Talk:Morton Horwitz
| 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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
editI think that my initial entry was evenhanded enough.
Gaius Catullus is incorrect in saying that Horwitz' first book "is not regarded as a serious work of legal historical scholarship despite its apparent continuing popularity in reading lists in America." The book is included in reading lists precisely because it is regarded as a serious work. That's not to say that most scholars agree with his methodology or conclusions. Legal history, like every academic discipline, has works that are regarded as major works even though virtually no one in the field would endorse them tout court. I think that moving Gaius Catullus' comments to a section on "Criticism" is a more fair way to approach criticisms.
Critical legal theory
editHe worked for critical leagal theory 182.176.222.99 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)