Talk:Legal clinic

Terminology is completely wrong
I edited the first paragraph to clarify that "legal clinic" as a phrase can refer to any public interest program, whether or not it's affiliated with a school. I guess the confusion is understandable, given this article was obviously written by a student (because the world revolves around them, the prior phrasing was "legal clinics do pro bono," note focus on the student experience, rather than "offer pro bono services," focusing on who is served- which funnily enough, is what actually defines the term).

Pontification aside, I don't know enough about Wikipedia to remedy this obvious shortsightedness, but hope someone smarter than me can fix an article about an education topic masquerading as an article about an industry subset.

Picture
This article is hardly served by an insignificant visual representation that could be of any office anywhere on earth. It serves only to clutter the page and confused the reader. There is no necessity for a picture of a legal clinic, it adds nothing to the understanding of what a legal clinic is, what a legal clinic does, or what a legal clinic is for. It manages only to render unsightly the page. 70.73.34.109 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You could have just removed the picture with an edit summary. I imagine you are a lawyer by packing the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Law student. Lawyers would still feel the need to write something, but when you're on the billable hour, brevity wins out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.79.132 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

History section
The section, which was originally named FOUNDATION, now BACKGROUND may need a different name. It should incorporate, how the clinics became a part of law teaching, and how they later spread in other countries, following the US model. I am not native speaker, however I feel that background may not be the right name. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

British English
Can I please change this in a very minor way to make it British English. This is no big deal, but "defense" is American spelling, but my link to pupillage is very definitely British not American. I don't mind for any reason except that when I edit articles naturally I edit in my own style of English, which happens to be British, so I probably introduce inconsistencies without noticing between American and British uses. Si Trew (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Swampyank (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of countries listed
If there is to be a section on the history of legal clinics, then it should be created and described as such. As it stands ("historical order"), it does not make sense. Czech Republic has the earliest date (1855), well before other countries. But the hiatus seems to relegate the Czech clinic lower in the list. But as it stands the list looks very much USA-centric, which is a persistent problem in Wikipedia. A country by country listing avoids that problem. MOREOVER, the present listing of countries fails to describe how developments in one country had anything to do with developments in another country. SO, my recommendation is to create a subsection on the history of legal clinics and a separate listing of clinic activities country by country.--S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, I have probably failed to write it in a way that would make it more understandable. It was originally called "history section" so I took it for granted that as it followed each other the influence was implied. However when I found details about the Polish clinics I decided to change the title of section and it was recommended to me that "background" would be best fitting.


 * When it comes to the Czech one, than again, my bad. The Faculty was teaching "law in books" since 1679, and it started clinics after US model in 1996. But since the Faculty was closed for more than 100 years I felt obliged to write there that even the "law in books" was not taking place in the time of 1855-1991.


 * The legal clinics are US invention, therefore this article needs to stay US centric. I will try to improve it so that it is more understandable, but since I am not native speaker, I appreciate all suggestions and help. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Upravit pryč! Vrátím se později a opravit problémy vidím. Děkujeme vám za vaši práci. (Edit away! I will return later and fix the problems I see. Thank you for your work.) --S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio
A possible copyright violation was detected at a section of the article. However, I miss the URL of the purported original. It is hard to debate something when the other side's argument has not been presented. Not to mention that the section seems to have quite a few links to sources. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The source of the copyright is mentioned in the notice. Clinical Legal Education-Third Wave published in Clinical Law Review Vol 7:1 203.45.10.187 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but which part exactly? It seems that most of the text is sourced from elsewhere. Are you saying that the whole part is copied from the CLR?


 * Could you perhaps provide source in PDF? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On locating content copied from per the WP:CP listing, I removed the section, but subsequently found additional copied content from this source, such as the following:

Unfortunately, this necessitates a more thorough check or rewrite of this article. :/ I have expanded the blanking and will relist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Format & Neutrality
The format of the article, with each subheading containing many bulleted points, appears to have been copied and pasted from an external source that is not identified. The wording of several sections, particularly the "benefits" and "problems" sections further substantiates that much of the text appears to have been lifted from elsewhere. The neutrality of this source is questionable due to a pervasive affirmative slant throughout the article.Ergo Sum (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: multiple sources, including  and. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

For potential rebuilding
While no one worked to rebuild the article, the list of sources used in the version that was a copyright problem may be of use should anyone do so in future. These were:











Please remember that sources can only be used for information, not content, except in the case of brief and clearly marked quotations. If the sources can be verified to be public domain or compatibly licensed, they can be used more liberally but must be noted as a source of copying to comply with Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this list. The article dearly needs a history section. I came here to suggest as much, and discovered that it used to have one, now of course no longer accessible due to the copyvio, and 95% of the article was excised in the cleanup ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Cite spam removed
The recent addition of (in various articles) is either not needed for uncontroversial details, redundant with other existing references, or adds banal commonplace information without substantial encyclopedic value. In short: it's typical cite spam to promote this recently published paper or its author or the underlying activities. I have removed these additions, but please discuss here instead of re-adding the disputed content if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)