Talk:Michael Perry (author)

Prince

Growing up in a fundamentalist Christian sect, he was not permitted to see movies. Later, while attending college, he binged on movies, watching "Purple Rain" more than five times at theaters, eventually dressing like Prince during 1984-85. ("Wad'ya Know ?" 2015-06-20) http://www.notmuch.com/wyk/june-20-2015-madison-wi-monona-terrace 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B000:4934:9718:AC08:9248:325 (talk)

Re: "Montaigne in Barn Boots" and kidney stones

There have been several attempts to remove a sentence describing the source of Perry's interest in Montaigne and his motivations behind writing "Montaigne in Barn Boots", and I am at a loss as to why. The material is supported by two references printed in reliable sources, and is entirely on-topic as supporting material within a biography of a notable author, in that it both describes a major event in his life (the development of a significant medical condition) and provides insight into the development of a notable portion of his body of work. For that reason, I am starting this discussion in the hope that we can come to a consensus on the matter, rather than just blindly reverting the passage in question. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope Sirlanz will explain their viewpoint on this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (WP:BLP)

The material is poorly sourced because it simply comes out of the subject's own mouth in a book promotional tour context, which this article is primarily all about: promoting the subject's books.

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. WP:BLP

The material is, in effect, self-sourced. Subject rang up the rag in question to megaphone his book promotion.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. (WP:V)

Fundamentally, we do not want WP to serve commercial interests. If the subject wants to make something of the trivia in his life, and to promote his publications with cute anecdotes, he can establish a website to do so. And if this apparently COI IP editor wants to engage in a contentious discussion, he/she should do us all the courtesy of registering. sirlanz 23:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sirlanz. Thanks for explaining your reasoning, but why a perfectly neutral sentence about an illness the author suffered is considered by you to be violating so many policies is not clear. Neither sources are press releases or self published. There is no commercial interest for the inclusion of the information. I quote the phrase in issue:

His book exploring the work of the French philosopher and essayist Michel de Montaigne, Montaigne in Barn Boots, was published in 2017. He had developed an interest in Montaigne's work while recuperating from a kidney stone, when he did research into his condition and saw references to Montaigne, who also suffered from that malady.[2][1]

I am aware that policy encourages editing without registering. Further it is clear that IP editor is knowledgeable of Wikipedias standards. In my view their argument carries more weight than quoting the rulebook without substance. You claim there is an undisclosed COI on their part; have you not examined Special:Contributions/208.81.148.195? It is clear there is not.

It is my view that the information should remain, if you still disagree there are a number of processes to get more editors involved. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is purely from the mouth of the subject. It is as obvious as could possibly be that this is not material which has been fact-checked by the publisher of it. It is, therefore, in substance self-published. The fact the subject did not take out an ad to publish it should not blind discriminating editors of our encyclopaedia. The material at issue is just as plainly promotional. It ads flavour to the story of the creation of the book being promoted by the author here. If Frayae cannot see what is patently obvious in the pattern of editing by these IP editors on this page (and we are prevented, through anonymity, from looking further into the bona fides of this IP editor), that it is a determined effort to preserve purely promotional material to assist in book sales, so be it. It's an Alice in Wonderland world, after all. And we might just as well have WP join in. sirlanz 04:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment here to note that in spite of the unsupported allegation of conflict of interest, I am not Mr. Perry and have no personal or professional connection to him. I stumbled across this article by going through the "BLP articles proposed for deletion" category and adding sources to the ones that seemed like they might be salvageable, as a look at my edit history would attest. Which is part of the reason that I find sirlanz's insistence on removing sources from the article so concerning - if I hadn't added the material in question and the sources to support it, the article would have already been deleted. I also think that his logic regarding the acceptability of the sources in question is bad, in that it would render the majority of interviews useless for the purposes of sourcing, and at least one of the statements (the one about Perry's decision to write one of the books and his motivation behind it) wouldn't be possible to source to anything other than a first-person account, since how could such a claim even be independently verified? Similarly, Perry is going to be the only source for information about his own medical history, since the only other people in a position to know wouldn't be able to discuss it because of HIPAA. If sirlanz insists on being super-pedantic, we could add a "Perry claims" or something of that nature to the start of the disputed sentences. It's inelegant prose, but would also establish beyond any doubt that Perry himself is the source of that information. Otherwise, I don't see any reasonable objections to the inclusion of the material. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing inelegant about qualifying what WP must not state as empirical fact. Such qualification is essential. sirlanz 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

So if we throw an "According to Perry" or some equivalent phrase in front of the sentences in question, we can call this a day, and you'll stop trying to remove the material? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)