Talk:Peter Hallward

Blog exchange
Lets put an end to this: please explain how a third party's blog comment is in anyway notable to this article. ccwaters (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a third party blog, a well-know Haitian news publication (AlterPresse). Best, Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.82.237 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I'm here due to a request posted on Third opinion. I believe ccwaters isn't referring to the AlterPresse link, but rather the blogspot link beneath it (which I have just deleted). External links is quite clear concerning blogs. It would be appropriate if the blog belonged to Peter Hallward, but it doesn't, so out it goes. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the third paragraph detailing the blog exchange... ccwaters (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of Hallward's work
If there is to be a section of reviews of Hallward's work (which may or may not be a good idea) then user ArvinSam should not have carte blanche to decide, without explanation which reviews are acceptable and which are not. Further more if critics of Hallward's work are to be included then surely, pace, ArvinSam, Hallward's responses should be included to. If not this should at least be discussed on the talk page first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.160.189 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned member continually vandalizes entry by including extraneous "hurt author" responses in reviews of Hallward's work. Reviews of Hallward's work, both positive and negative, should stand on their own as per Wikipedia protocol. ArvinSam —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArvinSam (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses 98.171.191.251 (Santa Barbara, California, USA) and variations of a Johannesburg, South Africa IP address continue to add irrelevant "hurt author" responses to section featuring reviews of Hallward's work. Again, as per Wiki guidelines, Hallward's thoughts on review of his work, positive or negative, are irrelevant unless in the context of major philosophical debate. Hallward's work itself does not rise to level of major philosophical text, merely being commentary, so commentary on the commentary of Hallward's commentary (!) is doubly irrelevant and not to the standard of inclusion.--ArvinSam (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted link in External links section
Peter Hallward responding to a critic, does seem to merit inclusion in the external links section of the Peter Hallward article. It shows: a) that he has critics b) how he responds to them and c) provides insight on how he views his own books Context23 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As per Biographies of living persons: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

Integral44 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)