Talk:San Joaquin College of Law

Law Review recognition

{{3O}} (Third Opinion request removed for staleness, see WP:3O — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This section was tagged citation needed. While various courts may have cited the Law Review, wikilinking the courts does not substitute for proper citations. So I've tagged the remark that the Law Review has received critical praise. Hopefully we can get specific references that praise the Law Review. But why tag the section as unencyclopedic? Well, the real problem is maintaining WP:RS for the fact that the Law Review has been cited by various courts. We really can't go and allow citations from the actual cases that cite the Review. Some other source will be needed. Otherwise it becomes WP:OR and a cluttered mess of notations. --S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello S. Rich: Thanks for you help in the past! This section leaves me confused. The Law Review's citations by various courts indicate that the SJALR has received "judicial and critical recognition." This would seem to be the highest level of such recognition, rather than a statement from some other source. However, since you feel references to court cases would lead to clutter, it becomes impossible to properly source at all. I don't know if adding praise from others adequately addresses the level of "judicial and critical recognition" which this publication has enjoyed. Your thoughts?--Mckai (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, take a look at Harvard Law Review. Actual articles from HLR are cited there as examples of significant articles because they were written by notable people, and the HLR gets its own article because of it's very high status in the legal world. If SJALR's authors are notable, then the HLR example could be followed. Or, if there are significant legal cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education which cite SJALR, then those would work. But if a court of appeal cites SJALR in Joe Schmoo v. John Doe, that use of the SJALR is not significant. The use of law review articles in court cases is significant for the author of the article and the law review, but only in a limited sense -- mainly in legal circles. The level of significance does not rise to an encyclopedic level. Ironically, if the SJALR is mentioned in more conventional, non-legal media, then that mention can be used as WP:RS to support this article. On the other hand, if SJALR has material which can support other WP articles, then those materials can be used as RS. --S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I think I tried to address this in another section on this page. This is what I wrote: I’ve also been working on your concern about SJALR. I have added references regarding its niche position of Agriculture, and hope to have references for all of its court citations by the end of the week. Moving that to the end of the page (as per WP:INCITE)would seem to cut the clutter which previously concerned you. And I must add you are so right; the revisions make this section much more concise.--Mckai (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:BOOSTER, WP:OR is discouraged. In tagging the Law Review section as OR, I am concerned with the multiple citations to particular cases and statutes. Again, see my comments above. (Perhaps WP:UNIGUIDE suggestions/recommendations in the Student Life or Academics will help.) Also, I don't think that including case and statutory citations is appropriate in that we have hundreds of law schools in the country. Should each of them with a Law Review have a section that uses such citations? No. Such citations are not encyclopedic. --S. Rich (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that “encyclopedic” means a series of facts follow by citation for each. By that standard, I cannot see how this section misses the mark. Am I misunderstanding your worry? I have explored all the links you provided, but cannot find anything that puts this paragraph out of compliance with the definition of encyclopedic. Secondly, while I appreciate your concerns about primary sources, I don’t think the citations in this section are a problem. As per Wikipedia, a primary source may be used if it makes “straightforward, descriptive statements” that a person without specialist skills would be able to would be able to understand. The reader in this case is not asked to analyze the court cases. Other Wikipedia articles which used court cases as citations can be found everywhere from Golden Gate University School of Law to the Supreme Court of California, United States district court, and even in Wikipedia entries regarding other court cases, such as United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Your third point about whether any Law Review may include references to its citation by courts seems to be a matter of opinion. I can find no Wikipedia policy prohibiting this, even in spirit. Yes, we do have hundreds of law schools in the country, and I believe they should be able to substantiate the reach of their Law Journals by naming such court citations if they chose. As for the length of this four-sentence entry, I would invite you to compare it to the entry for Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review and Southwestern Journal of International Law. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so, I do apologize. As I have mentioned numerous times, I do not have a great deal of Wikipedia experience and I often spend hours just trying to figure out what you are talking about. At any rate, I would like to see this latest banner removed. If you see any simple solution to this, please let me know. Otherwise, I think I may need to have a third set of eyes look at this discussion to help give me some direction. As always, my thanks for your time and attention!--Mckai (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that finding clear, specific guidance is difficult. But I'll try to address the concerns:

• See WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, specifically WP:NOT#OR -- when you seek to show that the Law Review is notable by pointing to various cases or statutes that cite the LR, you are attempting to support your conclusion that it's notable. This is OR. Let's consider the LR a a type of book and look for guidance in -->>
  • WP:NBOOK -- Looking at the criteria for books, we see that notability is achieved if a particular book has become the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" directed towards a general audience. We see that books do not achieve notability simply because they happen to be cited in other published works.
  • Accordingly, we need a citation from a third/secondary party source (for example, the "National Academy of Law Review Evaluation") that says "SJALR is a highly respected Law Review in the subject of Agricultural Law." That source (not us) could use case law or statutory citations to support the opinion that SJALR is highly respected. And once that source is published, then we can say "According to the 'National Academy of Law Review Evaluation' SJALR is highly respected in the subject of Agricultural Law."
• In Golden Gate University School of Law the citation to the statute is to explain the status of graduates in the early days of the school, not show the notability of the school. E.g., the statute cited in the article did not mention GGUSOL.
  • Similarly, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. has a citation to the case because the case itself is the subject of the article.
  • The mention of the Loyola Law School law reviews do not seek to show these LRs are notable by giving us citations where the LRs have been cited in court cases or statute annotations. (In any event, that particular section of the article is subject to tagging for WP:BOOSTER.)
• PS: See how I've wikilinked LLS, GGUSOL, etc.? Doing so helps the editor who reads your comment find the specific example you are referring to.
• Thanks for your hard work and willingness to discuss! --S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read through your concerns and multiple links, but I don’t think it changes the situation. If anything, it would indicate a strong case for the SJALR having its own page! However, I think the following satisfies the criteria for posting the SJALR paragraph the way it stands now:

1- I see multiple law schools listing Law Reviews, which leads me to believe its existence is in itself notable.

2- There is no opinion expressed in the SJALR paragraph; it is a simple statement of fact and supporting citations.

3- Yale Law Journal has a category titled “Some of the most cited articles published by the Yale Law Journal include...” This leads me to believe that citation by the courts is an important aspect of Law Reviews.

4- The use of court cases as citations can be found multiple other places on Wikipedia, leading me to believe it is a valid form of citation, even if those other sites do not link the citation to a Law Review paragraph.

I have added a couple extra citations to this article this morning to show some of the media attention which the SJALR has enjoyed. It not only further supports the facts as listed, but also indicates a further voice of "notability," in that the subject has been in the mainstream media. I hope this eases your worries and you remove the banner. I want to thank you for taking the time to talk this over with me! --Mckai (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am happy that the article has a section describing SJALR. As per the WP:UNIGUIDE, it fits. The tag on the section is for WP:NOR (not because I want the section removed). Quoting NOR guidance: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented. [Bold emphasis in original, italic emphasis added.]" Since the article is about SJCOL, footnotes 15-20 & 22-23 are not directly related to the topic of the article. (They only indirectly support the contention that SJALR is respected because of case & statutory citations.) Consequently, the NOR tag is appropriate. I think the recent media citations re SJALR work; although, I have not listened to them. (Still, I do have a further suggestion -- if any of the authors of SJALR articles achieve notability, then they might be mentioned in the SJALR section.) --S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the court cases cited, which each contain a reference to the SJALR, are "both directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material presented." That is, they support the contention that the SJALR has been cited by that court. The paragraph is about the SJALR, which is a publication of SJCL. Would you prefer I use the Yale format, and mention each article which has been cited? In any case, I believe the banner is not appropriate. Please reconsider its placement. Thanks!--Mckai (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- you are misconstruing the notion that SJALR is the "topic of the article". SJCOL is the topic and inclusion of case law citations are not "directly related" to the topic of the article. Take a look at some of the LRs listed here: List of law reviews in the United States or here: [Category:General law reviews]. These articles, for the most part, do not cite cases unless the case itself is notable. Some of these LRs list author names in wikilinks because the author is notable. (In Yale Law Journal I just now deleted several "selected articles" because the authors were redlinked names.) Please do not try to gild the lily here by researching the cases and statues that happen to mention SJALR.

Also, there are 4 other agriculture law reviews besides SJALR. See: http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx I note that SJALR ranks 3rd out of 5 in Ag Law according to this survey. (Here is the explanation of how the publisher prepares the rankings: http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/method.asp )--S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I am quite surprised to learn there is now a third Agricultural Law Review in the US! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and adding it to this Wikipedia page. I am perhaps doubly surprised because it is not mentioned by the National Ag Law Center in its reference area. [1] So kudos on finding it! However, I question your deletion of the SJALR as being the oldest. Kentucky printed its “Volume One” in 2008[2], Drake published “Volume One” in 1996 [3] while “Volume One” for the SJALR was published in 1991[4].

Also, I came across a clip at the Wikipedia Help Desk which gives me pause about the reach of COI when it comes to competitors removing and placing banners on WIKI pages. It states “anyone has the authority to add or remove these kinds of notices, though editors who might have a conflict of interest – such as competitors or employees of the company – are discouraged from posting or removing them.” It seems to indicate that those with a COI should follow the same cautions when editing a competitor’s website as they do when editing their own. I truly appreciate that your COI clearly states your ownership interest in another law school, just as mine indicates my connection to this one. I also understand how you may feel compelled to place a banner on a competitor’s Wiki page to help egregious content issues. However, this is the third one you have placed here. In addition, you have previously deleted the entire scholarship section of this page along with half the previous SJALR without any mention on the discussion page. There is no mention on the discussion page of Yale Law Review regarding the deletions you made this morning. You have also made similar deletion moves without discussion at a number other law schools. That is also the case with your deletion this morning of the reference to SJALR as the “oldest Agricultural Law Review in the country.” As I have said in the past, I truly appreciate your help and direction in refining this page. I also appreciate how much more knowledgeable you are than I am in the Wikipedia world. However, it appears this third banner needs to be removed in observance of the COI standards for competitors. In addition, your mistaken deletion of SJALR as the oldest needs to be reverted. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckai (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Numbered for point discussion: 1. California Southern Law School is not a competitor. We are registered with the CBE, not accredited by them. And Riverside is some distance away. All of our students come from and reside in the Inland Empire. And I think that the rising tide of good WP articles on law schools will lift all ships. 2. Besides adding banners/tags, I've removed them. We are actively working the article and the tag/tag removal process is normal. 3. Re oldest journal -- SJALR vol. 13 is listed on the lawlib.wlu.edu TOC page as 2003. That takes it back to 1990/1991 with vol. 1. But Kentucky has vol. 15 (under its previous name) listed in the TOC as 1999. [5] That takes it back to 1984/1985 with vol. 1. (Am I reading this wrong?) 4. Re my edits to Yale LR sans discussion, they are appropriate. Per WP:BRD it is now up to other editors to revert my WP:BOLD changes. (IOW, we edit first and talk later.) 5. Re the OR banner, we have alternatives. If you like, I'll ask User talk:SlimVirgin to take a look. She is a top-notch editor and may be willing to look at the OR issue. Or you can post the issue on the OR Noticeboard WP:NORN. 6. I am not sure which "entire scholarship section" you have in mind. Please give me a more specific change. 7. Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a suggested guide on how the SJALR section can be improved: DGG's suggestions for what journal articles should contain. While it pertains to articles about academic journals (Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide), I think the ideas might help you. Besides these ideas, I think you can properly "boost" SJALR by: 1. wikilinking the names of WP:notable authors of SJALR authors and/or 2. wikilinking the names of WP:notable cases which cite SJALR articles. Doing so would follow the same sort of "boosting" we see in Harvard Law Review and others articles about Law Reviews. Probably the easiest step you can take is to provide a thumbnail picture of the cover (per DGG). If you have data on a favorable Impact factor, you can cite that data. If you can show that the SJALR is widely circulated, that will help. --S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see how I've found and WP:ILC cited the Minnesota SC case with the SJALR citation. The SJALR article is cited as a footnote in the case, but the case itself does not meet notability standards. In this regard, WP:DUE comes into play. That is, are you making a mountain out of a molehill with this citation? I think a neutral observer (which the article DUE is concerned with) would say "yes". Giving the reader the mention of a LR article in a case footnote is kinda-of-a "so?" situation. Also, as it stands, your other cases and statutes are subject to tagging. --S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that the Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law is older than the SJALR, please note it was previously the Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law, with no reference to agriculture at all. In 2008-2009 when it issued “Volume One”, the Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law also issued a 2008-2009 edition. It was labeled Volume 22. Clearly, these are not the same publication. SJALR, with an initial publication date of 1991, remains “the oldest Agricultural Law Review in the country.” Please undo your deletion. Thanks so much!--Mckai (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Public Land & Resources Law Review http://lawlib.wlu.edu/CLJC/index.aspx?mainid=565 started in 1980, covered ag law subjects (http://lawlib.wlu.edu/CLJC/index.aspx?issue=yes&mainid=565&issuedate=1/2/2001&id=&abstracts=yes&coins=yes&homepage=yes&jf1=yes&jf1url=http%3a%2f%2fworldcatlibraries.org%2fregistry%2fgateway&jf2=yes&jf2url=http%3a%2f%2flawlib.wlu.edu%2fresolver.aspx). Similarly, the Journal of Land, Resources and Environmental Law http://lawlib.wlu.edu/CLJC/index.aspx?mainid=564 started in 1980 and has articles on ag law subjects. And even the Kentucky journal, under its previous name, published ag law articles (http://lawlib.wlu.edu/CLJC/index.aspx?issue=yes&mainid=459&issuedate=3/3/2002&id=&abstracts=yes&coins=yes&homepage=yes&jf1=yes&jf1url=http%3a%2f%2fworldcatlibraries.org%2fregistry%2fgateway&jf2=yes&jf2url=http%3a%2f%2flawlib.wlu.edu%2fresolver.aspx) The name change for KY does not mean it did not cover ag law topics in the past. I've added the first year of publication for SJALR in the article, which gives it a 21 year history of publication. That should work for Wikipedia purposes. --S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The journals you list are not the only law reviews to cover Ag issues, but there are only three Ag-focused law reviews, or "Agricultural Law Reviews."--Mckai (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but that fact only goes so far. Kentucky is an Ag focused journal and it has a longer history than SJALR. So it is not entirely accurate to say SJALR is the "oldest". Simply stating the date of first SJALR publication is factual, objective, and verifiable. Moreover, it avoids the problem of WP:CHERRY which can occur when WP:BOOSTER is a factor. (If SJALR had a high ranking in the lawlib.wlu.edu analysis, that would be notable and suitable.) Still, the bigger problem in this section is the OR. (Please do not construe my edits (e.g., addition of case & statute citations) as endorsing the OR. They were added with the thought that they might help in the search for non-OR third/second party sources that would verify the notability of SJALR.) Shall I ask SlimVirgin to look at it? (She wrote much of the OR guidance.) --S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

References needed

The Ref Improve tag is restored. Simply because particular cite needed tags are resolved does not satisfy the requirement that references are provided to source the material in the article. One example -- the Family Law clinic info has no references. Another concern is the SJALR material. As discussed above, there is no WP:RS regarding how many courts have cited the review. Yet another concern is the notable grad section: 1. E.g., are these notable people? (ALJs, Court Commissioners, County Clerks are generally not state-wide offices and therefore do not per se qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes.) 2. Where are the refs that tie in these people to SJCoL? --S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Working on your citation issue and have added in all areas requested. I am deleting the box again. Your question about showing the connection between these grads and SJCL is another quandrey. All SJCL JDs are listed at http://www.sjcl.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153&Itemid=151, and that could be used instead of specific references to their positions. However, this actually provides less information. Also, while many grads could be cross-referenced to Cal Bar, this would not apply to judges, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckai (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Cite web on how to take care of the quandry of multiple JD listings. The cite web template will basically allow one entry that is repeated for the individuals as appropriate. The more non-SJCL sources the better, so when you can cite a third party source that says "Judge so-and-so graduated from SJCL" you should use that source. (SJCL is a WP:SPS, but it is acceptable in that the listing is not unduly promotional and is reliable, but non-SPS is more encyclopedic.) Another helpful hint: When adding material to this page, simply put a colon before the entry, not a space. When you reply here, add 3 colons. Please do not remove tags and banners until the concern is resolved. Such editing is disruptive. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can probably tell from the long list of references added over the past few days, I have spent some serious time trying to bring more citations to the table! In the case of the “Notable Alumni,” I have been able to produce many third-party sources showing both their position and graduation from SJCL in the same article. However, that is not the case for a very small percentage of those alumni listed. In all cases, I have supplied the “Class List” from SJCL. While this is not the highest form of citation, it should satisfy the criteria under WP:SELFANDQUEST. My thanks for your suggestions and help in this area. I’ve also been working on your concern about SJALR. I have added references regarding its niche position of Agriculture, and hope to have references for all of its court citations by the end of the week. Moving that to the end of the page (as per WP:INCITE)would seem to cut the clutter which previously concerned you. And I must add you are so right; the revisions make this section much more concise.--Mckai (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As per your request on my Talk page, I have deleted references in excess of three per “Notable Alumni.” This has resulted in deletion of the Class List for some, but in those cases, the other references are second party sources directly tying the graduate to SJCL. There are very few cases in which the citation is limited to WP:SELFANDQUEST standards. In addition, I have made numerous changes and added citations to try to bring the article up to encyclopedic stands. My goal is to have the Refimprove banner removed in the coming week. Please let me know if there are any specific places within the article which you feel need to be improved before that can happen. Thanks again for all of your help and suggestions!--Mckai (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up Tag

WP:INCITE should be followed. It will produce a better quality article. (And please see discussion above.) --S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I reformatted "Notable Alumni" to WP: INCITE. I will remove the "clean up" banner later today, if that's all right with you.--Mckai (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I beat you to it. But you may not know that such tags alert and invite other editors to come and improve the article. Wikipedia periodcially engages in "clean up" campaigns which lists articles needing work. In that regard, a refimprove tag helps more than it detracts. But you should also work on the format of the citations. Showing them (the news articles) as named sources in the reflist improves the readability and creditablity of the article. --S. Rich (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I will work on adding the title of articles!--Mckai (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

bar passage rate table

Mckai (talk · contribs) has removed the passage rate table twice with a rationale of "Deleted table because it is outdated." I think that 'outdated' is a poor reason. Minding WP:RECENTISM, the previous passage rates are important, especially because they show an actual trend. If "outdated" just means "it's missing the most recent statistic", that's easy to fix. I'm especially cautious of the former reason, given Mckai's COI. tedder (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

McKai is obviously attempting to obscure the schools's poor first time bar passage rate. After the 2015 exams, the State Bar of California stopped publishing the statistics: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Statistics/JULY2015STATS.121715.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:200:62A7:A417:4D69:AE88:6AA8 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC) 

The State Bar of California resumed publication of the statistics:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/JULY2018_CBX_Statistics.pdf

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/July2019-CBX-Statistics.pdf

Only six of the 34 member class of 2019 passed the July, 2019 California bar exam, at eighteen percent, worst in school history!

Notables

McKai is correct about including the notables. The names meet criteria for notability (e.g., federal or statewide office) and have references.--S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)