Talk:Yale Law School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Image available

Please see if this image is useful for the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Prominent" faculty

What's the criteria for listing a faculty member as "prominent?" I suspect that few outside the immediate YLS community would recognize some names on the ever-expanding list. One measure might be to delete names that do not link to Wikipedia articles, making an exception for Bruce Ackerman justified by his many books and his frequent appearances on op-ed pages. Archaic 22:54 (UTC) 6 Dec 2005

What about former faculty? I just added an Arthur Allen Leff page and would like to link it to here. Tdewey 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

rankings paragraph

The ranking information on the Stanford, Harvard, & Yale (and perhaps other) law school pages seems disproportionate and over-emphasized in the early part of the article. Moreover it seems likely to encourage the kinds of disputes among afficionados of one school or the other tweaking endlessly to pull out particular rankings. I think on all these law schools that a general statement of prestigiousness & reference to the admittedly important US News rankings, historically contextualized, is useful. But comparisons b/w the different law schools are too specific for the top portion. I'm proposing to edit it down, but since it seems to be a frequently edited section in some of the articles I'm announcing for discussion here first. (Cross-posting to talk pages for SLS, HLS, YLS, maybe others.) --LQ 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumi

RexRex84 and an anonymous contributor are in the middle of an interesting discussion about who should count as "notable" alumni. RexRex84 added Charlie Korsmo, a child actor who later went to MIT and graduated from Yale Law School, stating that because he has a Wikipedia page, and is more "well known" than many of the judges listed on the page, he should be included. The anonymous contributor rebutted by saying that Korsmo does not belong on this list because his notoriety stems not from YLS; nor are his child acting credentials particularly impressive (supporting cast in the comedy What About Bob? and other lesser films). While I agree with RexRex84 that Korsmo is, in some way, "notable" because he might be better known to average folks than "unknown" federal judges, I wonder if that makes him noteworthy for the YLS page? That is the real question here.

Indeed, Korsmo may have some fans who made him a Wikipedia page, but his notability, in the YLS context, is questionable. Considering that he is sandwiched between a Nuremburg prosector and Joseph Lieberman, two people whose power and influence is both notable and noteworthy, Korsmo is out of his league here (at least for the moment). Korsmo is notable only in a "pop culture" sort of way, not yet due to any characteristics that have shaped American history, law, society or politics. Most of the other notable alumni have done exactly that, even if they are not household names. However, for YLS alumni and interested legal eagles, these names are familiar and belong on the YLS list.

I would suggest taking Korsmo's name off the notable alumni list for now; let him make his mark on the American or global scene with something more "noteworthy" first. When he does, then he should go back on. Henry M. Trotter 07:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In a move that should factor into this debate, I've excised the alumni list to a separate page, as it current protocol on many university and law school pages, leaving a paragraph on those "among the most notable alumni". Contributors should feel free to tweak the main page as they wish, as well as augment the new page's list. Cjs2111 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Connection with 2d Cir.

I disagree with ZimZam's deletion of the contribution of the anoymous 128 etc. IP contributor about the YLS-CA2 connection as "original research." It is highly relevant, just as is Harvard's connection with the CA1. It is not original. Everybody (if at all well informed) has known about it for decades. It was well known 60 years ago when I was a YLS student.

I do think it was in the wrong place, as 2.6--recent history. (It's not recent.) It belongs somewhere else, such as perhaps with the notable alumni or faculty material. But I don't think it should have been summarily and unilaterally delected by ZimZam just because he didn't like it. Could we have a discussion on this and seek to reach a consensus? The material may need editing (Kate Stith's marriage to Cabranes may be too much of a stretch), but it is informative and refers to what is a part of students' experience that informs their long-term views about their careers and values. Moreover, that faculty members are judges or leave to become judges is a part of what become's one's attitude toward the institution. Judges on the faculty also give students insights they would otherwise not get.

This kind of editing is too high handed. ZimZam needs to learn more self restraint and collegiality.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and yes, a discussion is necessary, not just having an IP simply re-insert the content without commenting on my justifications given in my edit summaries. Noting that there is a "relationship" with the 2nd circuit is a subjective claim. Yes, there are a lot of people who have connections to both YLS and the 2nd curcuit, but that does not imply a "relationship" of some sort. Further, your suggestion that "a part of students' experience...informs their long-term views about their careers and values" is your opinion, an unsupported and unverifiable claim. That is the problem with commentary like this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the suggestion that "a part of students' experience...informs their long-term views about their careers and values" may just be your opinion, an unsupported and unverifiable claim." But I wasn't suggesting that the statement become part of the public text of the article. I was explaining why the deleted material had value -- a meta-statement. It may well be that article content should be objective and verifiable, but that does not mean that statements in a discussion about whether statements in the article are worth making, or not, must. Surely talk page standards need not be those of article pages. That a statement is subjective (e.g., it's a good idea to write about this topic) does not disqualify it from being part of a discussion of whether deleted material should be retained, or a sensible comment with which many would agree.

The User:ZimZalaBim summaries of edits are too terse to provide a basis for informed give and take between the deleting person (User:ZimZalaBim) and the earlier author who keeps reposting his deleted material here. It seems to me, subjectively but I suggest preeminently rationally, that you should have indicated on the YLS talk page why you think this passage shoulkd be deleted, why it is inappropriate, and so on -- in some detail. Then say that unless you see a suitable response or opposing arguments in 10 days, you propose to delete the passage. Others could then put in their 2 cents. If you see that many disagree with you, you should refrain from pushing your views on others -- or at least explore compromises. I for one think that User:ZimZalaBim quite misses the point of the original author, and that there was or is a special relationship between CA2 and YLS just as there once was or is between HLS and CA1. When many people move back and forth between the school and the court, each set comes to influence the other's thinking and set a distinct, particular stamp on it. That does "imply a 'relationship' of some sort."

I would therefore try to figure out a way to edit his material to make it Wikiworthy instead of just tossing it in the ashcan.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Just work it out here, rather than allowing an IP to blindly insert it time and time again. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Former justices

I inserted the four former Justices since FDR as a compromise for this section. (They are Minton, Stewart, White, and Fortas.) I put them in alphabetic order to avoid suggesting relative merit or importance. I think former Justices are far more notable than two defeated candidates for VP, and therefore more appropriately (or at least as appropriately) listed. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the latest revision of the former Justice list, are William Strong, George Shiras, David Davis, and Henry Brown of sufficient current interest to list them along with the other more well known Justices? I don't think so. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable Alumni Cleanup

I move to delete the notable alumni section, leaving only the main article template. This section has exploded into what is basically a list poorly disguised as prose. Additionally, there is no good way to decide if a person is notable enough to be in this section. If there is no additional information given besides the fact that they are alumni, then there is no reason to have the list here. Mutinus (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I agree, leaving the link to the list is the way to go. But it'll very likely come back anyway... it always does. Markvs88 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.law.yale.edu/about/historyofyls.htm and http://www.yale.edu/printer/bulletin/pdffiles/law.pdf. 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note almost the entire History section was a verbatim paste from these two sources copyright sources and had to be removed. I have left only that material which appears not to have been copied from elsewhere, although I've tagged some of the assertions with . - Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No woman dean

[The following was posted on my userpage by User John Paul Parks. It is posted here for discussion purposes. My own reply will be posted with the next edit. S. Rich]

"No, my comment about the Deans of Yale Law School is not POV, it is merely factual, and it is a logical continuation of the existing statement that Yale Law School began admitting women students in 1918. If my comment is POV, why is it appropriate to point out the gender characteristics of Yale law students? The person who reverted my edit stated that my comment was "unsourced." Nonsense. The article contains a list of the Deans of the Law School, and they are all men. If the article is attempting to portray Yale Law School as "progressive" on the subject of women's rights, the authors are going to have to come up with information more recent than what occurred in 1918. For example, Stetson University currently has a female President, and its law school has had at least two female deans. The University of Miami law school had a female dean in the late 1970's and early 1980's.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)"

--S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply -- the particular edit by JPJ was an edit saying "no woman has served as dean" at YLS. I removed that edit. Such info is not encyclopedic in the same sense that no Zambian-American, no triple amputee, no Wicken, etc. has served as dean. Comparisons of YLS to other schools, which have women (or Zambians, or amputees, or Wickens) in important positions, is POV.--S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. On the other hand, if someone can provide reliable sources that discuss this fact and its importance then that would cast a different light on this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Memorialized"?

"...Lillian Goldman Law Library has been memorialized as the meeting place of Bill Clinton and fellow student Hillary Clinton..." The reader is expected to believe that there is a bronze plaque or similar memorial to the event. A bit zany.--Wetman (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)