Talk:Jan Perry

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Garden 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. It's blatant POV. 32.218.36.92 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the apology regarding tone and for the cogent thoughts concerning the article. Barrider (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent rewrite 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified