Talk:Harvard Law Review

Oldest?

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review also claims to be the oldest. According to the history on the web site of the Pennumbra, the American Law Register was first published in 1852 and was edited by "judges, lawyers and professors" until 1895 when one of the then-editors became Dean of the Penn law school. The first student-edited edition of the American Law Register appeared in 1896. In 1908, the name was changed to University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register and in 1945 the reference to the American Law Register was dropped.

Given that history, I think that Harvard's claim to the oldest student-edited law review is accurate. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of editors

Shouldn't this article contain a list of editors? I came across a name of a prominent person in the article on Peekskill, NY who was supposedly editor of the Harvard Law Review. The persons name is Hayward Burns. It seems to me that a list of former editors will be helpful to this article. Juri Koll (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harvard Law Review. 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/20090104202752/http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/paul_d_clementbio.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/paul_d_clementbio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223064459/http://www.bancroftassociates.net/prof_vdinh.htm to http://www.bancroftassociates.net/prof_vdinh.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229183502/http://norway.usembassy.gov/ambassador2.html to http://norway.usembassy.gov/ambassador2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102034932/http://www.skadden.com/index.cfm?contentID=45&bioID=4359 to http://www.skadden.com/index.cfm?contentID=45&bioID=4359
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040823160254/http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2004/winter/sallyport/meetleebron.html to http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2004/winter/sallyport/meetleebron.html

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) 23:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Eghbariah essay

My edit to this article was recently reverted while I was working on revisions to the text.

This is the proposed paragraph:

In November 2023, the Harvard Law Review stopped the publication of an essay written by Rabea Eghbariah, a Palestinian student at Harvard Law. The online chairs of the Review had asked the Eghbariah to write an essay about a week after Hamas militants attacked Israel. The Intercept reported that the president of the Review, Apsara Iyer, with the support of a majority of the journal's leadership, delayed the publication of the essay because of "safety concerns and the desire to deliberate with editors." Twenty-five Review editors signed a letter criticizing the decision, calling it an "unprecedented decision [that] threatens academic freedom and perpetuates the suppression of Palestinian voices." Eghbariah's essay was later published in The Nation.

The Intercept, The Guardian, and The Nation are all considered generally reliable sources, with some caveats/advice on attribution (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). A statement attributed to The Intercept is attributed by name.

Udnciemd93749, could you please mention the specific policies/issues that you believe preclude this from publication? Maybe we can workshop this. I don't think it makes sense to completely remove all mentions.

Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Wracking ^talk! 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the intervening edit! I think your changes are good but still believe this section should be deleted entirely. As a preliminary matter, the article in The Guardian is wholly based on the reporting in The Nation and The Intercept, so I think reliability hinges entirely on the latter two articles. The reliable sources page that you linked suggests attributing information to both of them given potential concerns of bias or partisanship (which you've excellently done with The Intercept), and it further states to "[t]ake care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." Given the potential costs this content could impose on the editors' reputations (particularly the president), I believe more reputable sources are needed to support the claims made. Again, to clarify, I think the edits you've proposed are positive but disagree with this section's inclusion altogether. Udnciemd93749 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to challenge the The Guardian article as being unreliable simply because it relies on other materials - we do not require reliable sources to be based primarily or exclusively on primary documents or original research.

With that said, I'm not entirely sure that we need to include the name of the journal's president. It doesn't seem to be central to the story or provide readers with any additional, useful information. Omitting their name could also be an interim, cautious step as we continue discussing this. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to question the accuracy of a piece when it relies on unreliable source material. The article in The Guardian does not seem to have performed any independent research or verification, so its credibility entirely relies on the credibility of the articles in The Intercept and The Nation—both of which are potentially biased and, at least in the context of this topic, possibly distorted. Regardless, I wholly agree with the removal of the president's name. Udnciemd93749 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the credibility of the The Guardian article "entirely relies on the credibility of the articles in The Intercept and The Nation." It relies on the The Guardian's policies and practices, many of which are not readily visible to us e.g., editorial oversight, fact checking.

I also think that it's a very bad idea for you to edit-war with multiple editors - please stop. If your primary objection is to including the name of one person, a more appropriate course would be for you to remove that person's name and not the entire paragraph. ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources are reliable, and beyond that WP:A/I/PIA disallows non extended-confirmed editors from editing either articles or talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict except for making constructive edit requests. nableezy - 18:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

References