Talk:NALSAR University of Law

Criticism Section
I think the second 'critique' has no place in the article. The way it's written makes it seem like this is some sort of third-party criticism, that the college has faced from outsiders. Which is, of course, not true. The article should stick purely to fact. --Necrogen 00:14 hrs 30 December 2005


 * The statement of yours is very POV. Third-party criticism is what can be considered to be closer to the truth. But, unless the criticism can be cited and proved, the statement posted has no validity. I am removing the POV part of the article. The first paragraph should not be removed as various magazines like India Today have reported this issue.


 * In the future, please cite the links to the relevant articles available on the Internet or other relevant sources. --Andy123 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

POV problems with the Extracurricular Activities section
Please cite examples and links and authorities as to how NALSAR has excelled in debating and mooting competitions. --Andy123 11:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Following are some newpaper clipping which show how NALSAR has excelled in debating and mooting competitions:

The Hindu BusinessLine, 17 April: NALSAR tops Asia Pacific in Jessup competition

Deccan Herland, 20 April: NALSAR tops in Asia-Pacific

--Good bad ugly 12:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious ranking article
The second footnote doesn't refer to a ranking. There is no ranking as the college is not compared to any other college. There is no methodology just an assertion. It is hence a poor source from which one could assert that NALSAR is ranked first for the year 2009. It is written for the local Hyderabad edition of the Hindu and hence the study isn't national. It is a description of the college itself. The assertion that NALSAR was ranked 1 in 2009 should be deleted along with the footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.12.251.226 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Muhandes"
Somebody by the name of "Muhandes" has been edit warring and actively opposing every effort to make this page more fleshed out. In fact, he even insists on some very goofy inclusions ("the college is fully residential") while rejecting obviously important details (information on the BA.LLB course, the admission rates, the university's ranking mentioned i the lead and so on). CC: the message I sent him: The following is what I want included: - Just like with the Harvard Law School Wikipedia page, I would like to see NALSAR's flagship programme mentioned in the lead, along with information like number of students, method of admission and so on. - I want it to be reflected in the lead that it is typically only less than the top 99th percentile scorers in CLAT are admitted to the university. The competence of the university is a very important detail readers would want to know about. - I would like a mention of the university's ranking in the lead. This seems pretty standard and obvious. - I would like to see a more fleshed out description of the BA.LL.B program. You keep edit warring by removing it for no reason. - I do not understand your obsession with mentioning that the university is residential right at the beginning. It is not important information. You are actively blocking efforts to improve the Wikipedia page of one of India's best law schools. This page looks pathetic compared to some of the best law schools in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.207.111 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Helium1984, I am happy you finally decided to stop the disruptive editing and discuss the changes. I would ask that you stick to the facts and avoid ad hominem arguments. This is not about my obsession or my "actively opposing" anything. but about the article. To your requests:
 * The lead of an article should summarize information already existing in the article. It should not introduce new information. I would not object to mentioning those facts you suggested (flagship programme, number of students, method of admission and so on) after they were added to the article with a proper secondary reliable source. As they are not in the article yet, they should not be in the lead either.
 * I agree that reflecting in the lead the fact that admission is difficult is important. However, see my previous comment, there is no secondary reliable source with this fact in the article.
 * I agree rankings belong in the lead per WP:UNIGUIDE. However... I seem to be repeating myself. Only rankings appearing in the article belong in the lead. Specifically regarding ranking, there is consensus not to mention old rankings if newer ones were published. For example, Outlook 2016 rankings should not be mentioned, since the Outlook 2017 ones were published. Also, per WP:UNIGUIDE rankings should be mentioned in a factual manner ("it was ranked 2nd in India") without WP:PUFFERY such as "it is one of the best law schools in the country"
 * I do not agree "a more fleshed out description of the BA.LL.B program" should be added. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, programmes should not be listed at all. Instead, a more fleshed out description of the academics system should be added with proper sources. WP:UNIGUIDE has some good pointers on what to add. Following this, mentioning these facts in the lead would be a good idea.
 * I have no obsession with mentioning that the university is residential. If you bothered discussing it, I would have realized I keep introducing this trivial fact by mistake, apologized, and removed it from the lead. Which I now do.
 * To summarize, I think all your suggestions are good ideas on how to improve the article and I fully approve. Add them to the article with proper sources and then summarize the article in the lead, and not the other way around. --Muhandes (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with Muhandes. Efforts to expand the page are welcome but expanding the lead with information not already in the body is not advised. Expand the page first. Malayy (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Nalsar University 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807224226/http://www.nalsar.ac.in/pg_programme.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/pg_programme.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807220123/http://www.nalsar.ac.in/mphil.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/mphil.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811073305/http://www.nalsar.ac.in/phd_programme.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/phd_programme.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607164227/http://nalsar.ac.in/mba.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/mba.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025160609/http://www.nalsar.ac.in/centers.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/centers.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130628171953/http://barandbench.com/content/australian-national-university-wins-jessup-moot-court-competition-nalsar-reaches-semi-finals to http://barandbench.com/content/australian-national-university-wins-jessup-moot-court-competition-nalsar-reaches-semi-finals
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120802222204/http://www.icc-trialcompetition.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=4 to http://www.icc-trialcompetition.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=4
 * Added tag to http://barandbench.com/brief/9/2238/nalsar-wins-willem-c-vis-international-commercial-arbitration-moot-2012
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025153709/http://www.nalsar.ac.in/achivements.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/achivements.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501041454/http://nalsar.ac.in/publications.html to http://www.nalsar.ac.in/publications.html

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) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Made a few additions
(Added information on undergraduate course) (Added cited statement on the prestige of the college to distinguish it from other law schools early on. This is not controversial information.) (Added detail of NALSAR being runners up in Vis East 2017.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.207.111 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED WITH CITATIONS.
Keep your paws off, Muhandes. Review carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.207.111 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee you that name calling and ad hominem attacks are against your cause. See my response from three months ago on some good ideas about how to improve the article. --Muhandes (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Muhandes, again
Muhandes (talk)

This is from the Wikipedia page for Harvard Law School: "Founded in 1817, it is the oldest continually-operating law school in the United States and is generally considered to be one of the most prestigious in the world"

Why don't you go delete this on their page and call it "promotion" or whatever? Do you even know anything about Indian law schools? Also, you decimated the Moot Court competition section. I have my doubts on whether you even know what that means, let alone know which competitions are prestigious. I advice you to let somebody who is educated enough on Indian law schools to handle this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.207.111 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are not talking about another page here, we are talking about this page. I can guarantee you that ad hominem arguments will get you nowhere. On the contrary, even valid arguments which you make may be ignored by the community if you keep addressing me instead of the material. In the moot court section I removed the words "extremely prestigious" and I removed individual ratings which I find redundant. Wikipedia is not a database, we don't just keep any listing of anything. You may take these edits to any board you like, I stand behind them. You seem to know quite a lot about this institute, are you related? --Muhandes (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

new edit
Added comment on status of the college. Citation: Times of India. Please refer to the Harvard Law School page where there is a similar statement in the intro. The citation there is its own magazine. In that way, we are doing better. Muhandes, if you want to revert this, first go edit the Harvard page and tell them it's "promotion" or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.207.111 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are not talking about another page here, we are talking about this page. Putting this quote in the lead section is undue weight and promotional. You obviously have a conflict of interest if you can't see it. --Muhandes (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for further reading, WP:PUFFERY, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD and obviously WP:PROMO are other guidelines which this sentence is against. --Muhandes (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nalsar.ac.in/about-nalsar, https://nalsar.ac.in/nalsar-campus, https://nalsar.ac.in/academic-programmes. 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)