Talk:Jan Perry

Bias

The article gives the impression that it was written by Jan Perry's PR office and is serious need of a pov rewrite. 4.245.102.49 02:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was, not to mention copied with no attestation and likely in violation of copyright! I've removed all of that text as it was utterly unsalvigable. 68.39.174.238 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This article deserves deletion there's nothing remotely notable about it klosterdev (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Garden

Jan Perry was included in the 2009 film The Garden where she played a part in selling LA's largest public garden. This information is controversial I would assume, but a significant point of interest in her career, and I think it should be mentioned by someone with exceptionally neutral writing skills.99.177.105.69 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent rewrite

This article has been rewritten to sound like an advertisement for Jan Perry. As it no longer meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I would favor reverting it to it's previous state. Kaldari (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. It's blatant POV. 32.218.36.92 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree and, having tried a bit to clean it up have begun to despair of the task. I'll restore the prior version in a day or so unless someone can make a compelling case that I shouldn't. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime I am going to go through and remove all of these self-serving quotes that are now spread about the article - they make the thing read like a campaign brochure. JohnInDC (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed some funny line breaks in the text as I was working through it, which suggests (but of course only suggests) that the material was copy-pasted in from somewhere else. Another reason to revert to the earlier version. JohnInDC (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I question the use of what, feels to me, to be criticism and sarcasm when using the words "puffery", "barely coherent summary", and "self-serving quotes" to justify removing parts of the article. These justifications for removing and reverting to an earlier version seem not to come from a neutral point of view, nor do I think reverting backwards would expand the description within the scope of the subject, Jan Perry. I'd like to try and resolve the issue. Barrider (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This morning I was reading the article a little more closely, making edits to see if I could clean it up sufficiently and preserve some of the additions; but when I came across a section lifted bodily from the EWD website I decided that it would be simpler to start fresh than to review the entire revised article, line-by-line, for both POV and copyright issues. Comments / thoughts welcome - thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone. I did not mean to come across as sarcastic. That being said, on substance I am pretty confident. The revisions to the article were not in keeping with WP:NPOV and carried a pretty strong air of promotion and praise. "Puffery" is a shorthand allusion to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and WP:Peacock, which describe the problem in greater detail - I agree that the single word edit summary reads a bit abruptly, and I should have been a bit more expansive. The quotes, by the subject about herself, read like something out of a press release or from a campaign organization. A subject's own words are not a good source for the importance or meaning of the subject's work, because politicians rarely speak of themselves neutrally. Finally, the summary that I removed said this: "Perry believes that an effort that is grounded in faith, hard work, and belief in one’s belief to make things work better is always worth the effort." I can't tell what that means. Ultimately, as I indicated above, the copyright issues caused me to undo the changes altogether. Again I apologize for the tone. From here, I think the effort is best focused on what information should be added back into the article, and how it should be phrased. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this strategy. I had tried to trim the article of its problems (copyright violations, redundancy, off-topic tangents), but gave up. There was some material worth salvaging, but the tone was inappropriate for an encyclopedia - a cross between a press release and a newspaper feature article. Made me wonder what office she would be announcing her candidacy for next. 32.218.38.80 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology regarding tone and for the cogent thoughts concerning the article. Barrider (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan Perry. 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/20110823045547/http://oncentral.org/news/2011/07/01/jan-perry-reelected-president-pro-tempore-city-cou/ to http://www.oncentral.org/news/2011/07/01/jan-perry-reelected-president-pro-tempore-city-cou/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716095005/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/index.htm to http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/index.htm

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) 13:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)