Talk:Heather Cox Richardson

Article length
1). Was this article written by Richardson herself? It seems very self aggrandizing.

2). This article is extremely long for an obscure academic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4081:BC00:2001:866B:34C9:480C (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure 'obscure academic' is accurate. Heather Cox Richardson is co-host of an NPR podcast, she has 235k followers on Twitter, and an email newsletter with (I think) more than 350k subscribers. nytimes.com described her as 'more or less by accident the most successful independent journalist in America'. Sam Dutton (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, the defense to advocate for Dr. Richardson has actually worked for the OP. The numbers presented: 350K subscribers for an email newsletter, and a mere 235K followers on Twitter, are peanuts in today's social media statistics. The 2 organizations mentioned: NPR (podcast), for which she is a "co-host", and the New York Times, a publication that is read by a certain class of knowledge seekers support the term: "academic". The quote by the NYT includes the telling: "more or less by accident" for a reason, and supports the term: "obscure". Maineartists (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I doubt "the most successful independent journalist in America" can be "obscure". Robby.is.on (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You can be "the most successful" anything and still be obscure. What's your point? Maineartists (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the OP is correct: the article needs a good hard scrubbing. It is is extremely "wordy" for someone who is an independent journalist. Even if she is the most successful in 2021. The lede makes her notable for being a professor, historian, author, teacher; yet none of the sources are pre-2017. The section "Writing career" merely summarizes her works without a review in sight. If she is notable for being an independent journalist with a newsletter and podcast, 3/4 of this article needs to go. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m new, and the advocate here for “obscurity” has done 17 times as many edits as I have. But I gotta opine: Cox Richardson is a Notable major historian who has created a Notable new form of history education that is much beloved by its subscribers. (Personal disclosure: I get the free version and read it occasionally.) During Women’s History Month, when Our No-Doubt-Notable Leaders want us to step up, I believe it would be a tragic error not to recognize the significance of Cox Richardson. See also “Sexism” (which I presume is a major article — I probably should read it). BTW: I think The NY Times erred in saying “more or less by accident”. It looks to me like she planned and launched carefully — and obviously with Notable success. Left Central (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and a small factoid (and a guess): First, several of the references seem to be “pre-2017” — although retrieved later. Second, I’d bet a Buffalo Nickel that there are more reviews of her books out there — quite possibly (almost certainly) including ones which challenge her political perspective. Finding and adding those would be a boon to this encyclopedia we all love. Left Central (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is a puff piece without the slightest pretense of a neutral POV. LewisChessman (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

None of these ad hominem ideologically driven comments do anything to improve the article, which is what this page is for ... https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox -- Jibal (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still 2 years later and the article is still very promotional in tone. I will make specific changes to improve it, as requested by the above. But, for instance, the Writings section is in reverse chronological order, which is more in line with a CV than an encyclopedia article. Ashmoo (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Writing Career
After a back and forth regarding a template placed on this section, it is clear that the section title: Writing Career does not have anything to do with what is the actual content for this section. There is already a Works section that lists these titles. If they were notable enough for indepth summary; they should have articles all their own. This section isn't about the BLP's "writing career" but brief summaries of the writing; which takes up nearly 85% of the article as a whole and is not correct wikivoice at times. There are no reviews, secondary source analysis, quote / page references to back claims, etc. My vote would be to scrap this section entirely and allow the "Works" section to stand. If someone wants to come along and write articles on each work; so be it. But this is not a BLP writing section. The first sentence alone needs citing; along with countless others found within. It is laden with OR and reads like a college paper and left to intrepretation. Each paragraph states what the BLP did with their approach to the work; and then the rest of each paragraph is a historical recollection having nothing to do with the BLP and their "writing career". "She incorporated the West into the discussion of Reconstruction as no predecessor had"; according to whom? Maineartists (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinions, the article is appropriate. It is standard Wikipedia practice to summarize books. Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

OP
What is the "OP"?

Dagme (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dagme, "OP" stands for "Original Poster". Maineartists (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)