Talk:University of Chicago Law School

Let's get to work - 2018 updates
Alright, there's been some heated disagreement over the past couple days. Let's work on getting past that and constructing a decent article out of the new material that's been proposed. Yes, there are some issues with the new additions, that's why we're going to talk about it. I suggest as a starting point that editors have a look at some of our articles on similar topics which have been rated highly by WikiProject Universities; I've pulled semi-randomly:

•

•

•

•

•

•

I tried to find law schools but there aren't that many with high ratings, and so then I tried to find articles which were reviewed more recently since review standards have become more stringent over time. Have a look at these to get a sense of what sort of information is commonly found in similar articles, how it's referenced, and a general sense of layout although I think what we have is probably okay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead
There are some unnecessary sections that needs removal. The misrepresentation of sources seems to be a case. I only started checking from the first sentence of Nikomachian's version "law school is renowned for its interdisciplinary approach towards legal education", which is not supported by the source and mentions of "Thomson Reuters" or "Reuters" are also missing in the PDF despite being mentioned as the publisher of the source. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's come back to this. The lede is meant to be a summary of content in the article (not an introduction) so let's nail down the article first, and then discuss the lede. On that point, a lot of what's in the lede now (accolades and notable alumni and such) needs to also be mentioned somewhere in the article. But, again, let's come back to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this. I mistakenly included the original paper delivered by the author to a conference in Sydney, Australia. The authorized version is published by Thomson Reuters in the Australian Law Journal, which I understand to be a reputable source. In that article (which mirrors the PDF) you will see ample references to or illustrations of the interdisciplinary approach to legal education (search “University of Chicago”). I agree however that the citation should be updated with the volume and edition of the Thomson Reuters version.Nicomachian (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

History
I suggest we start with the history section, since it's already pretty long and also probably the least likely to contain exceptional information that would require very careful scrutiny of the sources. I personally don't see anything in the present version, on the surface, which is promotional or overly detailed, it looks to be simply a factual summary of a university with 100+ years of history. Lorstaking expressed concern over the use of a source published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'm going to start by asking about this at WP:RSN (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard) for an independent opinion. If anyone has observed any problems with the present version of the history subsection, now would be the time to bring them up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the history section, the statement that the school was left, "one of the best in the country" is weak on a strict interpretation of WP:NPOV - it's from a reliable source but we might want to consider exclusion as it's not particularly necessary to the flow of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's probably unnecessary. It would also be difficult to establish a neutral point of view from contemporary reliable sources - I can't tell from the article or the freely available sources what date is intended by "the end of [Freund's] tenure", but it was at least 90 years ago. The article won't suffer without this statement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would continue though that the rest of the history section seems germane. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is only one minor change proposed and nobody else has offered input on this section, so let's go ahead with:

Per discussion above: in the first paragraph of the history section, please remove the last sentence which begins with "By the end of his tenure, Beale left the fledgling school ..." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Admission

 * In the admission section, I think it's probably fine to delete "admission to the school is highly selective" - I don't think a law program exists that will let just any old idiot in the door. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s right, although I’d highlight two things: (1) while any given program might not let any old idiot in, there is a difference between a law program with an admission rate of 10% and one with an admission rate of 60%, and (2) the “highly selective” is a qualitative description of the admissions data, which, reasonably viewed, probably shows a “highly selective” approach to admissions. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this. If we're being really strict (and why not?) it's probably WP:OR to write a qualitative statement based on our own analysis. But I don't think it's really unduly POV. I'd prefer to keep it if we can find sources that agree. That shouldn't be too hard. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From a quick Google search:
 * Chicago is #4 in this website's list, which it introduces as "the most selective law schools in the U.S.". However it also defines the list in other ways, such as "most competitive". I don't know much about the source.
 * The Princeton Review (publisher notes: not affiliated with Princeton University) gives Chicago an "admissions selectivity rating" of 95, on a scale from 60-99 which they define here. Their description notes, "It's not easy to get into any ABA-approved law schools, really."
 * Magoosh, an LSAT prep provider, describes Chicago as "one of the most reputable and selective law schools in the country". However, this is written on the website's blog, so the source may not be objective.
 * LEAP, another LSAT prep site, notes: "Just like the other top law schools, admissions to [Chicago] are highly competitive." It also notes: "Clearly, admission to this school is not as competitive as Yale or Harvard."
 * Business Insider, probably the most reliable of these sources, refers to the Princeton Review, although this article is for the 2015 academic year and places Chicago eighth.
 * Various other sources have come up with a quantitative formula of selectivity based on different metrics (admission rate, LSAT scores, GPA, etc.), but none lead to the same conclusions.
 * So, a couple things to note. Selectivity is a qualitative measure that various publications define in different ways, and which schools themselves seem to use as a performance indicator in promotional materials. Also, it's widely accepted that all law schools are selective to some degree. So I feel that our "highly selective" statement is troublesome. What if instead of selectivity, we focus on competitiveness? That's also subjective, but it's easy to find agreement in sources that Chicago is one of the most competitive U.S. law schools. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that “highly selective” should be replaced with “highly competitive” as regards admission into the J.D. program. As for the LL.M. program (which I assume is offered every year) “competitive” alone would probably suffice given the dearth of ABA statistics and outside commentary on this type of program. Nicomachian (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Grades

 * In the grades section, the statement, "(a designation created in 2006 by a $7 million donation from the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis).[34]" is a perfect example of a PR insert from the law firm in question and should definitely be removed, source and all. However reference to the scholarship, while it is quite a bit more detail about a school grade honour than may be entirely necessary, is fine unless we decide that article bulk needs to be trimmed back, which so far I'm unconvinced to be the case. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This information was in the previous (Lorstaking’s) version of the article. For the reasons you give, it definitely needs to be removed. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "was"? No it still exists. 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who added it, it should be edited as Simonm223 suggests. That's the sort of promotion that's undue and unencyclopedic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

&mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Employment

 * The employment section is a case study of why WP:NPOV doesn't necessarily need to equate to an appearance of neutrality in sourced fact. Unless the sources don't support the claims or unless there's evidence of cherrypicking, I'm inclined to keep it exactly as is; even though it's the sort of para that makes one go, "shit, maybe I should enroll." Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Publications

 * I'd trim back the publications section. "In 2018, the University of Chicago Law Review was ranked by HeinOnline as one of the most frequently cited law journals in the world.[36] In 2017, it had an impact factor of 2.272.[37] The Supreme Court Review is the most cited legal journal internationally with respect to commentary on the Supreme Court of the United States.[38] The Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies were founded by Aaron Director and Richard A. Posner, respectively,[25]" seems promotional, and the Blogs and Columns section is unnecessary as a whole. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not all that different to the discussion of publications in the Harvard Law School article. I included the impact factor to substantiate the “one of the most frequently cited” claim. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OSE. Lorstaking (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OSE is an essay about deletion discussions. It doesn't apply here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OSE is also concerned with argument that "contents exist and have precedential value", not just deletion. There is no considerable justification presented that why the section requires no trimming and sections like University of Chicago Law School should be removed. Lorstaking (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to participate in this irrelevant side discussion any more. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "blogs and columns" I think the section is unfortunately titled: some of the "blogs" mentioned are notable works. But I agree with removal of the section, it's kind of getting into highlighting faculty connections with third parties, and it's not really relevant to the article on the school (but would be relevant in the contributors' own articles). The rest we should reorganize. I suggest combining the journals and paper series, they're not exactly the same thing but similar in concept. The six journals are all notable in their own right, this is good info to include. As far as student organizations I'm not sure if this belongs under "publications" or maybe the section needs retitling, but it would be better if we could list some of the notable organizations if there are any. I expect there are, but I'm not sure how to go about finding them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Faculty and alumni
Vmavanti (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the right person to assess the Notable Faculty and Notable Alumni sections. I have a frequently stated distaste for lists of things on Wikipedia but that personal view is not always in keeping with Wikipedia policy. However, if we do need to cut out bulk from the article, I wouldn't be particularly fussy to see those changed to concentrate on a few particularly notable faculty and alumni, like the row at the top of notable alumni with photographs. A thumbnail bio of each and a link to their articles would be a better use of article than a long list of names, but that's my opinion, not a policy derived statement. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I, too, discourage the use of such lists on Wikipedia, and I'll go further and say that my objections are consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. These lists are often unsourced, partially sourced, or poorly sourced. They include people who don't meet the notability requirements. Sometimes the information is false. The lists invite trivia and vandalism and therefore create needless busy work for editors who already have enough to do. Let's be honest. When these lists appear in articles about schools, it's another form of cheerleading, of saying "look how great we are". That's not the point of Wikipedia. The lists can also be redundant. Careful readers notice that at the bottom of articles there are links to categories. These categories are from the automatic compiling of information from articles across the site. At the bottom of a biography an editor might add a template "People who graduated from Chicago" or "Blues guitarists from Chicago". These templates are then automatically collected and turned into categories. Therefore readers don't need to create their own lists because the lists already exist. The desire to say "look what important people went here" is inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia.
 * OK, so how about we look at my proposal for trimming the list of notable alumni down to the photo-row at the top and anyone else really notable (like former supreme court justices and such) and then doing a one-paragraph bio wikilinking to their own pages. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. The usual test for inclusion in these sorts of "notable people" lists is whether they have a separate article, and it seems that all of the many individuals listed here in fact do have articles. If we start paring down beyond that point, we're including or excluding people subjectively and arbitrarily. But the list of alumni is huge for this school. Why don't we spin it off into a standalone list instead? I also agree with removing the gallery entirely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My usual grumbles about WP:NOTCATALOG notwithstanding, I'd accept that compromise. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the standalone list idea. See for example List of Yale Law School alumni. The article might then just contain a summary of the notable alumni. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * On the subject of notable alumni, could we agree on criteria for inclusion on the page with a short bio snippet, and move everyone else off to a list? As a starting point I would suggest any individuals who have held the highest positions in professions related to the practice of law (probably supreme court justices and maybe others I'm not thinking of), notable firsts, and leaders of countries. I guess also anyone significantly well-known in their own right, otherwise this set of criteria will unduly select white men. On the subject of notable firsts, Lorstaking suggested some very good sources down in the copyright discussion, reproduced here: Sophonisba Breckenridge (first woman to graduate), Earl B. Dickerson (first African-American graduate, also first African-American Chicago City Councillor). Harvard Law School should be informative as to the format and selection. As for a gallery, I think it would be best moved to the separate list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have spent a bit of time on this section in the past, so I'm happy to kick things off here. Any comments/suggestions are welcome as always:

Nicomachian (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As for faculty, I support inclusion of a list of Deans and former Deans (if the law school has its own Dean, I think it does), and a subsequent list of only current notable faculty (individuals with Wikipedia articles or valid redlinks if they should have an article), only current because otherwise the list will be very unwieldly. There is the issue of updating a list of current faculty, but I don't think that would be excessively cumbersome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the broad consensus on the Wikiproject, we add only those in alumni section or article that have their own Wikipedia page. Consensus is also that we don't add photos in the main article, though photos can be included in the separate list. If you want to include deans then you can create an article like List of Yale University people. Lorstaking (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OSE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is long enough that a few photos of notable alumni and faculty will improve readability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've copied the existing "notable alumni" section to List of University of Chicago Law School alumni, and made a few clean-up edits. That page is not protected. Would it be better to discuss it here or on the new list's talk page?
 * I agree with adding a few photos of the notable alumni mentioned in Nicomachian's descriptions, preferably as inline thumbnails rather than a gallery. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, nitpicking on Nicomachian's work above:
 * First paragraph, second sentence: are Easterbrook and Bork also appellate judges? I think there's an issue with serial commas here and I can't quite work it out. You also used "legal scholars" twice, so maybe the section just needs reorganization.
 * Thanks for the feedback. Yes, and Easterbrook is still a federal appellate judge. I’ve removed the first reference to “legal scholars” to avoid confusion. The comma problem has been fixed, I think. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm iffy on the use of "longest-serving" for Ickles, it's not wrong but it feels like ... an unwarranted qualification? Not sure.
 * I’ve removed the reference. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that "current U.S. senators ..." should be dropped: the phrasing implies a list but only one person is listed. U.S. politics is notable to the topic, though, so what about Senate leaders or House leaders?
 * I changed “senators” to the singular form. I chose not to include more senators and representatives because I thought it would expand that paragraph disproportionately to the others, so I added “among other members of Congress”. Also, I’m not aware of any senate/house leaders who are alumni. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * for Adam Silver I would prefer to spell out "commissioner of the National Basketball Association", since NBA might be ambiguous. I would also like to find some way to wedge an as of note in there.
 * Done. Not sure where to wedge the “as of” note. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that Harvey Levin should be omitted. It's just that in this list of achievements, founding a tabloid seems like it's out of place. Just my opinion.
 * Agreed and done. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We should also, if we can, list examples alumni who achieved notoriety for negative reasons, just to balance the POV, like if anyone committed a major crime or was involved in a major scandal, that kind of thing. If there are any, that is, I don't know of any to suggest.
 * I couldn’t find any who fit the bill. I did mention in the first paragraph that Bork was unsuccessfully nominated to the Supreme Court; obviously this is not a major crime or scandal, but it goes some way to balance POV in what otherwise seems to be a squeaky clean list of alumni. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Other than these nitpicks I think it's very well done. Obviously this would be at the top of the "notable alumni" section following a hatlink to the new list, or I presume that's the intent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When the list is eventually created it might be an idea to add at the end of each alumnus’ name the year in which they graduated, as in List of Yale Law School alumni. Nicomachian (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The list is already created, see List of University of Chicago Law School alumni. You could add the graduation dates if you wanted. Maybe the list would be better in table format? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add graduation dates. I think a table would be a good idea. But I don't know how to make it. Nicomachian (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We seem to have consensus on the way forward here.

Under "notable alumni", please delete the entire section, and replace with the quote-framed text above (omit "*Edited*" of course). Please also add a main hatnote to List of University of Chicago Law School alumni. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed Violette Neatly Anderson from the notable alumni. Ms. Anderson attended the Chicago Law School, which existed separately from the University of Chicago Law School in the early part of the 20th Century, and was never affiliated with, nor did it merge with, the University of Chicago Law School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicago (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Architecture

 * And a last note, I would love to see the architecture section expanded if sources exist. A discussion about the preservation of modernist buildings on university campuses is exactly the sort of encyclopedic content Wikipedia should include. I think it goes without saying we should retain what is there. And that's it. I'm done with my review. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nicomachian's edits didn't really contribute to this section, as far as I can tell, but yes I agree that this section should be expanded if we can find sources. Surely we can, people love to write about heritage preservation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a pretty good discussion on the building's history. It's self-published, but I think we established that's okay for uncontroversial facts.
 * This is a description of the recent library renovation project, in the portfolio of the construction firm that was hired to do it. Not independent, of course.
 * The law school has its own art & architecture page. Same issues as above.
 * The parent university has an article with excerpts from a UoC Press-published book on the subject of campus architecture that's probably useful here.
 * Actually I'm going to go ahead and post a notice about this at WikiProject Architecture, and see if anyone more knowledgeable about this is interested in taking this on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright
I have mentioned it enough times and should mention again like above that "bigger problem is not with your sources but what you are writing". Adding every possible statement associated with the past including trivial content like who was the first woman graduate or who was first African-American graduate, the economic position of the subject about more than 50 years ago, or any other trivial info that is clearly undue even if supported by a source. Section has to be rid of redundancies. Tone is also POV, for example, "curriculum transformed to reflect the emerging influence of the law", if not POV then still it is unsourced and WP:OR.

I went ahead to carefully check the sources but I have now discovered that the more bigger problem is WP:COPYVIO done by Nicomachaen since his first edit.

The history section violates WP:COPYVIO as the content is directly copied from these sources:

These books including that of John W. Boyer's have a very limited preview and for such reason I assume that copyvio is certainly bigger than what we can tell from here.

Then the section, University of Chicago Law School, is not only trivial but also a blatant copyvio from the main source which is not even linked. Evidently, Nicomachian has engaged in copyvio since his first edit in this article. These all diffs clearly require suppression.

Examples of Shimer College and Law school of Beirut are good enough to justify my edits to this day. You can't find a trivial sections on those articles that you find here, such as University of Chicago Law School, University of Chicago Law School, University of Chicago Law School, or heavy image use on University of Chicago Law School. But in this article you see all of that. Lorstaking (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would contend that, within the context of the history of North American academia, the first woman graduate and the first African American graduate are most certainly not trivia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still unimportant as every post-secondary school has their own and somebody has to be "first" at almost every thing, this is why I mentioned it. Lorstaking (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't think you're intending it, but your view on this particular point is coming across as offensive. I take it that you're not as familiar as some with the history of racial and gendered discrimination in western academia (and the United States in particular, and especially Chicago with respect to Black persons). If you would like to educate yourself we have many articles on the subject. You should not continue this argument, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was particularly commenting on the information as written and how it was sourced. The argument presented here echoed the possible prominence and I thought of researching if the "first" have any prominence in secondary sources. I think we can include it because I have discovered better sources than the present ones are not enough. We can replace them with Lorstaking (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. These are good sources, we should find a way to add them. I'm going to follow up under the "alumni" section, it's relevant there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a comparison of prose from what I can find based on what Lorstaking appears to have searched:


 * Article:
 * Source:


 * Article:
 * Source:


 * Article:
 * Source:


 * Article:
 * Source:


 * Article:
 * Source: [Director]


 * So, yeah, there's some issues here. I think with regard to the prose this is more an issue of close pharaphrasing then one of copyright violations requiring suppression. In that regard there is some freedom for reproducing descriptions of simple facts (e.g. how many ways are there to say that the cornerstone was laid by Roosevelt?) where the original author's creative expression is not reproduced, and I think we're on the safe side of that concept here. As for the lists of clinics and basic statistics, a straight-up listing of factual things is not copyrightable, but the introduction to it is, and copyright is clearly violated there. I'm pinging for input, she's the local expert on copyright. Unfortunately the Boyer source is not available at libraries in my province so I won't be able to get a copy to review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Due to very limited previews we can't tell the extent. Copyvio occurred since first edit made by Nicomachian. They generally suppress all the diffs that contain the copyvio. Lorstaking (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lorstaking, a more apt analogy is Harvard Law School. You will find much of the information there (on history especially) to be similar to the information here. Clinics, Programs and Deans is non-controversial. (See also list of Deans on the Yale Law School article.) The gallery in the alumni section was inspired by The Dickson Poon School of Law. I do not see any promotion or trivia here. We can’t be clutching at straws.
 * To the extent that I have infringed any copyright, it was unintentional and for what it’s worth I apologize. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of these articles contains some redundancies however you have combined many of them into this article. Read WP:OSE and start thinking about agreeing with what we have noted until now. Lorstaking (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does OSE apply here? Nicomachian (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE: "editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy". It does. Lorstaking (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, no, it does not. We do want to look at how things are done in similar topics to inform how we should do things here. OSE typically concerns notability arguments, such as "we should have an article on my garage band because Nirvana were a garage band". Regarding article content and layout, we have manuals of style for a reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OSE argument can be used for content as the page notes "rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value". The point still stands that mentioning issues with other articles as justification for issues with this article would not fly. Lorstaking (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the support here for the idea that this is a copyright problem, I've rewritten several of the pieces in question; the only one I skipped was In 1958..., since that's a pure fact without a suitable way of rewording. Obviously there's not a proposal here to choose precise wording, so I don't claim consensus for that side of things; please let me know if you'd like me to change something I wrote, because I'll happily comply as long as it's copyright-safe. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I noted "University of Chicago Law School, is not only trivial but also a blatant copyvio from the main source which is not even linked." Consider erasing that section. Lorstaking (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the introduction to this section is copy-pasted from the main source and should be linked. You might consider editing that part as follows: "The clinics within the law school include:" Nicomachian (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on, . As I observed above, my reading of copyright policies and essays leads me to believe that the introduction to the list of clinics is copyvio, but everything else that Lorstaking has noted are probably correctable through editing. Unfortunately the copyvio goes back quite a ways and will require suppression of a lot of work. Our discussion here hasn't concluded what to do with that list up to this point, but if you remove the intro and suppress the intervening edits we should be able to continue. It will have been added some time in April or May probably by Nicomachian; I can find the diff for you later but I'm on mobile at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, your edits to the identified paraphrases look good to me. For everyone else: Nyttend's edits are hidden behind the copyvio investigation notice, you'll have to view the diff to see the changes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redone; thank you. But what do you mean by hidden behind the copyvio investigation notice?  I removed copyviocore as soon as I was done with the first round of edits?  Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops, I must have been looking at the earlier diff. Mobile interface ftw. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Whole University of Chicago Law School is a copyvio not just one sentence. Moonriddengirl was pinged above but is inactive for nearly two weeks. Ping for checking copyright concerns. Lorstaking (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed my earlier comment as it was unduly hostile. But please do consider what other editors write here rather than going in "guns blazing" defending your challenged opinion. We're discussing whether or not to include the list of clinics in another section, but as far as copyright: a complete, factual list of items does not meet the creative expression threshold of copyright protection. Nyttend did remove the plagiarized introduction and replaced it with a factual statement, and what's left is just a list of all of the clinics currently offered by the school, and that can't be copyrighted. I have now revdeleted all of the revisions which contained the copyvio - it was complicated because of intervening reverts so I did it myself, but you can check my work. I trust we can move on from this now? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I hit a database error. It'll take me a few minutes to resolve. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nyttend paraphrased the first introductory sentence, not the second introductory paragraph that reads "In addition, there are two......seminar at the Law School", it is copied from the source that wasn't mentioned and will need re-writing or removal. Lorstaking (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Diannaa here commenting on remaining copyvio: I checked and found nothing in the current version of the article. I am unable to check the book source, as it is not available for inter-library loan in my province. I am not prepared to tackle revision deletion for this article due to all the edit warring in and out with the copyvio content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Academics
is making a lot of noise about the list of clinics, so let's get this section out of the way. Yes, Lorstaking, we need to do more suppression. We'll get to it.

I suggest that we should have some kind of introduction to the list of clinics, with a reference, and a wikilink to legal clinic. I suggest:

Realistically we could expand on the mandate of each one, since they all have their own separate website. I don't have time for that at the moment. I propose eliminating the two "supervised field placement" clinics, they're effectively third-party internships. That would also resolve the copyvio issue with that section's introduction. Thoughts? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support revision looks good for me. Resolves any copyvio concerns while retaining notable information. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs are preferred over the list in the articles linked in the original post because it is necessary to detail their importance. The list needs to be removed and anyone can prefer adding paragraphs. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you would prefer that the list of clinics was presented in paragraph format? Otherwise I don't really understand your comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would work from a readability perspective. Bullets work fine here, it's seven items. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * can we agree to implement the edit above as a stop-gap to purge the remaining copyvio, and then continue discussing the layout afterwards? Would appreciate your input on that aspect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nicomachian (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any more feedback coming, so let's proceed.

Under the Academics section, please replace the list of clinics with the proposed text above. Please remove the subsequent list of "third-party" clinics. Then, please revdelete all revisions up to the last hidden revision under criterion WP:RD1: the descriptive intro to the second list is inappropriately copied from the school's website. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ but there is some vertical space now, caused by the image and the columns below. Is there anything that can be done about that? I decline to use RD1 for this minor infraction. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, I see that whitespace, that's not ideal. It's a photo of the D'Angelo Library that's causing the issue, so why don't we move the image to the "architecture" section instead? I think that that would be a good way to expand the section if we can write up a neutral description of the library and its building in particular; what's in the academics section now is a bit of an unintentional advertisement. what do you think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the offending image for now. There is already an image in the architecture section, so let me know what you want to do. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead (again)
I think we've come far enough here that we should tackle this now, or at least get started. What's in the lead right now largely needs to be removed, it's too advertorial and not at all a summary of the article. Remember, on Wikipedia, the lead is not really anintroduction to the article, but more like an abstract (from the manual of style: "a concise overview of the article's topic"). Articles which are rated as Good and Featured Articles usually have no references in the lead, because no new information is presented that isn't also stated in the body of the article somewhere. Here's what I'd like to start with: Following that, my preference is for a three-paragraph lead: one that names the topic and establishes notability and context, one on the institution's history (and perhaps its architecture and notable faculty/alumni), and lastly one on basically its current status (degree offerings, brief description of programs, graduation rates, etc.). What do others think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 1: this is a good start at a summary, so let's leave this in the lead and use it as a basis to expand.
 * Paragraph 2: much too advertorial for the lead. It has good references, so let's create a new "reviews" subheader and move this text into it. I'm not sure where that should go.
 * Paragraph 3: this would make a good intro to a list of alumni, you know, kind of like the List of University of Chicago Law School alumni we created a week or so ago. How about we move it there, references and all?
 * Paragraph 4: I think there's a split to be made here. The first two sentences describe notable aspects of the school's influence, but I'm not sure where it should go. Maybe someone else has an idea. From there, the rest of the paragraph would suit as a good intro to the "notable faculty" section.
 * I like the idea, although I'm not sure the current version of the lead is emphasizing (or at least providing an overview of) the right bits of the article. For example, who became the first Dean and who laid the cornerstone probably doesn't warrant appearing in the first paragraph of the lead. Should topics like employment and rankings appear before architecture in the lead, given that is how the sections are arranged? I'll play around with it now; let me know what you think. Nicomachian (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done; I'm not very good at writing ledes but I wanted to take a crack at it to get things going. There's a few things we might have to tone down NPOV-wise in what you wrote but I'll have a better look at it later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)