Talk:Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law/Archive 1

Archive 1

some addition

rankings need to be updated. clinical section added, with more links. journal section added to. importance and quality updated. clinics do not qualify as trivia, or minutia. they are certainly important in assessing a law school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.58.241 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

large deletion 4/15/07

This was truncated in the edit description: -I undid a large deletion of many section including Publications, Faculty, Clinics, Student Groups, Alumni, etc. I agree with David, pages should be free of dizzying minutia, however, there is an alternative to broadly censoring huge swaths of information. Useful information about Journals, Alumni, Faculty, and programs are useful and regularly found on law school wikipedia pages. Refining, better articulating, and condensing this information would be more helpful than hastily wiping the slate clean. Anon penpal

• Hi. Unfortunately, the page looks like the law school's page, and this isn't what Wikipedia is here for. The history, the aim of the school, noteable faculty or programs (like The Innocence Project), etc. are fine for inclusion. But as it is now, all this information can be found on Cardozo's website. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror site of the law school's website, and I can't imagine Wikipedia being the first place a person goes to find out if there is a "Cardozo Democrats" club. Plus, everthing is red-linked. Are articles about every student group and faculty member really going to be written? Notable faculty are fine, but partners at law firms is a little ridiculous. It also makes the school look like it's small-time, to be honest. It's like "Look! We have partners at large law firms too!" You should take some cues from the Columbia Law School, Fordham Law School and NYU Law School pages. Right now, the Cardozo page looks junky with the odd placement of images and its inclusion of unnotable information. And that's the key: The information it includes needs to be notable. Every building and every person who has stepped foot in Cardozo is not notable. All schools have buildings. --David Shankbone 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• There are too many lists. See [[Wikipedia:List guideline}}; there is too much trivia - see WP:Trivia; the page doesn't follow the recommended layout - see Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I could continue to show the guidelines that this page doesn't follow, but these are good places to start. --David Shankbone 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

advert

Added the advert tag. Parts of this article need to be revised, and opinions should be replaced with facts.

In response to the request to edit to make the article neutral: I would love to help, but I am not sure what you are reading as opinion that needs to be replaced with fact. Please point out what you perceive as opinion so that it can be removed or properly cited if it is indeed factual. 64.131.170.148 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Revision

This appears to be an opinion: "However, other well respected, and arguably more reliable, measures of law school quality suggest that U.S. News ranked Cardozo far too low."

One cannot objectively qualify "far too low." Other rankings can be presented, but such an assessment should not be made on their bases.

Staff #

Where did the number 50 come from? Does that include faculty? I don't think that can be right. ---- user:whisperednumber 11/18/2006 11:52 PM

hey whispered, I added the occasional papers again because I think they qualify as a formal publication. I realize that they are occasional, but many publications are just compilations of papers submitted at irregular intervals. Furthermore, I am not really sure where to include these papers if they are not included under the publication section. [1]

Photo gallery

I removed the photo gallery from this article because there were too many images - Wikipedia is not a photo gallery - and none of them were labelled as to what they were, where or when they were taken, and what they showed. The editor who uploaded them (they are Commons images) has provided no information on the images' information form, and has been edit warring under both his or her account name and as an IP to restore the gallery.

Earlier, after their first reversion of my removal, I left the following messages on the editor's talk page:

Please do not restore these images to the article. Wikipedia articles are not galleries of random, unlabelled photographs. Galleries of photos in an article should have some definite purpose, to increase the reader's knowledge about some aspect of the subject, and these images do not do that.

There are several things you can do: pick out a few (say, four or five) of the images that seem to you to be pertinent in illusstrating some improtant aspect of Cardozo, and put those into a gallery, with explanations of what they are. Alternately, those of the pictures which are yours can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to the "Yeshiva University" category, and then people who want to see more images can click on the "Commons" box I added to the end of the article and take a look.

What you should not do is to restore all these images en masse again without presenting arguments for why the article needs them on its talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I see they are already Commons images. I've moved them all into the new category "Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor has not responded to these messages, nor have they taken the requested steps to format the gallery in such a way that would be acceptable. Instead, they have continued to revert. The majority of the images in the gallery are available on Commons, and can be seen by the interested reader at the Commons link I added to the External links section. A small, formatted, labelled gallery (4 or 5 images) plus this link should be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Photos

The haphazard placement of the photos under Location and facilities make the page look junky. --DavidShankBone 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Notability -- even of faculty -- has to be reflected by either a wp article, or independent RS sources. Non-independent refs, such as a school bio, are not good enough. Those entries have to be enhanced, or deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)