Talk:Valparaiso University School of Law

Complaint
Motion to completely erase this site, as it does not subscribe to crazy Wiki rules about point of view or whatever these howling autistics have determined are their pseudo-academic rules for editing. Regardless of the mysteries of the wikipedia editorial process, this page is self serving and completely biased. Seriously, wiki-nerds, engage in whatever arcane and byzantine process you do to eliminate the tripe on this page. 65.111.127.30 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

this is basically the pre-packaged admissions material in wiki form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.220.193 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a wiki, so BE BOLD and fix whatever you believe to be incorrect or inaccurate. This article, like most others, is a work in progress. Our editting policies are also not vague or hidden, but well defined an extensivly documented. See WP:MOS and WP:Five Pillars. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors and Assume Good Faith. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yo Charlie that's the problem the editing guidelines are too documented and become a process too complicated and full of buzz words that don't apply to real world editing or academic writing. Besides, this wiki is an advertisement, pure and simple. I second my own motion for deleting this POS. 65.111.127.30 (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconding this. This school and other schools like it are closer to diploma mills than to legitimate institutions and their students' job prospects reflect that, with the added bonus that a diploma mill won't usually charge a graduate $100,000+ in non-dischargeable student loans. A page that's closer to an advertisement than a real article both detracts from the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole and does potential students a life-long disservice. This dog should not be allowed to live.208.120.137.216 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's two votes for putting this article down is that enough Wiki Gods or do we have to engage in some 6 month public discourse on the merits of allowing advertisements on wikipedia. The article needs to be scrapped and started from scratch - and no, I'm not going to do it.  Seriously though, Wikipedia occupies a pretty vaunted place in the public sphere at this point, and it seems all too likely that some bright eyed kid with a scorching 145 on the LSAT and a 2.4 undergrad GPA is going to read this article and think that Valparaiso is some vaunted tower of legal education.  Essentially, this article appearing in what is supposedly an objective collection of aged 18-40 year old white male's knowledge is fraud. Hmm, I wonder if some unemployed 200k in debt Valparaiso "lawyer" can sue wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.127.30 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if some unemployed, debt-ridden, "lawyer" is taking his frustration out on a wikipedia talk page because he couldn't hack it in a man's game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.194.58 (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and significantly improved the article's content. Hope you like it! Skadefryd (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like somebody's coming back and reverting to the admissions-office-sanitized version again, from an IP that's had no other contributions. I'm still kind of new at this whole wiki thing, but given what seems to be a consensus here that the current version is close to unsalvagable in terms of point of view, I'm going to revert to the 04:36, 10 December 2009 version. "Be bold" and all that. If I'm screwing something up, or that's unsatisfactory for some reason, please do let me know why. 67.160.77.37 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted as a lot of information was removed and information removed the article has issues .Asked for expert and rewrite.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pharoh, you are literally reverting to a version of this page authored by the admissions office, see: http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=152.228.175.77 Such self-interested editing should not be permitted even with disclaimers. 209.2.228.115 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, a version of the page done by the admissions office or anyone affiliated with the school is a clear conflict of interest and does not have a place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.132.191 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The potential COI of the author(s) doesn't matter so long as the article is factual, sourced and neutral. That said, much of this article needs to go. I'd bet that any school would claim to "foster an environment in which every student is valued" - but we need actual RS commentary that the school actually does that. I've removed a few peacocky bits, but more scrutiny is required. Franamax (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going through the page in order to removed unsourced statements of propaganda, as well as verifying that the sourced information supports the text. Apparently merely citing to the Valpo Law Homepage does not support broad claims of greatness - who knew! -TBD

because some wiki admin wanted me to justify my edits here, I'll note several of the notes above are mine from before I made an account, specifically 209.2.228.115 EvilweaselSA (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, posting in the "complaint" section to note that I'm undoing propaganda edits that have been once again added. TheBestDeception (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rachelbirnbaum, we're attempting to alter this page to better reflect a neutral point of view, and it would be great if you didn't keep reverting it to the exact same page without any input here. EvilweaselSA (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You know the best part about that propaganda version? Valparaiso law is not even the 38th oldest ABA Accredited Law School, according to Law School List. Just in case there wasn't enough evidence of that version's misinformation. TheBestDeception (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed Carl Brizzi from notable alumni list, as elected county prosecutor is not very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.70.49 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the lede sentence beginning with "While these rankings..." . This is OR/SYNTH, since the conclusions stated in the article cannot possibly be gleaned from the source charts. Not that I doubt that rankings are controversial. Speaking of which, if rankings are to be treated at all, they should not rely only on one source and arguably should not be noted in the lede unless the ranking itself has notability.

As a comment on "Notable faculty"/"Notable alumni" - so far as I'm aware, the inclusion criteria are any of 1) wikilinked article with sourced proof they are/were faculty/alumni; wikilink with the proof of affiliation sourced here (should be in the person's article anyway, but can be duplicated here if someone asks); if the name is not wikilinked, some very solid sources showing the affiliation and the notability. Note here that the last option will be rare, the mere fact that you graduated and were then noted in a press release when you joined a firm will not necessarily be sufficient. But at the very least, I'd want to see proof that the person actually graduated and/or taught there. Franamax (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How does a person provide proof that an individual graduated from a law school? 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you want to see her law degree? 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Khaaliq is named as a Valparaiso University Law School graduate in the Post Tribune. 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue with Khaaliq is not so much whether she's a graduate - the Post Tribune article suffices for that. The issue is that she is not notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. The mere fact that she ran for an political office is not sufficient, especially since in this case she was a write-in candidate after having failed to qualify to run in the Democratic primary. In Indiana, all you have to do to run as a write-in is to file a form with the secretary of state, subject to certain conditions; you don't have to have any number of signatures of supporters. Indyguy (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep thinking up more and more excuses not to include this brave woman's steps in history. First, you needed proof of her graduation from Valparaiso University School of Law which was insulting to say the least. When we provided that to you, now here you are thinking up something else regarding notability. You (editors) will do anything to diminish the value of African American accomplishments. What criteria exactly has she not met to be classified by you as "notable"? Please tell us since you are the expert. 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the only people classified as "notable" according to you are white or of European descent. Or perhaps they can only be African Americans who dance or sing or are into sports because according to this list of "Notable Alumni" that's all we see, with exception for Richard G. Hatcher. There are no African American women appearing on this list although there have been several who graduated from the law school who went on to accomplish great things, one of them being Khaaliq. 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Khaaliq became an official U.S. Senate write-in candidate because that was her only option after it was alleged her due process rights due process rights were violated by the Indiana Election Commission for which she is now suing them. If it's so easy to run as a write-in candidate, and it's a "mere fact" as you state, then you try doing it. Let's see how "mere" it is to do what she did and visit over 80 counties, raise nearly $50K pre-primary, and get as much support as she did as an African American woman in Indiana's culture. 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Prior to being unfairly removed from the primary ballot by the Indiana Election Commission, Ms. Khaaliq received an estimated 4,589 signatures, the most signatures ever received by any African American candidate for United States Senate in Indiana's history. The requirement was 4,500. Although her signature count was contested at the hearing, the consensus is that she received over 4,000 signatures, which is still the most signatures received for any African American candidate for United States Senate in Indiana's history. Pre-primary, she raised nearly $50K, the most ever raised by an African American candidate for United States Senate in Indiana's history. If anything is revealed here regarding "notability", it is the purposeful lack of news coverage and bias Khaaliq faced as a candidate in the 2022 United States Senate race. Therefore, we do not believe that your decision to include her as a notable alumni should be dependent on a culture of racism in journalism. 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is a person supposed to gain notability when they have been severely discriminated against in news reporting and journalism generally speaking their area? Wikipedia should make an exception for Khaaliq. Without a doubt, she made history in Indiana and received her education at Valparaiso University School of Law. Wikipedia has made several exceptions for people who made history, but their actions may not have been recorded properly for that person to meet "notability" standards. We believe the same exceptions should be made here where Khaaliq's candidacy was largely and purposefully ignored by Indiana news media sources. 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: We sent messages over to Wikipedia regarding adding Khaaliq's name under "Notable Alumni", and finally received a response that makes sense. It may help you biased editors who add condescending remarks and ask inappropriate and unnecessary questions in your suggestions. We were told to do a third thing: Try creating and submitting an actual draft article for Khaaliq as all others listed and then link the edits to the approved Wikipedia article.
 * So, first, after an editor inappropriately requested to see actual proof of Khaaliq's graduation from law school, and a second editor came in and tried to diminish the value of her historic campaign run, we finally arrive at a helpful answer: To simply create a page for Khaaliq and link it.
 * Wouldn't that have been easier and more helpful to say in the first place rather than to first insult Khaaliq by asking us to provide proof of her graduation or take away the value of her political contribution despite being clearly bullied out of a race? 2601:248:C500:2490:C1E9:712F:90FC:664C (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to a conflict of interest, I've gone ahead and taken the liberty to submit the information below to the following pages so editors can consider creating an individual article on Khaaliq that can then be properly linked to any edits for Notable Alumni in the future. This suggestion can be found at both Wikipedia: Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures AND Wikipedia: Requested articles/Biography/By nationality.
 * Here's the wording with sources:
 * Haneefah Khaaliq - Haneefah Khaaliq (American politician)) - Khaaliq is the first African American to run for the U.S. Senate in a general election in Indiana and one of the first African American women to seek a major party nomination for U.S. Senate in Indiana. She is a graduate of Valparaiso University School of Law.
 * 2601:248:C500:2490:6173:F36B:CCFE:5A64 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Changes
I've made a few changes to reflect a informational and neutral tone. If anyone has any questions, please let me know. Jefe317 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)