to 'former faculty', because while she seems to retain Georgetown Law institutional affiliation, she teaches just one week out of the year at Georgetown Law and otherwise teaches at the University of Hawaii. N0thingbetter (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The "nonexhaustive" list "of [n]otable current faculty" has been revised to correct two glaring problems. First, Nina Pillard's nomination to the D.C. Circuit by President Obama has been appended to her name. This, more than anything, may actually make her "notable" as a member of the GULC faculty. Second, as fragile as certain professors egos may be, those faculty are not rendered noteworthy merely by their status as professors at the 14th best law school in the country; therefore, wherever a professor's appellation in this section standing on its own does not obviously support noteworthy status, that name will be removed as surplus.

Plenty of professors listed in the "Faculty" section of this page have information appended to their names indicating why this or that individual is notable in her own own right. Should some objective party feel that an omitted professor is notable, the editor should (1) append a justification for noteworthiness to the professor's listing at the time of the addition to Faculty section and (2) accept community feedback when it is determined that such feats of strength as, say, editing a judicial opinion for a chapter in a casebook, does not per se make that academic noteworthy. Indeed, many tasks for which noteworthiness may be implicitly claimed by the prior Faculty section are among the minimal qualifications for tenure-track hiring at Georgetown and all of its peer law schools. Wikipedia is not a mere soapbox to pump up what are, in many cases, essentially classroom instructors with no legal responsibilities, clients, or groundbreaking original scholarship. There are plenty of noteworthy people walking the halls of Georgetown; some of the most notable seem to have refrained from posting their names in this section. Georgetown Law is an important institution in the legal world, but it does not confer honorific noteworthiness to all who pass through its halls. When someone has contributed something of great impact or achieved a feat of clear noteworthiness, they are ready for inclusion on this list, and not before that time. Dvorak182 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any attempt to use this list for all faculty. If the faculty member has a separate article, then they should be listed here and so don't remove them. Our use of "notable" is shorthand for "merits a Wikipedia article" (see generally WP:N). If they have an article, there is then no need to prove their significance in this list, though such annotations are helpful. For those who don't yet have articles, then they should have either a statement of significance and/or some source indicating that they are notable (i.e., pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF). postdlf (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Updates
My name is Kara Tershel. I am the director of media relations at Georgetown University Law Center. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/

I would like to contribute updated information to the Georgetown Law page. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will abide by them.

I am hoping for some guidance on best Wikipedia practices. Is it appropriate for me to contribute updated information directly to Georgetown Law's page? Or should I volunteer information here on the talk page and ask for Wikipedians' help in posting the updates?

Please feel free to contact me at mediarelations@law.georgetown.edu.

I would like to propose the following updates be made on Georgetown Law's Wikipedia page:

Admissions
Update the admissions section to include data for the class entering in the fall of 2011 (1),as well as information about the admissions interview program (2).

Curriculum
Update the curriculum section to include information about experiential learning (3), clinics (4) and externships (5).

Academic programs
Update the academic programs to include the Center for Transnational Legal Studies in London (6), a program spearheaded by Georgetown Law which won an award from the Institute of International Education in 2011 (7).


 * Does Georgetown offer a Master's Degree in Legal Studies, or MSL, a graduate program in legal instruction for those not aspiring to become attorneys?

Faculty
Update the faculty section to include Dean William M. Treanor, which can be hyperlinked to his Wikipedia page (8).

Alumni
Update the alumni section to include Kathryn Ruemmler (class of 1996), current White House counsel (9); Jacob Lew (class of 1983), current White House chief of staff (10); and Beth Nolan (class of 1980), senior vice president and general counsel, George Washington University, and former White House general counsel (11).

Employment Statistics
I think that the part of the employment statistics section describing the New York Times article should be deleted. It is true that employment statistics should be included in an article such as this, but substantial paraphrasing and quotation of a minor news article is not appropriate. I don't think that this article has the lasting noteworthiness to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia page, and for this reason, I humbly think that this part of the page should be deleted. Thanks! JR00576 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree there. Besides the potential for bias, I just don't think the school's possible employment to their own students back in 2009 is significant enough for this article. The section which I deleted again today was practically longer than the part of the reference that mentions Georgetown Law. I further have problems with how close the texts are to each other, and the extensive use of primary quotes. Hope we can clear this up.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 04:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Overview
My name is Kara Tershel. I am the director of media relations at Georgetown Law. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/

I would like to contribute updated information for Georgetown Law. I am aware of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and will abide by them.

I am hoping for some guidance on best Wikipedia practices. Is it appropriate for me to edit directly Georgetown Law's page? Or should I volunteer information on the talk page and ask for Wikipedians’ help in posting the edits?

I would like to propose the following edits be made on Georgetown Law's Wikipedia page. Can some or all of these updates be made?

As advised by Wikipedian Orangemike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orangemike), I have cited impartial third-party sources, and I’m re-submitting these proposed updates under my own personal account, not an institutional one.

Please feel free to contact me at kat5@law.georgetown.edu.

Faculty
Update the faculty section to include Dean William Treanor. (1)

Alumni
Update the alumni section to include Kathryn Ruemmler (class of 1996), current White House counsel (2); Jacob Lew (class of 1983), current White House chief of staff (3); and Beth Nolan (class of 1980), senior vice president and general counsel, George Washington University, and former White House counsel (4).

New York Times coverage re U.S. News rankings, and use of independent reliable sources in general
I just reverted Patrickneil's earlier deletion (justified with WP:LONGTIME) of the New York Times' coverage of the school's employment practices with regard to the U.S. News rankings. These rankings are highly important for US law schools, and also mentioned in the lede of this article. So the New York Times' thorough investigation is worth mentioning here as it gives the reader context about the reliability of the school's stats on which these rankings are based on.

In general, this article is currently an especially bad example of academic boosterism - I just removed some of the worst examples (including typical PR tactics like using peacock terms and fuzzy language like "rank at the very top" instead of naming a concrete number - rank 14 in this case), but more needs to be done.

The article needs more, not less material from independent reliable sources - apart from the rankings (much of which are selectively quoted), almost all the information is either unsourced, or is sourced to the Georgetown University Law Center's self-published outreach material, which as the NYT article demonstrates should not be regarded as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgetown University Law Center. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713083022/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings? to http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Needs list of past deans
Just a suggestion: There should be a section, probably under "History", listing the past deans of GULC. Also, under "History", it would seem to me to be a good idea to include a mention, with some links, of the abortive attempt in 1998 by then GU President Leo J. O'Donovan to not reappoint then-dean Judith Areen to a third five-year term as dean. In particular, if O'Donovan's motivations for that attempt have ever been made known, this would be a good place to mention those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHarbaugh (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I just forgot to add the four-tildes. KHarbaugh (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Please initiate a new move request if you would like to change the title of this page. Dekimasu よ! 21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Georgetown Law → Georgetown University Law Center – This page was moved unilaterally by a now blocked sockpuppet user without any discussion based on WP:COMMONNAME despite no other equivalent page doing so. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move back, I agree that there’s no compelling reason for this to have been renamed to a colloquial title. (Full disclosure: I’m the original article creator under the original full title.) postdlf (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is my first Requested Move in forever, how does this close? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.