Talk:Legal clinic

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Unassessed Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terminology is completely wrong

I edited the first paragraph to clarify that "legal clinic" as a phrase can refer to any public interest program, whether or not it's affiliated with a school. I guess the confusion is understandable, given this article was obviously written by a student (because the world revolves around them, the prior phrasing was "legal clinics do pro bono," note focus on the student experience, rather than "offer pro bono services," focusing on who is served- which funnily enough, is what actually defines the term).

Pontification aside, I don't know enough about Wikipedia to remedy this obvious shortsightedness, but hope someone smarter than me can fix an article about an education topic masquerading as an article about an industry subset.

Picture

This article is hardly served by an insignificant visual representation that could be of any office anywhere on earth. It serves only to clutter the page and confused the reader. There is no necessity for a picture of a legal clinic, it adds nothing to the understanding of what a legal clinic is, what a legal clinic does, or what a legal clinic is for. It manages only to render unsightly the page. 70.73.34.109 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just removed the picture with an edit summary. I imagine you are a lawyer by packing the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law student. Lawyers would still feel the need to write something, but when you're on the billable hour, brevity wins out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.79.132 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History section

The section, which was originally named FOUNDATION, now BACKGROUND may need a different name. It should incorporate, how the clinics became a part of law teaching, and how they later spread in other countries, following the US model. I am not native speaker, however I feel that background may not be the right name. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English

Can I please change this in a very minor way to make it British English. This is no big deal, but "defense" is American spelling, but my link to pupillage is very definitely British not American. I don't mind for any reason except that when I edit articles naturally I edit in my own style of English, which happens to be British, so I probably introduce inconsistencies without noticing between American and British uses. Si Trew (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. Swampyank (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of countries listed

If there is to be a section on the history of legal clinics, then it should be created and described as such. As it stands ("historical order"), it does not make sense. Czech Republic has the earliest date (1855), well before other countries. But the hiatus seems to relegate the Czech clinic lower in the list. But as it stands the list looks very much USA-centric, which is a persistent problem in Wikipedia. A country by country listing avoids that problem. MOREOVER, the present listing of countries fails to describe how developments in one country had anything to do with developments in another country. SO, my recommendation is to create a subsection on the history of legal clinics and a separate listing of clinic activities country by country.--S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I have probably failed to write it in a way that would make it more understandable. It was originally called "history section" so I took it for granted that as it followed each other the influence was implied. However when I found details about the Polish clinics I decided to change the title of section and it was recommended to me that "background" would be best fitting.

When it comes to the Czech one, than again, my bad. The Faculty was teaching "law in books" since 1679, and it started clinics after US model in 1996. But since the Faculty was closed for more than 100 years I felt obliged to write there that even the "law in books" was not taking place in the time of 1855-1991.

The legal clinics are US invention, therefore this article needs to stay US centric. I will try to improve it so that it is more understandable, but since I am not native speaker, I appreciate all suggestions and help. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upravit pryč! Vrátím se později a opravit problémy vidím. Děkujeme vám za vaši práci. (Edit away! I will return later and fix the problems I see. Thank you for your work.) --S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

A possible copyright violation was detected at a section of the article. However, I miss the URL of the purported original. It is hard to debate something when the other side's argument has not been presented. Not to mention that the section seems to have quite a few links to sources. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the copyright is mentioned in the notice. Clinical Legal Education-Third Wave published in Clinical Law Review Vol 7:1 203.45.10.187 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]