Talk:Mark J. Perry

June 2008

I'm not sure why Wikipedia would be seeking to take down Mark Perry's wiki entry when he has one of the more popular economics blogs on the internet and appears on Kudlow and Company roughly once a week. He is probably as widely known, or at least seen and read, than Paul Krugman, who has a massive wiki entry. I'm tempted to imagine this bias is due to Krugman and Perry's respective politics, but nah, the powers that be around here couldn't possibly fall for that. User:70.121.226.231 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" doesn't propose removal of entries. Individual editors do. I proposed deletion of this entry -- a simple cut-and-paste from the bio on Perry's own website -- because as best I can tell from the article, Mark Perry is a professor at UM-Flint with a blog, who contributes to a stock valuation website. None of that is particularly notable. I see that he has been on Kudlow and Company but cannot ascertain how often. (Krugman by contrast has for many years written two or three columns a week for the New York Times. The comparison is, I think, inapt.)

Anyone who can lay out reliable sources establishing Perry's notability is welcome to do so and remove the deletion template. JohnInDC (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the proposed deletion template myself and added a notability flag. As written the article fails to establish notability, so someone more familiar with the subject, and sources to show his notability, should add them. JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if its a legitimately a cut and paste job, it could probably be speedied as a copyvio. The comparison with Paul Krugman is so off target as to be laughable. That article is well-sourced, and clearly establishes notability in accordance with WP guidelines. An academic like Dr. Perry would probably appreciate the value of citing sources to establish your thesis. And if the claims made here can be substantiated, Dr. Perry may have a claim on notability. But screaming something on a talk page doesn't make it so. Instead of spending time concocting conspiracy theories, perhaps the author should read up on how to write successful articles and work to try and improve it. Montco (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation going on and I'd like to add my 2 cents. The real issue is who gets to decide who is notable and who is not? A particular astronomer may not seem notable to me and I may say he doesn't belong on the wikipedia. But other astronomers and fans of astronomy might virulently disagree. If you are in the finacial industry, you would probably recognize this individual's name and might be surprised if he was NOT on wikipedia. Is Perry as famous as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? No, but isn't that the beauty of the Wikipedia and its longtail? I really think the editors have to find a better way of deciding who is notable and who is not. Becuase while I think we can universally agree that my goldfish is not notable, I don't think Mark Perry is as obvious. Certainly not every editor is an expert on every topic. I propose that while perhaps any editor can flag an article for review, only proven experts in a particular field should be able to edit an article. Do you not agree that would make more sense and ensure more accurate and responsible editorial oversight? User:192.114.4.109 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the answer is laid out right here - notability of people. If an editor - expert or not - can establish a subject as notable in this fashion, then they stay. If they can't, they can't! JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that the editor will make a conscious effort to read up on the rules and guidelines instead of spewing on the talk pages. Unfortunately, the sheer number of people who come out here to post biographies of non-notable individuals and organizations is staggering. No we aren't experts on every topic although since you know zero about any one person, be careful about your assumptions, including me. Therefore, we have clear and objective criteria which have been established so that notability can be demonstrated, which include: verifiability and reliable sourcing so that someone who is not an expert can ultimately make a judgment call.

However, if the WP model is not to one's liking, there is always Citizendium. Just a note, they have rules too and I suggest you read up on theirs before you start screaming at them if you don't get your way. That usually takes someone with the requisite knowledge who might just be in a position to help you and turns them into someone who frankly, won't give you the time of day. Montco (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Political Bias

Mark's blog has an apparent right bias, attacking affirmative action, unions ("All this begs a fundamental, and uncomfortable, question. Can a UAW-represented car company compete effectively, long term, with its nonunion competitors? At the very least, companies organized by the UAW have lots of extra costs to bear at their factories located in the U.S." ), and Obama (seen in editorializing comments such as "In November, Obama bravely announced that he was putting off any decision on allowing the construction of the pipeline until after the 2012 presidential election. That's real leadership!" ). Finding out if a blogger has political bias is one of the reasons I come to Wikipedia. 66.193.18.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

In July of 2016, Perry has become involved in a complaint at a Michigan State University attempting to eliminate a study room utilized by women only as a violation of Title IX. He does not expect the suit to be successful. (<ref>http://http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/12/michigan-state-faces-civil-rights-complaint-for-women-only-student-union-lounge/<ref>)

None of which makes him notable really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toka248 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Seekingalpha.com spam

See also User talk:192.114.4.36#Seekingalpha.com spam and likely sockpuppetry and Talk:Seeking Alpha#Spamming wikipedia articles. Note Boaznb (talk · contribs) created both Seeking Alpha and this article in last few days. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget User talk:192.114.4.109 who may be a loyal minion as well. Montco (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, noted at User talk:192.114.4.109#Seekingalpha.com spam and likely sockpuppetry. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Status

I see on at least one site that he is now a professor emeritus and on his blog is says he is a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. His blog hasn't been updated for nearly three months. Nicmart (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)