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 sourcedmust 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:
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 within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Classical Committee, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Classical Committee articles 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's Classical CommitteeWikipedia:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeTemplate:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeWomen's Classical Committee articles
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
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)Reply
Re-addition of the same controversies section by the same anonymous editoredit
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}