Talk:Law and literature

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vibrants.Sami.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
The introduction of this article reads like an advertisement for the importance of law and literature. These claims need to be rewritten in a way that reflects that they are such (opinionated assertions) rather than facts. Cjs2111 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm passing through, doing NPOV tag cleanup. I don't agree with the above statement, but the issue needs to be addressed by those editors here before the tag can be removed. I'd suggest you all deal with it, remove the tag, and have a nice, clean article ;<}  Jjdon (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with Cjs2111. Made edits. Removed tag. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"In short, the movement gives hope to a legal system that may need a jolt of humanity." Doesn't sound encyclopedic to me.
 * So, Mervyn Emrys, you don't see anything problematic in this statement:


 * This reads like a law review article. It's far from objective third-party reporting and much more like persuasive essay-writing. In addition, the footnotes are not attached and thus there is little indication of which sources are used to reference which statements. NPOV may not be the most accurate tag, but the article is certainly in need of cleanup. I've re-added a few more appropriate tags. -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article problems
This is a problematic article. No citations, literature list is far too long for an encyclopedia, too much biographical information on the scholars mentioned, if they are notable such things can be mentioned in their own articles, this article is about law and literature and should only mention their contributions to that field. I deleted a long list of titles and short summaries of a number of novels under the heading "Suggested reading". There was no indication what it had to do with the article subject and Wikipedia is not a college curriculum. Please keep content on the subject. This article has a long way to go before it reads like an encyclopedic article and not an historiographic article in an academic journal (except of course that even in such a publication there would be citations). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: this is a seriously problematic article. The article pretends to give an overview of a complex interdisciplinary field of study, but from this account one would believe that its chief practitioners are Europeans. The article seems designed to promote the work of a select group of European scholars rather than provide an unbiased account of its ostensible topic. It needs to be almost entirely rewritten.Sibyldisobedience (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

New Edits
I have been reading through the critiques of this article and will be taking some time of the next few weeks to make some necessary edits. I notice this page has not been edited in a few years. I will mostly be adding or correcting citations and editing the biographical information to make it less opinionated. Vibrants.Sami (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea,, if it's OK I'll start by cutting down the section "Significant contributions to the movement,' which has been templated for years. For one thing, it does not talk about Significant contributions, but only gives squibs on scholars chosen by no discernible principle, and the squibs are not sourced. I will leave only those who seem to be Notable enough to have articles. Cheers. ch (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)