Talk:Marjorie Heins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

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)[reply]

Stub?[edit]

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)[reply]

secondary sources[edit]

Is this person really wiki notable , who is reporting about her, all the details appear primary or accociated reports? Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, based on your article creation of a book, with zero content other than noting that it is held in 700+ libraries (Journalism, Ethics and Society), then yes; her most recent book alone is held in 1100+ books (767 copies of one edition[1], 405 copies of another). That's actually not the best criteria, I'd say, but it's a start. She is notable within First Amendment / arts circles; her association with the ACLU's NEA project, plus related litigation is notable.

I have a few concerns with your multiple edits:

  • I note that you removed some fairly quotidian biographical details (diff). These should have been tagged as unreferenced.
  • You also deleted some of the cited publications (diff) which you described as "move to an external connection" -- which you didn't.
  • You removed several awards, which are one of the ways that notability is shown, instead of simply marking them unreferenced. (diff)
  • You removed internal wikilinks to the specific statute and litigation (diff) but didn't incorporate the content into the paragraph, leaving readers with no way to actually find something more specific.

In sum, the edits seem on balance to be somewhat unhelpful. I'm inclined to reverse several of these, if you have no further explanation for them. --Lquilter (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hiya, I would appreciate it if you can find a reference for that content and put it in, I will also look for reports - content with no reports, long time in the article without reported links seems dubious to me, much improvement to the article will be to add reporting details.Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that you removed some fairly quotidian biographical details (diff). These should have been tagged as unreferenced.
much improvement to the article will be to add reliable reporting details - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the content back, and the article subheading which should not have been deleted . One reference was available in a Wikipedia article link in the content. I added it. I'll look for another supporting reference. --Lquilter (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also deleted some of the cited publications (diff) which you described as "move to an external connection" -- which you didn't.
Yes I did - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Heins&diff=597422346&oldid=597422118 - I added altnet to the external link section in the next edit - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did move the altnet contributor page to the external link, which is fine, but at the same time, you deleted 2 law review articles & an oft-cited policy report under the same "move to an external connection" edit summary. That's a misleading edit summary, and even more importantly, it deleted several important pieces of work. The AltNet move is good, but I'm going to put the other items back. --Lquilter (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You removed several awards, which are one of the ways that notability is shown, instead of simply marking them unreferenced.
if those awards are worthy then they have been unconfirmed in the article for ages, if worthy they will be reported in some independant sources, please add them and return the awards to the arrticle, I felt it was long enough unconfirmed worthy of inclusion without independant reports
I have now put the awards back and am adding references to them. --Lquilter (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You removed internal wikilinks to the specific statute and litigation (diff) but didn't incorporate the content into the paragraph, leaving readers with no way to actually find something more specific.
That case is already listed in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Heins#Cases_Litigated - the reader can see it easily - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statute is referenced in a description but not linked; it's really a critical piece of understanding a case to see the statute it challenges. I'm adding this back in. --Lquilter (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lets improve this article - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:MargeHeins added the birthdate 1946 (diff); I'm putting that back and leaving out the questioned date. --Lquilter (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An account with a name linked to the person is not a unquestioned source, I will add the questionable template Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the future, it is better to actually add a secondary sources / references tag, before wantonly deleting data; assuming there's nothing scurrilous or problematic for WP:BLP. Otherwise you waste a lot of WP edits and editor energy going back and forth in this tedious fashion. When a ref link would have sufficed. --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Long term unsupported in a biography imo is better removed, that spurred you to do the needed, thanks for your improving editions. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding the citations template would have also "spurred" me, and other editors, and would have involved less work than me having to back through your array of often inadequately or misleadingly labeled edits, and sort them all out, and post about them here, and wait an appropriate time for dialog, etc. I note, that instead of "spurring" other people with unnecessary and overbroad deletions of content, you could also do some of the work yourself of finding cites, if simply adding the citation template doesn't suit. Either approach would be better than simply deleting. Deleting, without providing notice and opportunity to other editors, is unhelpful to the encyclopedic project. I really encourage you to take a more constructive approach to your editing. --Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Show some good faith, my edits were constructive and within wiki guidelines. I made multiple edits, I am not a professional editor , please assume I made them in good faith andf if the summaries were a little incorrect, then apologies for that. I don't agree with all you edits either, there is imoi still overly much primary promotional content, which some of which you have added, for example your claim that a wiki user id with a name close to this articles title is a reliable source for a bith date is unsupported by any wiki guidelines and you removing the fact template and replacing it without one was a violation of wiki policy.Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how DOB is promotional. I removed the "unreferenced" template after I added a lot of references, clearing up the problem listed on the template. --Lquilter (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a cite to the Library of Congress table of authorities which lists her DOB and confirms that it is 1946. I thus removed the "fact" template. I note in passing that it's rather extraordinary to have a separate footnote just for year of birth, but there you go; what Mosfetfaser demands, I provide. --Lquilter (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claimed cite doesn't work - http://lccn.loc.gov/n86057943 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Library of Congress server is slow; you have to wait for it. However, I put back in the non-redirect URL. --Lquilter (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slow? It doesn't work at all. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You added all this with a source only to her cv 


   "The Supreme Court and Political Speech in the 21st Century: The Implications of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project," 76 Albany Law Review 561 (2013)
   “In Memoriam: Benjamin Kaplan,” 124 Harvard Law Review 1351 (2011).
   “’The Right to Be Let Alone’: Privacy and Anonymity at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Revue Française des Etudes Américaines, No. 123 (2010).
   "A Pall of Orthodoxy: The Painful Persistence of Loyalty Oaths,” Dissent, summer 2009.
   Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report (with Ariel Feldman & Christina Cho) (Brennan Center/Free Expression Policy Project, revised and updated, 2006).
   Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control (with Tricia Beckles) (Brennan Center/Free Expression Policy Project, 2005).
   “Do We Need Censorship to Protect Youth?” 2005 Michigan State Law Review 795.
   Free Expression in Arts Funding: A Public Policy Report (with Kim Cammarato & Christina Cho) (Free Expression Policy Project, 2003).
   "The Progress of Science and Useful Arts”: Why Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom (Free Expression Policy Project, 2003).
   Media Literacy: An Alternative to Censorship (with Christina Cho) (Free Expression Policy Project, 2002).
   “High Drama on the High Court: The First Amendment in the 1996 Term,” 14 Touro Law Review 373 (1998).
   Indecency: The Ongoing American Debate over Sex, Children, Free Speech, and Dirty Words (1997; report)
   “Viewpoint Discrimination,” 24 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 99 (1996).
   “Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra: Federalism, Forced Speech, and the Emergence of the Redgrave Defense,” 30 Boston College Law Review 1283 (1989).
   “The Right to Be Let Alone: Drug Testing and the Fourth Amendment,” 21 Suffolk U. Law Review 118 (1987).
   “’The Marketplace and the World of the Ideas’: A Substitute for State Action as a Limiting Principle Under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment,” 18 Suffolk U. Law Review 347 (1984).
   "Banning Words: A Comment on 'Words that Wound'" 18 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 585 (1983)
   “’Other People’s Faiths’: The Scientology Litigation and the Justiciability of Religious Fraud,” 9 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 153 (1981).

what is independantly notable about any of it? Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am assuming good faith, and giving you some help about how to be a more constructive editor. Here's a little more. (1) Facts in a biography do not have to be independently notable. WP:GNG is a standard for the overall subject of the article; but facts within the article need primarily to be relevant; then they also need to be not neutral POV, independently sourced, not unbalanced, etc. See "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." in WP:GNG. (2) CVs are fine to cite for basic information, like bibliographies. See WP:RS.
As to why I selected those particular items -- I picked out law review articles, which are the standard form scholarship in the field; Heins has lots of other publications, opinion pieces, book chapters, news reporting, and the like, but I just included the most scholarly significant works. There are likely other important or representative pieces that could be included, of her journalism, editorials, book chapters, and so forth, but I haven't spent the time to sort through and figure out which are the most important. Maybe that would be something you would like to do. --Lquilter (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see little good faith in your comments about me - actually as an improvement I will delete all that primary not independantly notable cv content you have added - you are clearly a supporter of the subject , please see wp:npov for your contributions and or promotional additions of subjects and people you suport or are paid by Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you went ahead and deleted content that was still being discussed here -- IMO, that verges on edit-warring. But at this point, with you more than once accusing me of bad faith, I think it would be helpful to get some other people to weigh in. I'm going to post requests on the Freedom of Speech and Law wikiprojects, to get some third-party eyes who have independent expertise; if we can't find anyone else, I suggest we hit the Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Lquilter (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC) ** I also posted to User talk:Kaldari, who is an editor who often works on topics of academic interest. You should of course feel free to approach editors and admins -- for instance, someone who might have a useful perspective, subject knowledge, or good conflict resolution skills. --Lquilter (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=prev&oldid=598845319 - your sockpuppet user , policy violator is not available to support you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=598892274&oldid=598891298 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted to User talk:DGG, another user who routinely works on academic pages. If we can't get a third party to weigh in here by, say, tomorrow, then I'm going to take this to Dispute resolution noticeboard tomorrow. --Lquilter (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I generally write about sociologists and other individuals active in the humanities (when I write about academics, I mean), I think I may be able to offer a third opinion. The current version of the article (this one) is reasonably well cited, although it still needs considerable work. For instance, although the New York University sites are acceptable for what they are being used for, an independent source would still be preferable, if available. More mainstream coverage, or reviews of Heins' books (check Jstor), would help show notability a bit better. :This means that, rather than a section with just the titles of the books, the books and their receptions can be worked into the main body of prose. For instance, Not in Front of the Children has an article about it already, and some of this information can be included in Heins' article. Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy apparently has a review here, though I don't have a subscription so I can't check it.
To see how this is done, at least with fiction (as I said, I don't have Jstor, so I can't do it often with the articles I write on academics), take a look at such articles as Kenneth Horne. Worked into the prose, with sourced commentary on the contents, and reviews. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

birthdate / secondary source[edit]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

Reports and articles cited to the subjects cv[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with this comment by DGG. Mosfetfaser (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.

That's all I have time for tonight. --Lquilter (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cool, enjoy your day Lquiter. Your improvements of the article are appreciated.Mosfetfaser (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marjorie_Heins&oldid=1208227223"