Talk:Hilary Bok

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Analytic / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]