User talk:Unemployed Northeastern

Hello, Unemployed Northeastern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page University of Texas School of Law has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Content was not reliably sourced, but rather originated with advocacy group Law School Transparency, which is known for unreliable and biased data. Presentation of data used non-standard and meaningless categories favored by LST rather than standard and well established data categories. Removal was appropriate. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)UN.

[For clarity, consolidated discussion thread here.]

Removed data inserted by law school transparency advocacy group, which is an unreliable source. Suggested replacement with more accurate data from the American Bar Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Unemployed Northeastern: Are the extensive edits you're making the result of consensus in some discussion? The first paragraph in this edit removed text that references the ABA Employment Summary on the law school's official website. That is not an unreliable blog, as the edit summary suggests. You write "inserted by ... advocacy group." Is there evidence that the origin of the paragraph was an edit by LST as opposed to one that cited LST as a source, and if so, does that matter if the source cited now is not LST? Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Wordbruce The categories are non-standard categories created by LST, which is an unreliable source, and violate Neutral Point of View policy. The citation should first be to total employment, and only then provide more specific categories. Excluding some categories and including others has no justification--it's just something LST made up, and is therefore not reliable. Inclusion of all categories without comment would also be acceptable. See the reliable source noticeboard for discussion of LST's unreliability.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Unemployed Northeastern:Thank you for initiating a discussion of LST at the reliable source noticeboard. I'll let the reliable source debate play out there. Note that the RSN will only determine whether LST is a reliable source for the statements where it is cited. They will not render an opinion about article content. In other words, they may say that LST should not be used to support something, but they will not say that something should not be in an article.

It is important not to conflate "editor" and "source". If the editor who cited LST here was LST, then what they inserted may receive extra scrutiny for NPOV, but it will not necessarily be removed, even if LST is found to be an unreliable source, if the inserted statement is supported by another, reliable, source.

I find unconvincing the argument that the category "full-time, long-term, JD-required employment nine months after graduation" is a non-standard category created by LST. The law school's own ABA Employment Summary Report has as its main category, "full time, long term, bar passage required". If there's a vital distinction between the two, that is not an excuse for deletion, but an opportunity to improve the wording or tag the statement for maintenance. If you believe additional categories should be mentioned, and/or other sources used, then adding those categories/sources would be a less controversial approach than deleting material sourced to the law school's ABA Employment Summary Report. Worldbruce (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce These are only one of many categories which the ABA groups under the heading of employment. Focusing exclusively on this category of employment is misleading and inappropriately suggests that it is the only kind of employment that counts. LST has also excluded solo practitioner jobs, as if those don't count--something the ABA does not do. So lets agree that the right approach is to include overall employment, as well as all other categories of employment, without privileging any particular category or adopting LST's preferred measures of employment. I do not have time to add all of this information to these articles, but no employment information, or a simple reference to the availability of information on the ABA website, would be preferable to the misleading way in which employment is now being described on these pages, and the inappropriate citations to websites like LST that try to commercially profit from data that is available for free! Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

LST is not a reliable source per wikipedia policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources E-commerce sources While the content guidelines for External links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. Biased or opinionated sources See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources Shortcut: WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Questionable and self-published sources Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Questionable sources Shortcuts: WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[10][11] Self-published sources (online and paper) Shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED WP:USERG WP:UGC Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

See also wikipedia page on LST:

Law School Transparency is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit advocacy organization. LST was founded by Vanderbilt Law School class of 2008 graduates Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch after LST's founders were unable to secure more attractive legal employment. From the outset, one of the greatest challenges LST faced was securing funding and resources.[1] LST describes its own mission as "to make entry to the legal profession more transparent, affordable, and fair."[2] LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion.[3][4] The head of law school transparency, Kyle McEntee was quoted in the Washington Post saying “Law school is not a ticket to financial security . . . There’s just no evidence that the people starting school now are going to end up okay, and to me that’s really concerning.”[5] However, the Washington Post reported that there was substantial evidence of positive financial outcomes for most law graduates. McEntee also criticized the New York Times for positive press coverage of legal education and the legal profession,[6][7] although others have suggested that that New York Times story was factually accurate and used data appropriately.[8] LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors.[9]

Criticisms[edit] There have been numerous critiques against LST and its founders, including unethical practices that critics say resemble extortion, inaccuracies in LST data, selective and misleading presentation of data, and anti-law school bias. LST has been criticized for a lack of transparency about its own sources and uses of funds and for alleged irregularities in its dealings with the Internal Revenue Service. Extortion[edit] LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion.[32][33] Anti-law School bias[edit] The head of law school transparency, Kyle McEntee was quoted in the Washington Post saying “Law school is not a ticket to financial security . . . There’s just no evidence that the people starting school now are going to end up okay, and to me that’s really concerning.”[34] However, the Washington Post reported that there was substantial evidence of positive financial outcomes for most law graduates. McEntee also criticized the New York Times for positive press coverage of legal education and the legal profession,[35][36] although others have suggested that that New York Times story was factually accurate and used data appropriately.[37] Factual Errors[edit] LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors.[38] Lack of Transparency[edit] LST is not transparent about its funding sources or uses of funds, and did not file paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service that is required for its donors to receive a tax deduction.[39]

Hello, Unemployed Northeastern. I've checked Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and I'm not seeing any discussion on if lstscorereports.com is or is not a reliable source. Can you point me to the Wikipedia discussion or determination that this source is unreliable? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the wholesale removal of this source until the discussion you have started at WP:RSN has a chance to actually come to any conclusions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Employment is a fine category to have. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it must be sourced reliably to Census Bureau or ABA or NALP data, and it must use standard data definitions and categories, not ones invented by an advocacy group like LST which specifically describes its goal as driving down law school enrollment.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As you have read by now, your wholesale deletions -- the very day you created your account -- are not viewed as appropriate. Wait for RSN discussion. Also, you in your edit summary suggested that the section Employment was not appropriate. That's simply wrong. Furthermore, your deletions went beyond LST. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The deletions were material either sourced to LST or inserted by LST using non-standard and misleading groupings and categorizations of data. See the RSN discussion. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the deletions included removal and editing of unflattering employment or debt figures, whether from LST, USNews, law school bubble sites or the college themselves. Also, do note that while you can remove Talk warnings and comments that are unflattering towards your editing, the history of them remains, as do your edits elsewhere in Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

U.S. News is a reliable source. ABA and U.S. News debt figures were left intact (or should have been). Tuition Bubble and LST are not reliable sources and should be removed. I agree we can include debt figures if sourced properly and confirmed. We should also include student loan default rates--which are extremely low--where available. However, LST and LSTB remain unreliable sources and should be deleted from all of the articles to which they have been added in a targeted effort over the last 2 months.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)