Talk:Loyola Law School

Request for Wiki third-opinion

For "Loyola2L" dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Summary of objections to "Loyola2L" manipulation of content, by EditorEsquire

The Wiki page for any educational institution is supposed to contain verifiable and unbiased information. It is not meant to be used as a platform to denigrate a school. The same goes for any Wiki page. Yet one editor has sought to add "Loyola2L" to the "Notable alumni" section of Loyola Law School.

Loyola 2L is a noteworthy legal blogger. If you google "Loyola 2L" you will find thousands of pages by or about Loyola 2L. I want to note that the edit war over Loyola 2L is waged by three IPs in favor of adding Loyola 2L vs. one IP in favor of deleting it. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Loyola 2L does not "denigrate" or "abuse" Loyola. Loyola 2L is apparently a blogger name used by a group of Loyola Law school students, who use the internet to inform others of the difficulties they are having finding a job. I appreciate their desire to honestly share their experiences and I don't see any way to square that with the characterizations like "denigrate" or "abuse." --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Loyola2L is apparently a username belonging to one or more people who hold themselves out as having some affiliation with the school (an assertion which is completely unverifiable), and with this apparent sock puppet seek to denigrate the school. Now, a Wiki editor is trying to use Wiki as another platform to spread these biased missives -- under the cover of saying that because any anonymous person can claim to be a student of the school and then defame it for their own motives (most notably, to elevate competing law schools),

I don't know if you work for Loyola Law School, but Wikipedia is not a tool by which you can elevate your school over others. Wikipedia is here to present complete information. If graduates of your law school indeed have such poor career prospects, that a group of bloggers would post literally thousands of messages bemoaning their financial difficulties, then it is noteworthy information. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki must also be a forum in which to do so. That assertion fails several of Wiki's cornerstone policies. Wiki is not -- and never was intended to be -- a forum for abuse.

By your definition anyone who writes about the country's poor economy abuses the country. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) This fails Wiki's non-bias policy. The "Loyola2L" posts alleging "poor" career prospects are opionated bias. Career prospects are already incorporated within the US News rankings, which is prominently displayed and linked on the page. Loyola2L-related posts anywhere -- including Wikipedia -- are meant solely to denigrate the school.

How are you in a position to judge the honesty of Loyola 2L's posts? Loyola 2L are a group of actual Loyola students struggling to find jobs. You, based on your IP, are in Virginia. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(2) For these reasons, the post also fails the accuracy policy. First, the relative employment rates reported by US News show that the assertion of "poor" career prospects is factually wrong.

This is just a lie, and I'm troubled by your lack of respect for the truth. I just researched Loyola's US News statistics and they show, among other things, a 40% unemployment rate at graduation. In comparison, UCLA's unemployment rate at graduation is just 3%. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, Loyola2L by definition cannot be an alumni because he/she cannot be verified as such, and the username itself is made to suggest a current student. But again, any number of different people could register this username on any number of blogs -- regardless of who they are or what their affiliation, if any, is with the school.

I seriously doubt anyone would pretend to be a Loyola Law School student, and post thousands of messages bemoaning the market value of the degree, solely as a game. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(3) This is also not noteworthy. Just because I post a blog somewhere does not elevate it to the level of being worthy of putting onto a Wiki page.

This is another lie. Loyola 2L is a noteworthy legal blogger as described above. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(4) This posting squarely violates Wiki's verifiability policy. No one can ever verify whether Loyola2L is or ever was a student -- let alone a single person or instead multiple people using the same username -- or a sock puppet. The fact remains that the identify of the people under this username can never be determined as fact and is completely unverifiable. Moreover, the law school market in Los Angeles is very competitive. Loyola2L could very well be affiliated one of the several competiting law schools, seeking to denigrate the school for his/her/their own motives, and now expanding that campaign onto Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorEsquire (talk • contribs) 10:22-10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.29.214 (talk • contribs) 10:29-10:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is moot because the article doesn't purport to verify L2L's statements. The article only reports L2L's existence as a noteworthy blogger. Regarding your redundant assertions, see above. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

Dear administrators,

Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers.

These bloggers are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on.

Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. They were concerned that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 .

Unfortunately, EditorEsquire presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L entry and the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restore these entries and wait for the discussion to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval. --Updatethis12 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom the Temp's blog, http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, which mentions Loyola LA, discusses the poor job prospects that many of these unemployed graduates face. Tom the Temp's blog was recently mentioned in an article written by New York Times best selling author and social critic Barbara Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich describes how lower tiered graduates of schools like Loyola LA report working 12 hours a day, six days a week, in crowded basements with inadequate sanitary facilities. In an American Lawyer article, a legal temp at a major firm reports being “corralled in a windowless basement room littered with dead cockroaches,” where six out of seven exits were blocked." Big Los Angeles firms have many of these "temp" legal positions that many Loyola LA graduates are forced to work in. Loyola LA uses these positions to puff up their graduate placement statistics, when in reality they are jobs from hell. Ehrenreich's article was published in the Nation and Chicago Sun Times. --69.113.110.164 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

History of "Loyola2L" dispute (as of 9 June 2007 5:30 am Eastern Time

(cur) (last) 09:22, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,012 bytes) (I am submitting to dispute resolution. I made a majority of this content, and am not going to sit by and watch you hijack it to denigrate the school for your own motives)

(cur) (last) 09:20, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,011 bytes)

(cur) (last) 06:33, 9 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,216 bytes) (My interest is an informative article. I edited the entry to make clear we don't support the blogger's views. You've now had three different IPs add the L2L reference. Please stop deleting it.)

(cur) (last) 01:50, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,011 bytes) ((1) There is no way to identify if this blogger attended the school, and thus is unverifiable; (2) This is clearly meant to denigrate the school and is biased. Identify your interest in this post.)

(cur) (last) 00:15, 7 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,216 bytes) (I added "supposedly" to 70.162.147.66's edit, so the article doesn't endorse L2L's views. However, L2L is a known blogger and supposed Loyola alum. Why not unbiasedly report his/her existence)

(cur) (last) 23:08, 4 June 2007 70.162.147.66 (Talk) (22,205 bytes) (→Notable alumni)

(cur) (last) 23:32, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,189 bytes) (I did not suggest you were that bogger. His blogs and reference here is biased. If you object, submit it to Wiki resolution. I will register as a username to object n that case.)

(cur) (last) 14:00, 1 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,188 bytes) (First of all, I am not Loyola 2L. Second, can you please not start a huge fight over this? Loyola 2L is well known legal blogger and I think it's biased to exclude the reference. Pls add it somewhere.)

(cur) (last) 08:21, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,011 bytes) (Also, the user is not only abusing the bias policy to denigrate a school, but moreover attempted to self-make himself/herself as notewothy (in part by this page))

(cur) (last) 08:18, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,010 bytes) (I appreciate your comment. The content violates the non-bias policy, this is not the function of a "notable" alumni section, and the post refers to an unidentified pseudonyn who is not even an alumni)

(cur) (last) 03:52, 1 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,186 bytes) (→Notable alumni - I think Loyola 2L is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. I'm not saying we should present his/her views as fact, but perhaps just mention him somewhere?)

(cur) (last) 02:07, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,010 bytes) (Loyola2L is an unidentified purported alumni posting subjective and slanted content contrary to Wiki policies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorEsquire (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

My opinion: If this were an external link, it would clearly fall under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided item 11. For inclusion under "notable alumni" it should probably meet WP:N, which as far as I can tell it does not. The linked article is clearly a candidate for deletion under CSD A7. Anomie 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The absence of reliable independent verification is another crucial nail in its coffin. Just leave it out and if anyone adds it again, there are ways to deal with that if and when it happens. Adrian M. H. 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins, please don't be guided solely by EditorEsquire's terribly unrepresentative description. He is one IP, and if you view the edit history you'll see there were three IPs in support of adding the Loyola 2L reference. Please allow some time for everyone to comment on this dispute. As Anomie and Adrian M.H. formed their conclusions before listening to the other side, I don't think they are still neutral and I think their opinions should be deleted. --Updatethis12 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Updatethis12: FYI, I am not an admin. My opinion wasn't based on what EditorEsquire said. Instead, I looked at the text under dispute, and the article linked from that text, and found absolutely nothing to indicate notability. If you want to get support for adding Loyola 2L to the list of alumni, you have to do two things:

1. Find reliable independent references for the blog's notability. Note that these must pertain to Loyola 2L particularly, and not to whatever views Loyola 2L may express in their blog.
2. Find a reliable independent reference that asserts Loyola 2L is actually a graduate of Loyola Law School.

If you can do this to the point where you can write a good article to resurrect your article Loyola 2L, you should be able to get support from other editors. OTOH, it seems that you are more concerned with Loyola 2L's views than Loyola 2L itself; if that is the case, perhaps you should give this up and instead write a well-sourced criticism section for the article. If you do decide to go this route, be sure to follow WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and related policies or you will likely be reverted again.

Also FYI, see WP:GOOGLE. 3000 results isn't that many for someone who communicates publicly via the Internet; I get 1100 when looking up my real name (which doesn't count anything referencing me by pseudonym) and I haven't done anything near worthy of a Wikipedia article. Also, the first page of results seems to be full of posts by and replies to Loyola 2L rather than the critical commentary you imply. Anomie 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to check out the blog of Loyola 2L, and I can't even find it! Even the links from the deleted Wikipedia article (still in Google's cache for the moment) don't reference Loyola 2L's blog, they reference Loyola 2L's comments to posts on The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog. Does Loyola 2L even have a blog, or is it just a name someone or some group uses when posting their "warning" messages in the comments of various law-related blogs? If the latter, I personally wouldn't even go so far as to describe them as a blogger. Anomie 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Updatethis12: I just reverted an IP user for reverting your previous comment, and now you're doing it. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Also, I believe you are mischaracterizing the informal WP:3O process, and I note all parties have left extensive edit summaries in the article history regarding this issue. Anomie 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to reset third opinions

I would like to request a new set of third opinions. Two editors, anomie and Adrian M.H. provided an opinion before listening to both sides, as is shown by the timestamp of their opinion.

This is in violation of Wikipedia rules regarding third opinions. These rules are described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly."

Imagine the absurdity of a courtroom where the judge makes a decision after listening to just one side and spends the rest of the trial defending their decision against the other side. Anomie formed her opinion before listening to both sides of the dispute. She is no longer neutral.

For these reasons I think the third opinions should be reset. It's unfortunate that Anomie and Adrian M.H. will not simply delete their opinions. Wikipedia has thousands of editors willing to provide unbiased opinions who could take their place. --Updatethis12 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the appropriate way to do things, instead of just deleting comments! Go ahead and add your new request to the bottom of WP:3O to attract a new third opinion. Anomie 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You've already tainted the third opinion process as I described above. In the future, please follow the rules and wait to hear both sides before forming a conclusion. Please also consider your opinion so it's not impulsive and reckless. --Updatethis12 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Updatethis12, I request that you assume good faith and consider the fact that I – and Anomie, no doubt – did the necessary detective work prior to providing our opinions. That means checking the article history, talk page history, user talk history, IP history and relevant external links. OK? You have thus far failed to assume good faith and have made unwarranted and misjudged criticisms of two editors of good standing based on what I can only attribute to paranoia or a resentment of protocol. Our opinions are rooted in the key policies and guidelines that all editors should follow. Any attempt to refactor or delete comments from any talk page will be answered with the appropriate warnings. That the opinions offered by other experienced editors do not tally with your own is not a valid reason to behave like this, and it fails to respect 3O protocol and Wikipedia's conduct guidelines. You have every right to discuss your dispute, as long as it is done in a civil and reasoned manner. Adrian M. H. 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even have the patience to wait a few hours for a response. Impatience is recklessness. Having jumped to a conclusion, you are now forced to defend it, regardless of the response. Rather than delete your opinions and let unbiased 3rd parties resolve the dispute, you insist on continuing to shamelessly taint the process. --Updatethis12 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not customary to sit around waiting when a 3O request is posted, and we certainly do not need to wait for your attempt at justification in order to assess such an incredibly simple little dispute! The history reveals all that one needs to know to see that the material was in clear violation of WP:V and, by extension, WP:RS. And once again, comments are not deleted unless they constitute vandalism or unmitigated personal attacks. Read the policy. Adrian M. H. 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules clearly state you're supposed to wait to hear both sides before providing an opinion, and you're supposed to provide a thoughtful, not reckless, opinion. I quoted the text above. You read one side and impulsively posted the first thought that came into your mind. Having come to your conclusion, you have no choice but to defend it, regardless of what I write. As if ruining the first request for opinion wasn't enough, you have now ruined the second request. --Updatethis12 22:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You have already been asked to improve your attitude. I will not ask you again. Making inaccurate bad faith assumptions and being uncivil only makes your case weaker. Adrian M. H. 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately everything is on record. I don't understand why you couldn't simply let a neutral third party opine in this second request. You already stated your opinion, before even hearing the other side of the dispute, in the first request. Why did you need to post four times in the second request? --Updatethis12 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Because discussion should be arranged in descending chronological order; that is another part of the talk page guidelines. Adrian M. H. 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose the second request was to let a neutral third party opine on the dispute, not to let you repost the same opinion you posted in the first request. Please delete all of your posts in the second request. --Updatethis12 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)