Talk:Chapman University School of Law

message: I changed the article to read that Chapman is the only fully ABA approved law school in Orange County, Ca, because the other two, Western State and Whittier, are either provisionally accredited or on probation. It merits a mention, but dunno if it is mentioned in the proper place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.227.194 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 July 2006
:I think its fine to say that its the only fully ABA approved law school in Orange County, but I don't think it should talk about the other two --if anything it makes Chapman sound like it has an inferiority complex, which I doubt it does considering the issues its competition in having. --Bobak 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you've added several paragraphs of advertising and POV, plagiarized directly from the Chapman website.  In accordance with Wiki standards, it has been removed. --Eleemosynary 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ABA Approved

message: So ... when you reduce the amount of meaningful information about this Law School, its _editing_, but when I *improve* it, its _spamming_?
If you are going to float such accusations, you need to make the article more comprehensive, not less so. Hyperion357 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above comments. --Eleemosynary 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming? 

message: Dear all,
Chapman Law has two law journals.  The first one is Chapman Law Review.  The second one is Nexus: a Journal of Opinion.  According to Washinton & Lee Law School's submissions and ranking system, Chapman's law review ranks 59/262 in the "general law review" category and 93/1424 in the "total law journals" category.  I would like to add this information because judicial/academic references to a law school's law review is perhaps one of the best indicators of its academic strength.  Before I proceed to insert the information, however, I welcome your suggestions in this matter.
Source: http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx.
Finally, if you have any trouble using the ranking system, feel free to leave me a comment and I will explain how it works, although the explanation link on top of the source page should be satisfactory enough.
Thanks! Arctura 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking 

message: I don't think the accreditation history is a controversial topic, but I still proceeded to find all the references needed to support my revision.  If you have any suggestions, please let me know in this section.  Thank you. Arctura 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accreditation History 

message: I am not sure if listing the pass rate is necessary because other law schools in Southern California do not include this information on their wiki-pages.  But if you guys find the information to be useful, you can find the most current official pass rate here (just run a "Ctrl + F" search for Chapman): http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/JULY2007STATS.pdf.
Because this seems to be a controversial issue, I won't edit the information myself and will leave it to other editors instead.  Thanks!  Arctura (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be controversial?  If you've got new data, well sourced, add it, including relevant date and citation.  I reverted the last guy who changed that number, not because there's anything controversial about it, but because the edit was indistinguishable from any other drive-by vandalism: no edit summary, no citation, no reason to belief it's not random misinformation. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there Dicklyon.  I am not sure if the information is necessary (other Southern Cal schools do not have such info on their pages).  Do you think it should be included?  Also, I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone when I said that the topic seems controversial, I guess I was just being overly cautious this time.  Arctura (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bar Pass Rate Necessary? 

message: :Image:Chapman LawSchool siteLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chapman LawSchool siteLogo.gif

message: Chapman Law has a new Dean, Tom Campbell.
Citations:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202483266938&Chapman_hires_former_congressman_as_its_new_dean&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
http://www.ocregister.com/news/campbell-289714-law-school.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/former-us-rep-campbell-is-new-chapman-law-dean.html'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.146.89 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Dean -- Tom Campbell 

message: It seems like we should just get rid of this section or at least substantially modify it, given the article's overall length, as this sort of seems like a bit of minutae. For example the expression "bait and swtich" seems like an especially harsh characterization of the scholarship retention policy: this whole section seems a bit like a particular bit of sour grapes from someone-- it may be a perfectly sensible policy for a school with such a high tuition for example. I'm going to delete this entire section (or substantially modify it) in a week from now unless I hear something on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter42 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarship retenion