Talk:Tulsa, Oklahoma/Archive 1

message: Tulsa's been featured in Stars and Stripes! It's the military newspaper that caters to US forces overseas in Europe, the MidEast, and the Pacific. Tulsa got a full-page feature in the travel section... check out page 35 of the April 6 issue, European edition. You can download a PDF from this link (will disappear in roughly a week, 9 MB download).--DUc0N 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Of note right now

message: I've made a major edit, in an attempt to start pulling together sections and miscellaneous mentions of things to do in Tulsa. I hope, by pulling it all together, it will make the article flow better and make it easier for readers to get a comprehensive overview of Tulsa's offerings. --N35w101 08:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment and Attractions section 

message: Does anyone know the source of this motto? I found some indication that it was a Readers' Digest contest in the 1950s. I'm dubious of superlatives and wonder if anyone has heard Tulsa called "America's Most Beautiful City." Danlovejoy 00:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michael! Good to see you on the Wikipedia. Glad people could make that clear. Tulsa IS a beautiful city. Danlovejoy 20:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's Most Beautiful City?! 

message: I love Tulsa. Spent half of my life there - off and on.
But! Wikipedia in not a commercial or a Chamber of Commerce presentation. As this article currently stands, it reads like a brochure. There is no doubt that most of the info, facts, figures, etc. need to be here and available, but without all of the spin.
The descriptions of some of the districts and neighborhoods are fine(need a little more current info), but the sections on 'Midtown' and 'South Tulsa' are embarassing. If I didn't know better I would think I was reading a 'Dining & Shopping Guide' pamphlet. Pottery Barn?! Krispy Kreme?! You should be ashamed. Don't misunderstand me, I love to shop there and eat donuts with the rest of the yuppies, but this stuff does not belong here unless it contributes to the article. I found at least three exclamation marks(!) - with very specific exception, these don't belong in articles on Wikipedia! Except on Talk pages! Everyone knows that inventive small businesses are going to try to slip in a blurb now and then about 'Joe Bob's Used Cars', but this stuff is blatent and systematic commercial propaganda. Shameless! 
And, while I'm on my box, if you don't know anything about a certain part of town (probably because you don't go there), then don't patronize the people who do live and work there. Leave that section blank and invite others to add to that section. Don't just spout out the first thing that comes to your mind. Why? Because it comes off like: "here's the black side of town, and, oh yeah, over here are the Mexicans". I now what the author was trying to say, but that's not how it came out.
I will continue to work on this page and try to make it worthy of the Great City of Tulsa, but others with knowledge and resources in these area need to be found to contribute. If you have verifiable facts, by all means, contribute. If you have spin, get a job with the Chamber of Commerce or the Tourism Office. If you support or have a legitimate arguement in opposition to this article, by all means speak up. I am always up for a good debate and not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.--Master Scott Hall 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shameless! 

message: Tulsa's page is getting really long. Lets move most or all of the history stuff to the article actually of Tulsa's history.  If no one has objections, I'll make this change in a few days.
Gatherton 07:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For those who want to read on Tulsa's history, check the main article link History of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The article carries a sample that does not take up the page, nor the length is a problem. Historians in Oklahoma have debated whether or not Tulsa began as the state's main city or the title goes to Oklahoma City. The first capital of the then territory was Guthrie, 30 miles north of OK City, but has not registered as a major city to this day. Tulsa is the state's 2nd largest city in population, but Oklahoma is one of those states with two big cities that could be rivals. --Mike D 26 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: I've lived near Tulsa all my life, and the one thing always covered in History classes is the famous Tulsa Race Riot. It was one of the bloodiest riots in history but I'm surprised to see that this article has no hint of it. Someone should put in an article that at least covers the basics of it. I know there is a seperate article on wiki about this but at least a link would be good. Also, the demographics of the city are very much needed as east, west and north sections of tulsa are most commonly referred to have a dominate race. DrkBlueXG 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been a link ever since as far back as I cared to look in the article history, which was October 2005. It's in the History of Tulsa section. Tex 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tulsa Race Riot

message: How come no mention of the city government? evrik 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By golly, you're right. I've taken steps to correct that. #1, I created a small section in the main article. #2, following the example of New York City's article, I created a Government of Tulsa, Oklahoma page. (Didn't want to futher bloat the main article). --N35w101 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government

message: This section, which appears to be merely Original Research was removed, until a source can be found for the claims:
:Another unique local downtown landmark is the "Center of the Universe", an echo spot located on the arched pedestrian bridge, next to the old Tulsa Union Depot (the future home of the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame). To experience the acoustic phenomenon of the Center of the Universe, all one needs to do is to stand in the middle of the circle on the arch of the bridge and speak. This part of downtown is always fairly empty of people, especially at night, and is a good place for urban exploration. At the bottom of the steps, next to the train tracks, is a sewer grate which, as legend has it, leads eventually to Tulsa's defunct system of underground tunnels, which supposedly stretch throughout downtown.
--LeflymanTalk 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Center of the Universe" section 

message: Standard disclaimer: native Tulsan, newbie Wikipedian, etc etc. That out of the way, does this article really need some of the sections it has? I don't see why a listing of every branch of TCCL is necessary. Nor do I see the need for a description of how the road system works or an enumeration of churches in the area. These problems were highlighted back in December but I'd like to emphasize the statement: this is an encyclopedia article about Tulsa, not the Chamber of Commerce Guide to Tulsa. This article reads like it was written by a marketing committee and the extensive external linkage smells to me of SEO firms capitalizing on Wikipedia's high visibility and reputation.
Suggestions:
*Condense the section on the neighborhoods. Some of it's good, some of it's pointless name-dropping, and I've never heard anyone refer to Terwilleger Heights in my life.
*Condense the Healthcare System section. In the first place, it's hardly encyclopedic, and in the second place, it's absurdly biased toward St. Francis. The section is filled with meaningless accolades of St. Francis and misses entirely mention of Hillcrest and TRMC. Not to mention, despite the fact that everyone in town calls it St. John's, the proper name of the hospital is St. John Medical Center -- please see .
*Business and economy. Is there any reason that can't become, say, List of major employers in Tulsa, Oklahoma, or at least just feature the top 10 in each category? As it stands it's nothing but a long list of redlinks, which says that these companies are not important or notable enough to merit creation of even a stubpage for them.
*Excise mention of the street network. Totally NN.
*The list of schools needs trimmed. I think mentioning the public school systems and maybe the first five private schools is enough. The list of parochial schools is mostly redlinks and school inclusionists notwithstanding, they're really NN.
*The section about TCCL needs removed. Completely. There is no reason for this information to be here, other than useless padding of an overlong article. The map of library facilities on the TCCL website does an excellent job of helping people to locate their nearest library.
*The Faith and Worship section needs to go. I realize that Tulsa is a deeply religious town with more than its share of churches -- after all, Oral Roberts built there, didn't he? But merely being "popular" doesn't make a church notable and there are some churches included that I'd quibble with the popular designation anyway. The megachurches like Rhema, Victory Christian and Higher Dimensions might be worth a mention, and Boston Avenue because it is a noted work of Art Deco. Everything else should be removed.
Look, I get being proud of the city, but that pride has spilled over the line here into a meaningless puff piece. This article has been bothering me for months but I've hit the point where my frustration at this useless article is boiling over. I figured I'd throw my concerns on the talk page before I grabbed a pair of shears and started pruning. (janeway216 17:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I intend to go for it, I just wanted to throw up a notice on the talk page in case this bothered anyone and also so people had warning of what was going to happen. I didn't figure this was that controversial, but everyone's seen the edit wars and arguments elsewhere -- so, propose, then implement. (janeway216 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long article 

message: : I've personally visited Tulsa twice to visit my maternal family side and how Tulsans boost a strong sense of civic pride. For one thing, I don't feel the Wikipedia article is horribly long, it's been frequently added to a point some people can't stand reading it. I appreciate changes in the article like the link to Tulsa's churches, about 220 of them, as the city has a cultural characteristic of the bible belt. 55 are "mega-churches" with over 1,000 members, and they span many acres with recreational amentities and private schools for members' children. I'm from Southern Cal. and noticed there's a deep sense of religious feeling, esp. the Protestant Christian (evangelical) kind in the community. Tulsa ranks one of the most Republican counties in the state, if not the country, despite the number of Democrats in Tulsa is above the state average. There is a strong patriotic flavor in Tulsans of all races, faithes and backgrounds, including the local American Indians in the area's 6 recognized tribes. Keep on the additions and careful edits on Tulsa until it's an explanatory and informative article. --Mike D 26 08:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tulsa article too long? 

message: With more toll roads than any other state in the union, It is hard to believe that even with the revenue from toll roads, Tulsa and the State of Oklahoma have the worst roads in the nation.
:*As a lifelong Tulsa resident, this is a constant source of bewilderment to me as well.--Nmajdan 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tulsas Roads

message: Somebody added to the article that a major league soccer team is coming to Tulsa. Is there a source for this?--Nmajdan 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: News to me. I can find no cite for this on Google News or on the MLS website. Last I heard they were adding teams in Toronto and the Philadelphia area but weren't considering Tulsa or OKC at this time. --D Wilbanks 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then I'm going to remove it. If somebody has a source, they can readd it.--Nmajdan 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major league soccer 

message: I'm taking the advice that is so often given. I'm being bold. List of churches- gone. List of libraries-gone. I've never seen anything like either of those in an encyclopedia, and they're unnecessary, so I took them out. Jedck 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT??? What have you done??? Seriously though, if somebody really wants that list, it needs to be on its own page. Like List of churches in Tulsa, Oklahoma or something.--Nmajdan 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yah this list isn't really bad (seriously, I've needed a list of churches before).  List of churches in Tulsa should be a good place for them.  Other similar lists: List of churches in the United Church of Canada, List of churches in London, and List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana.  Clearly most aren't going to be notable enough for their own articles, but some are (like Holy Family Cathedral, etc.).  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 03:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at http://www.churchangel.com/WEBOK/tulsa.htm for a starter list of Churches in Tulsa.  And here's a list for Broken Arrow http://www.churchangel.com/WEBOK/brokenarrow.htm.  If we do a list of churches, we might want to go ahead and have a seperate list for each city. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 03:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Man, there are a lot of Baptist churches. I've gone about halfway through the website so I'm going to go ahead and create the article and I'll continue to expand it over time. I will be placing it here: List of churches in Tulsa, Oklahoma.--Nmajdan 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend that your well formatted "List of churches in Tulsa" be Moved to a "List of places of worship in tulsa" or something like that. That way you could include synagogues and mosques.--Paul E. Ester 02:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that Wikipedia is not a directory or repository of links. Having said that,  inclusion of Tam Bao Buddhist Temple and the Hindu Temple of Tulsa would seem to be appropriate.--LeflymanTalk 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read your post as saying we should not have this list at all. So should it be deleted or not?--Nmajdan 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of churches, libraries is gone

message: http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=1832 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.33 (talk • contribs) 
Can we start the RFC process on this user? I'm really tired of this endless stream of "Tulsa sucks" material. Tulsa may well suck, but it's not NPOV, and this user has not contributed to this article in any substantive way. I think it's bordering on trolling. --D Wilbanks 02:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Sure, I'll support.--NMajdan•talk 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions about tulsa

message: I think there should be a section on Religion in Tulsa. Something covering the highlights like ORU/REMA   etc. I don't have enough of the background but it seems to me there could be a NPOV narrative mentioning the highlights. Just looking at it as a economic perspective there is a lot to cover.--Paul E. Ester 02:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion Section

message: Can someone link the 2004 census with the population information, or the info should be removed. There is no way to know the accuracy of the last edit, it could be vandalism, without the facts it's impossible to know if it should be reverted...--Paul E. Ester 01:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Be bold and make whatever changes you feel are necessary. This article needs it.--NMajdan•talk 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: I have made many updates to this section in an effort to improve readability, etc. My updates were:
* Streamlined repetitive text re temp & humidity spread between and among the sections
* standardized measurement presentations, as some listed SI units first while others listed "British" units first. Since the US is officially metric since 1866 (not a typo)  whether or not we use it in every day life, I put the SI units first.
* removed redundant latitude info in Climate and moved it all to geography. Ditto elevation
* removed kissing tradition @ Woodward Park -- not everyone's tradition and arguably not encyclopedic.
* removed relative distance from OKC info -- not needed or relevant given the lat/long information and mention of northeastern OK
* tried to make small, readable, paragraphs with related information
--N35w101 01:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography and climate

message: Suggestions:
This article incorporates too many "lists of links", contrary to (What) Wikipedia is not:
:[A] Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. 
Further, articles are not:
:Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. 
In short, removal of the extensive links to companies, places of worship, organisations and other external sites, not dealing specifically with the topic of Tulsa is necessary. If nothing more than a link can be said about an entry, then it probably isn't appropriate.
Further, please combine the multi-item sub-headings (and sub-sub-headings). The TOC is significantly too long. Not every subject deserves its own separate subheading.
(I started to edit this myself, but was called away)
--LeflymanTalk 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK. Done. All sub-headings et al removed. I left all the content untouched (except Tulsa MSA) and replaced sub-headings with bold markups. My only objective was to reduce the TOC. Now the lists can be concentrated on. --N35w101 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists need to be trimmed 

message: Somebody left potentially offensive edits on Tulsa, since then was removed, as a city full of complete idiots and other stereotypes associated with Oklahoma. I copied it as soon I can: <vandalism refactored> Please note Wikipedia don't allow edits and statements that attack, defame, insult or offend any group of people, such as classist and regional slurs and it's a general stereotyping list of whites in the lower-income spectrum that do not make up the majority of people in Tulsa. --Mike D 26 08:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looks like some anon IPs do follow the talk pages. 198.187.154.105 re-entered the vandalism comments, which I have subsequently removed again. Remember, talk pages are for discussions on improving the article itself, not for general discussions about the topic. See: What talk pages may be used for. --LeflymanTalk 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for discussing the topic, but the article is the topic and how vandalism is an ominous threat to the article. Alright, an anonymous vandal is switching IPs and managed to acquire our member names. Please keep our eyes out for the vandal and whenever vandals strike again, track them down and report their mess to the administration board. Stereotypes can create a problem, in terms of wikiquette and can create an edit war. I hate it when a certain article draws in a negative stereotype, also known as "web trolling" to incite others and what they can do is damage the article. --Mike D 26 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism alert

message: To bring this (and its associated History of Tulsa, Oklahoma) article in compliance with Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Here are some reliable sources which could be used for citation:
*"I said Tulsa, OK?" (Washington Post, April 2, 2006)
*Tulsa Preservation Commission - includes history of various phases
* ForwardLook.net - reprint of story from Plymouth 1946-1949 discussing the 1957 Plymouth "timecapsule" buried at the courthouse, to be unearthed next year. See also: http://www.buriedcar.com/
--LeflymanTalk 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources for citation 

message: I archived some of the older discussions from this page as well as some of the discussions that lacked signatures.--NMajdan•talk 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I have been doing a lot of list-eliminating lately. I took out the huge list of attractions and turned it into paragraphs. Its obvious when you look at the table of contents. I also made a sports team table under the "sports" subsection of the "Entertainment and Attractions" section.
There is still a list of interstates and highways and it looks a little combersome but I can live with it if other people think it is OK. I think this article is getting closer to feature article status. Anyone agree? Maybe add some more references and eliminate 1 or 2 more lists? I would also like to see another picture of Tulsa's skyline and/or the Arkansas River in Tulsa added. Everyone loves pictures.
Oh, and one more thing, I took out the "this section does not site its references" thing at the bottom of the page. I think the article is ok on references now, but like I said, a few more would be very good. So lets hear those suggestions for making this article fit for feature status. (or, maybe it is already fit?) --Okiefromokla 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is far from featured status. Some more detailed editing and maybe put it up for peer review.--NMajdan•talk 23:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, I have that. Here are the results:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 33 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Changes to Article... feature status?

message: there is a script that does an automated peer review. See User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js it could be useful for feedback--Paul E. Ester 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I have that. Here are the results:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 33 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Peer review

message: Someone removed the logos in the sports team table, citing some rule that logos cant simply serve a decoratve purpose. Perhaps this person should go and remove the sports team logos from the sports table in every single wikipedia article? Someone should put the logos back...--4.244.99.188 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently the subjected of a very heated debate (see here, here, here, and here to name a few). Unfortunately, the way they were used on this page does violate the fair use rules. So those image will not be coming back.--NMajdan•talk 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports team logos 

message: I just want to mention that TU law should be recognized as a world class law school and should be mentioned in the article. TU law is regarded as one of the highest ranking law schools in the country.
http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/4/desc/GPALow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.33 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 September 2006
*Actually, TU Law is ranked rather low by the standards of US News and World Report -- it's in Tier 4, ranking 88 for 2007. TU lauds this as an "ascent", as it was ranked at 93 the previous year. --LeflymanTalk 19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TU LAW

message: Substituted at 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment