Talk:Judith P. Hallett

Addition of a controversies section edit war referred to Biographies of Living People noticeboard
I have referred this to the Biographies of Living People's noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Judith_Hallett

There seems to me to be problems with the fact of a controversies section, which in itself falls foul of the BLP rules as well as weasel words in describing the issues. But others may have different views.

Can I also remind experienced eds about not biting the newbies - the anonymous editor who is making the changes is probably new to editing Wikipedia. Welcome seems an odd thing to say at this point, but actually, yes. Welcome. It might be helpful to create a user name and take part in the discussion. Claire 75 (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-addition of the same controversies section by the same anonymous editor
This matter was settled on the Biographies of Living People noticeboard and there is no good reason for the same material to be reintroduced (noticeably at exactly the same time of year) by presumably the same anonymous editor. This is why it has been removed and it should not be reinserted. The decisions of editors on the BLP board last year are archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Judith_Hallett

Discussion of BLP editors of this latest attempt is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Judith_Hallett Claire 75 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no compelling reason why this material should be added to Hallett's biography, and I recommend the material be kept out unless a community consensus (e.g. at BLPN) emerges that the material, for some good reason, needs to be here. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources I'd think perhaps one sentence sourced to the WSJ could be appropriate. This material does not deserve its own section. -Darouet (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The text is silly muck racking of trivia from decades ago. It is trivia unless a reliable secondary source says otherwise. An earlier discussion was at BLPN March 2018. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Johnuniq. The question is, given the repeated attempts by an anonymous editor, what is the best way to keep out the material. This is the third time the page has been vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 75 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)