Talk:University of Michigan Law School/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Umichigan color seal.gif
The image Image:Umichigan color seal.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The law school's "prestigious reputation"
I've been removing edits favorably describing the law school's reputation from the lead paragraph on the grounds that 1) the very same point is made quite clearly in the very next section of the article and so it is redundant and 2) presented in the lead, it is dangerously close to WP:Peacock language and WP:Puffery. I am moving to this page, from our Talk pages, the exchanges between me and the other editor to facilitate discussion here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From User Talk:JohnInDC and User Talk:Dancerdancer108 -


 * In addition to checking out WP:NPOV, you should take a quick look at WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel to further understand why I've reverted your changes. Michigan law school is, of course, a top-notch institution; but Wikipedia's place isn't to burnish that reputation by offering the assessment.  As I said in the edit summary, let the facts speak for themselves!  JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * hmm I didn't think it was not neutral - it's all pretty universally established (plus, other top law schools have similarly strongly worded value judgments on their wiki page so I only thought it was fair) I got all of my info from http://www.top-law-schools.com/michigan-law-school.html Dancerdancer108 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that's a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and I'd immediately discount the writeup in any case, being offered by a 2x Michigan grad. The Law School page as it is written pretty well lays out that it's a selective school, with lots of grads going on to better things.  The existing section on rankings pretty well describes how highly regarded it is - and without the inherent opinion contained in phrases like "prestigious", "ultra-competitive" and "top notch legal education".  If others law schools' pages have similar marketing-type language on them, then it should be taken out - not added here!  JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please. Stop adding peacock language to University of Michigan Law School.  The school is superb, the rankings make it clear, and it's neither necessary nor appropriate to emphasize the point expressly in the lead.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * not quite sure what "peacock" language is. But I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with what I added - there is no bias or anything - to say it is "regarded as one of the most presitigous" is a patent fact - as you yourself have recognized. the reason I added that is because the law school suffers from a serious lack of lay prestige. also, why have there been no edits to the language in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Law_School or in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University_Law_Center? and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University_School_of_Law (regarding the mention of the T14) and why would you delete my statement that UMich has always been in the T10 and is therefore in the T14??? What is wrong with that on any level? That is a patent fact. I think you are being extremely, extremely unfair to UMich and that you are in fact the one who is harboring biases.


 * Honestly, this time around what I added was beyond tame, and much tamer than the language on other law school pages - the reason other law school pages have not been edited, is because there is nothing wrong or misleading or biased about what is being said! If a school is regarded as prestigious, why not go ahead and give it its due respect? Again though, in terms of you deleting the fact that it is in the T10 and T14...that just blows my mind. I added 0 value judgements to that and it has clearly been published in the US World News Report, etc.


 * Seriously though, what I said this time is not only a fact (note: I didn't even say it was "one of the most prestigious" - i said it was "REGARDED as one of the most prestigious" and therefore am not committing wikipedia to any opinion...even though tons of other law school pages state that with NO edits being made), but it was also SO tame. I am especially at a loss as to why you would delete the T10 and T14 fact - I think you are wielding your editing abilities way way way too stringently and unfairly, especially to me and to UMich Law for whatever reason. it really is not fair that every other institution of higher learning has loads of fanciful language, and I can't even add something about it belonging to a ranking group! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancerdancer108 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well. In the time it took me to copy over the foregoing, the edits have been moved to the Ranking section, and while it strikes me a bit as gilding the lily, the material is well-sourced and appropriate there (after unnecessary adjectives have been removed). I would only add that, wherever the material may find itself in this article, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to improve a subject's perception among lay readers, or to establish some sort of "fairness" or parity with other articles. JohnInDC (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * hey! yeah, no I get it...and i'm really sorry if I came across overly hostile there. I guess I'm just confused as to why those adjectives are flowing around in abundance (and in the leads) on every other top law school's page, while UMich Law's page gets called out on it each time...


 * sorry again and thanks!
 * - also am I using this "talk" function correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancerdancer08 (talk • contribs)


 * You are. But - !  1)  Use the colon character to indent your responses one more level than the one you're responding to (I fixed yours above); and 2) don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes - ~!  I think we're sorted now.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Prestige" redux
The following exchange is copied from my Talk page, for continuation here:

hi! thanks for the concern. but I don't see what is wrong with my edit saying it has long been regarded as one of the most prestigious - i'm not saying it IS the most pretigious, just that it has long been regarded as such which is pure fact. moreover, I would direct your attention to every single T14 law school's wikipedia page. Each one, without fail, describes (in a rather unbridled fashion) their school as being one of the "most elite" or one of the "most prestigious" or "one of the most selective" in those explicit words - i.e. berkeley, UVA law, duke, georgetown, just to name a few (that are even ranked below UMich) etc. so there really isn't anything wrong with a quick recognition of a top school's prestige. What's more, it becomes pretty unfair if every other law school's wiki page recognizes that school's prestige, but umich's is barred from recognizing its own. i think my statement was pretty benign - i wasn't saying "it is without a doubt hands down the best law school ever known to man!" thanks again, it would actually really mean a lot to me if you could reconsider your decision to remove it. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkt115 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has come up before. Take a look at the article's Talk page, here.  The assertion, in the lead, is puffery (and probably shouldn't be in those other articles either).  The school's sterling reputation is well-established in the very next section.  Take a look at the discussion there and see if it helps!  JohnInDC (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! but to be honest, I really don't understand what is wrong with the way I worded the statement or even the substance of it. Also, I am just curious as to why much stronger language has been able to persist on every other of those law school pages, but any mention of prestige is conspicuously absent from Michigan Law's page. In terms of a source for what I said: http://www.lawschoolsranking.com/top-20/reviews/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor.html. this is an objective website providing descriptions of the top 20 schools (and contains my statement almost verbatim). with a source, could we include my statement now? thanks a lot, i appreciate it.
 * If it's not clear what's wrong with it you should go read some of the pages I linked in the Talk page discussion, like WP:Puffery and WP:Weasel. You should also read up on reliable sources to determine whether that web site (who's "about" link leads to a dead page) qualifies.  Another helpful page is WP:Other Stuff Exists.  And again I would note that Michigan's ranking as a law school is well covered in the *very next section* of the article.  There's no reason to put it into the lead; it's just advertising.  Or boasting.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this whole discussion to the law school's talk page so that if others are interested they will notice it and weigh in. Let's continue at this link - Talk:University_of_Michigan_Law_School  JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a summary sentence to the "Reputation" section re the school's consistently high ratings. JohnInDC (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is JohnInDC the self-appointed arbiter of what goes on this page? It seems absurd not to mention that Sam Zell is a billionaire since that is his primary claim to fame, rather than his specific exploits as a businessman. Gobluetul (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, finally we're all self-appointed here, right? But that was a rhetorical question, so I'll just observe that Sam Zell's list of accomplishments is extensive, with or without his status as a "billionaire".  Indeed if you go to Sam Zell it doesn't even mention his billionaire status except as a number in the infobox.  I've moved the term to the end of his little capsule, because it doesn't hurt to include it and because "billionaire real estate developer" sounds - almost like a comic book caption.  I hope this compromise is satisfactory.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

University of Michigan Project
University of Michigan is not represented with a project at Category:WikiProject Universities. Please comment at Talk:University_of_Michigan.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on University of Michigan Law School. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/careerservices/factsandstats/pages/gradgeo.aspx.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable alumni list
The list on this page was for all intents and purposes identical to the "Main" list of UM Law alumni at List_of_University_of_Michigan_Law_School_alumni, so I whittled it down here from about 100 to 22 or 23. There's no reason for the full list to appear in both places. I did not apply any particular criterion for keeping or removing a name from this list other than to try and concentrate on what seemed to me to be a sampling of the school's very most accomplished and / or well-known alums, e.g., Clarence Darrow, U.S. and Michigan Supreme Court Justices, U.S. Senators, pioneers in law or other fields (first woman admitted to any bar; first black professional baseball player, Branch Rickey) and so forth. Editors who think I missed the mark and left out someone essential - or left in someone not so much - should feel free to tweak the list. But I think the volume of the list should stay about where it is now, say about a quarter of the main list, to prevent the foolishness of having two largely indistinguishable lists in two different places. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Popular culture"
An editor has twice added a list of "Popular Culture" references, consisting of a list of passing references to the school in TV shows, as well as noting an occasion or two in which the Law Quad has appeared in films. While "Popular Culture" sections are permissible in Wikipedia, this list did not rise above the classic "trivia" variety that is consistently discouraged by policy - see WP:POPCULT and "In popular culture" content - the latter pertinently advising, ("[A] Wikipedia article about a city with an "in popular culture" section should not contain examples of films which make a one sentence reference to the city in dialogue, or songs which mention the name of the city in one sentence. * * * [P]assing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."  In this case, the addition was little more than a WP:Trivia section, and accordingly I have removed it.  It shouldn't be added back without discussing it here.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the article as written referenced films and television shows where the Michigan Law reference was a plot-point or key character detail and it was supported with secondary sources. Also your silly authoritative tone borders on self-parody of a wikipedia editor! Likewise, the places where the law quad was noted as a filming location are places where it played a remarkably prominent role in the film. This issue appears to be a hangup of yours and no one else's (but I might be corrected).Tul vamosazul (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As i indicated, the passing references shown on your list ("so and so was identified as a UM Law grad") are precisely the kind that are disfavored. The material has been removed, now for the third time, by another editor.  Please do not reinsert it without obtaining consensus here.  Also please assume good faith when dealing with other Wikipedia editors, and refrain from personal attacks.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)