This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@X4n6: In my view, Special:Diff/1043775064 adds no substantive content to this article because it does not provide any context regarding the publications listed. It's just a list. The fact that a university-published bio is effectively self-published—i.e., providing no independent perspective on which of the publications are important, influential, etc—only adds to my concern. It's irrelevant that universities commonly list faculty publications—what matters is what's useful for encyclopedic purposes, not universities' own purposes. I'm fine to start an actual bibliography of Greene's publications, but putting it in prose does not make sense IMO.
@AleatoryPonderings: I have no problem expanding the section to flesh out the writings. I don't think a long bibliography is necessary, as is found on his CV, but I think the highlights in his bio are more than sufficient. As for a university's official bio being self-published, it's not his personal page, it's the university's page. In fact, the original source was the university's official announcement of his appointment. But again, happy to flesh out the writings. And already added two new sources on Park Slope. X4n6 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
My point isn't so much that the publications section isn't fleshed out enough. It's that it's an indiscriminate list without sufficient context to identify the importance (or lack thereof) of what it discusses. To take a random example: "Beyond Lawrence: Metaprivacy and Punishment" has been cited only 52 times, a total that includes Greene's own citations of the article in subsequent work. It doesn't make sense to highlight publications like these when they haven't been treated, summarized, etc, at any length in secondary sources. Whatever a university bio is, it's not an independent secondary source. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
