Talk:Marjorie Heins

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub?
I suggest that this article should be marked with the Writer-stub template. Or a better fitting template, if one can be found. It looks rather stubby to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

birthdate / secondary source
A user self-identified as Margeheins put the birth-year in for 1946. Mosfetfaser questioned that, so I documented it at the Library of Congress Authorities table. This is the relevant LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/n86057943. LCCN is a notoriously slow server, so requests will frequently time out. It's not technically a dead link, though. I encourage just trying it a few times. Here's the relevant data, though:

n 86057943 Personal name heading	Heins, Marjorie Browse this term in LC Authorities  or the  LC Online Catalog Special note	Not the same as Ciarlante, Marjorie Heins, 1943- Found in	Her Cutting the mustard, 1987: CIP t.p. (Marjorie Heins) info. from pub. (attorney) LC data base, 3/31/87 (hdg.: Heins, Marjorie) Phone call to author, 04/06/89 (She has never used the name Ciarlante) Not in front of the children, 2001: (Marjorie Heins) data sheet (b. 10-09-46)


 * The authority tables historically were available in print, and have a unique ID. So I've reformatted the reference to refer to the LCCN Name Authority as the primary citation. The URL can be there for verification, but that's not the primary ref.  I removed the "dead link" tag, since it's not technically accurate.  Perhaps a "slow server" tag?  --Lquilter (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The LOC site itself has been off and on over the past few weeks (I was trying to verify the source of an image, and nothing worked). I think the LCCN information may be on mirrors if finding it is absolutely imperative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am hopeful that linking to a US government site of a long-published resource, and pasting the information here, will suffice to satisfy anyone still worried about a reliable source for Heins' YOB. --Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reports and articles cited to the subjects cv
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Heins&diff=598484378&oldid=598483960

what is the value to the reader of this link to the subjects personal uni hostin and all this primary detail, unreported elsewhere cited to her cv apart from primary promotional? Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On articles about academics, scholars, writers, etc., it's customary to include their more significant sorts of scholarship. For lawyers and legal academics, that's law reviews and books. As I already said, I selected significant items from among a long, long list of publications and journalism, choosing basically the major public policy reports, law review articles, and the books.  Significant amicus briefs should also be added for a policy lawyer, but I haven't gone through those yet.  ....  This is the material you deleted (diff) and I'm going to ask for third-party review.  --Lquilter (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the added value to the reader to a load of not notable details and a link to her cv rather than the link to her cv, seems totally promotional imo, just copy posing her cv here seems totally promo to me - has anyone written about this detail? Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mosfetfaser, I've already explained that it's customary to include significant scholarship on the works of academics and writers. As I wrote in the section above, facts in an article do not need to be independently notable. See "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." in WP:GNG. The material needs to be verifiable, of course, and CVs / profiles are okay for that sort of thing.  See WP:SELFPUB:
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,[clarification needed] usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * A select bibliography, for writers and scholars, is commonplace, not "promotional". You know that, because you're not arguing about the books.  Among legal scholars, law reviews are top scholarship; not all legal scholars write monographs.  So both kinds of work are appropriate.  So that's what I included, and I did not include an enormous long list of other possible writings.
 * --Lquilter (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * excessive detail copy pasted from her CV that is not independently notable, equates to false "claims to fame" - a link ot her cv is plenty benefit to the reader imo - your addition of all that not notable detail was worthless to the reader. Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Mosfetfaser.
 * Information IN an article does NOT have to be "independently notable".
 * Can you please acknowledge that you have read and understood that, because I've pointed it out several times, and you keep raising it. --Lquilter (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excessive not independently notable detail from a subjects cv such as your addition (diff) is self-serving and in violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Wikipedia is not here for promotion of not noteworthy promotional article reports copy pasted from someone's CV Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing about the standard. We are arguing about the application of the standard.  In particular, I want to understand what standard you are using to call my selection of most notable publications "excessive".  I've explained that law review articles are the standard in the field that Heins is in.  Can you please give a reason why law review articles should NOT be included in an article about a legal scholar/activist.  Do you think that law review articles are per se not appropriate?  Do you think that they should be there but only less than 5?  What is your standard, because you keep repeating the same points, and not applying them to this situation.  --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "my selection of most notable publications" none of them appear to be wp:notable, they appear as CV promotional and you already have a link to her CV. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Information IN an article does NOT have to be "independently notable". Please explain why you think that law review publications, which are the standard scholarship in law, are not appropriate in the internal bibliography.  --Lquilter (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the addition of some of her works: a WP:SPS is absolutely fine for supporting such a section. The publications need not be independently notable for inclusion (indeed, relatively few academics are have multiple notable articles and papers). The information is not controversial, does not belittle another person or involve another individual... in short, the perfect example of what WP:SPS is meant for. The selection criteria is up to whomever is writing the article, or to a consensus established here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that law reviews can / should be included. I'd suggest choosing those with at least x citations (to be determined by consensus... twenty? ten?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was asked for an opinion. My personal preferred practice for academic authors is that if the person is working in a field where books are particularly relevant to notability, and there are books, such as the humanities and soft social sciences, I list only the books, and I think we could justify including also any really notable articles that can be proven to be so from external comment. (For people in the hard sciences, where the primary articles are what's relevant to notability , I generally include the 3 or 4 most cited.) In general, I think how detailed a bibliography should be depends on the importance of the subject--for really famous people but not otherwise we can justify including everything, often in a separate article if the list overbalances the article).  Listing everything  resembles a CV, where academic custom is to list everything imaginable. We don't do CVs. (cf.WP:NOT)
 * For all sorts of content, listing minor work normally detracts from the impression of notability. If there are one or two particularly influential essays in major law reviews, that would be OK, but I don;t think it a good idea to do more than that. We focus on the highlights, which is what the public will want to know about. For a person's bio to include everything is saying what they want to say, which is the basic meaning of promotionalism.   DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with this comment by DGG. Mosfetfaser (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe we're basically on the same page. DGG, note that in legal scholarship, the law review is the primary mode of scholarly communication.  Relatively few law professors end up doing a monograph (although it's becoming a little more common these days).  Heins is a historian of law (more of a monographic discipline) and a practicing lawyer/professor (where law reviews are the primary mode, for current assessments of law, for example).  --Lquilter (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks both. I hadn't listed notable essays, etc., although I suspect there are some.  I'll go through & figure out citation counts on top law review articles & come up with a reasonable formula. --Lquilter (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all I have time for tonight. --Lquilter (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am adding back in the most notable works from the rest of Heins' corpus. I'll detail my reasoning here so that we can perhaps have a discussion here, rather than constantly deleting work.  Since Heins has hundreds of published pieces, and Mosfetfaser doesn't trust my judgment as to the most notable, I'm going to start going through her bibliography item by item.  It may take a while.
 * Harvard Law Review, In memoriam for Benjamin Kaplan. I'm going to go out on a limb and call this piece in one of the pre-eminent law reviews per se notable.  It's a memoriam to a famous jurist, one of the foremost copyright scholars, and someone for whom Heins interned, so it's of significant interest in that light also.
 * "Banning Words: A Comment on 'Words That Wound'" (1983, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review). A notable law review article, in a prominent law review journal.  Westlaw shows 39 cites; Google Scholar (with a different set of journals) shows 70+.  The article was in response to another article by Richard Delgado, 18 Harv CR CL L Rev 593.
 * Are there any links to other people/noteworthy publications commenting on or discussing the importance of these essays/articles that you want to re-add or have already replaced? " Westlaw shows 39 cites; Google Scholar (with a different set of journals) shows 70+.", have you any links to these please? You say, " I'm going to go out on a limb and call this piece in one of the pre-eminent law reviews per se notable", is that just your opinion? Can I ask you to please stop replacing disputed content without discussion, to seek consensus here prior to re-adding? Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Responses in turn:
 * No, I don't have a link for westlaw; it's one of the two primary commercial databases covering legal literature. You can go to a library and look it up.  Print and library resources are perfectly valid (even preferred); not everything is "linkable".  Please see WP:RS.
 * Google Scholar: This is an openly available database and you are welcome to search it yourself. I went to http://scholar.google.com/ and searched Marjorie Heins Banning Words.
 * As for the HLR citation, I have explained my reasoning. Please explain why you think this is NOT a significant publication.
 * Mosfetfaser, you still seem to be under the misimpression that the notability standard is what applies to content in articles. ("Are there any links to other people/noteworthy publications commenting on or discussing the importance of these essays/articles that you want to re-add or have already replaced?")  I really encourage you to spend some time reading the links I've provided about content in articles, as opposed to the general notability standard; reliable sources; and verifiability. When I say that there are 30+ and 70+ citations to an article, then that IS scholarly accountability.
 * As for seeking consensus on each individual item in a bibliography -- no, I don't think I'm going to do that. You haven't challenged individual items; you challenged them en masse.  And three out of four editors have agreed  that at least some times law review articles (the standard publication in legal scholarship) are appropriate for a bibliography; the fourth editor (you) didn't challenge that.  So I agreed to vet each item in the bibliography before putting it in, and I'm doing so.  I am, additionally, explaining my reasoning here.  You are welcome to question my reasoning (as you did).  You're also welcome to set forth your own reasoning (which you haven't).  And you're welcome to produce your own arguments about including or not including bibliographic citations.  But you haven't made a case for, as a rule, not including law review articles in the article of a legal scholar.  If you want to understand more about legal scholarship, here's a short list of legal scholars that I more-or-less randomly chose from harvard & yale: Guido Calabresi, Frank Easterbrook, Charles Nesson, Martha Minow, Charles A. Reich. I picked them out because I'm familiar with their work, and whether a bibliography was included at all -- since sadly most academics do not get much attention to their articles so the articles are mostly briefer than they should be.  Still, you should be able to get a sense of things that hopefully will be helpful to you.
 * --Lquilter (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a read of some of your links and will look at the others when I have time, it seems I was overly focussed on the wp:notable guide which is more focussed on people than content in their articles, soz for my failings, ta. I am still a supporter of the following position though and I hope you don't simply replace the previous list you added one by one, to quote User:DGG, "Listing everything resembles a CV, where academic custom is to list everything imaginable. We don't do CVs. (cf.WP:NOT) For all sorts of content, listing minor work normally detracts from the impression of notability. If there are one or two particularly influential essays in major law reviews, that would be OK, but I don;t think it a good idea to do more than that" Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking at some of the other policies/guidelines.  I am also not interested in including a resumé style listing of works, and eliminate those when I find them in articles.  Note: Law review articles are not generally "essays"; they are the basic form of scholarly legal research and theory. Many prominent legal scholars never publish monographs (books) -- or they only publish only "casebooks" which are textbooks for law schools -- so listings just of their "books" actually miss their scholarship and research.  --Lquilter (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, enjoy your day Lquiter. Your improvements of the article are appreciated.Mosfetfaser (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marjorie Heins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/n86057943
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502092113/http://nyupress.org/authors.aspx?authorID=3040 to http://nyupress.org/authors.aspx?authorID=3040

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marjorie Heins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819015515/http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/mcc/faculty/adjunct to http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/mcc/faculty/adjunct

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)