Talk:Hilary Bok

Untitled
Why does this article redirect to the misspelled version of her name? Her name is spelled Hilary, with one "l" not two like Hillary Clinton. -- 66.135.149.195 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Bok's may prefer to have her pseudonum kept "secret", but it is part of the public domain, known to many people, and is highly relevant to her blogging. Her status as the scion of a multi-generation hereditary dynasty of privileged college professors surely gives much-needed context for her blogging about ethical issues regarding equality and privilege in American society. She is a public figure and surely should not be given a veto over this highly relevant information regarding her public pronouncements and her willingness to apply them to in her own case. Josh H. Evans (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * blah, blah, blah. paranoid drivel. if anything, by blogging pseudonymously she's making her arguments stand on their own, instead of by association with her achievements as an academic. as to the "hereditary dynasty of privileged professors", roflmao. you haven't a clue, mate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.23.148 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It stands to reason that this is an unpleasant revelation, but it's not wikipedia's job to protect her from it. She confirms the outing on her website, and I can't guess what would be a more reliable source. I reverted the last edit because the information does belong on this page, but only if this page exists. I think the best thing to do for those inclined to protect her pseudonym is to nominate this article for deletion. Not every college professor has a wikipedia page--Ms. Bok is more notable than many, but I don't think the world would end if this article were deleted.76.170.112.193 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if 24.205.4.252 is actually Ms. Bok, as the notation in that user's edit summary implies, it's generally considered a conflict of interest to edit one's own wikipedia article. The talk page is fair game, though.76.170.112.193 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it back, long may it last; the woman is entitled to her privacy if she wants. Describing her as a "scion of a multi-generation hereditary dynasty of privileged college professors" doesn't exactly scream, "Objectivity!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.45.34 (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true in polite company, but wikipedia is not a tea party. This is information clearly relevant to the article. Her wishes are not an acceptable reason for deleting verified, relevant information from an article. I've reverted your change.76.170.112.193 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Accurately, with notations, identifying the subject as a pseudonymous blogger is not a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.87.172 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hilary Bok. 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/20090418161138/http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/04/14/sheltering-women-linda-hirshman-responds-to-hilzoy.aspx to http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/04/14/sheltering-women-linda-hirshman-responds-to-hilzoy.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416140145/http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/mshome/?ID=68 to http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/mshome/?id=68

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) 07:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)