Talk:Philip Perry

message: Not to cause any discord here, but I took the liberty of removing the names and birthdates of the subjects children.  This does not seem to be common practice on Wikipedia pages of other public officials, so I do not know why anyone would post that here, since it is a bit invasive and not fair to these children, who were not, I don't think, consulted.Phoebe13 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVED MATERIAL: 

message: This needs sourcing, and context, and time frame. Why include a salary figure with no year included, and no comparable info on govt. salaries, which are more public?  There's a comment in Perry's law school profile about how he loses money working for lower salary for the govt, if anyone wants to re-source the info and provide some proof of relevance.  Otherwise, it looks like some snarky factoid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebe13 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd delete:  '''His Latham salary reportedly topped $700,000'''. 

message: To 199.107.56.222 ==  please see your "talk" page...we need to know why you wanted to delete an entire section that was sourced adequately.  Please let us know your thoughts.  Otherwise, there is going to be a big gaping hole in Perry's history here.  We can use the material from the L *& W website, but it does not give exact dates.  Phoebe13 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeland Security Private Sector work 

message: I have revised the style of the references in keeping with the Wikipedia citation templates.  Current and future editors: kindly use the templates to help maintain a good level of quality, and, more importantly, ease of verifiability.
There was one reference that I could not find online: "Federal Faucet: Political Ties and Revolving Door Finds CCA at No. 1 in Industry," Connections, 25 Aug. 2008.
I figured it might be a reference to the journal Connections.  So I checked the online archive of the journal (https://consortium.pims.org/publications/quarterly-journals), but was unable to locate the article.
I'm not questioning the existence of the reference, but I do feel that the identifying information for the reference is inadequate.  Therefore I have commented out the reference in the main article using html comment tags, i.e., .
- idunno271828 (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of references 

message: * In the following sentence, of what nature were the blueprints that Philip Perry drafted for the DHS?  The word "blueprints" by itself is rather non-specific, and at face-value it would seem that he single-handedly designed the structure, operations, etc., of the DHS. :-)
:"Among his tasks was drafting the blueprint for the new Department of Homeland Security."
(The sentence quoted above appears in the sub-section titled Office of Management and Budget.)
* In the following sentence, what exactly is the title of the publication that this recognition has appeared in?  The sentence is actually taken verbatim from Philip Perry's biography at the Latham & Watkins website.  I searched the website of Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, but did not find a publication titled, or containing the phrase, Benchmark: Litigation 2008.
:"Mr. Perry has been recognized as a leading litigator in the Euromoney Institutional Investor Benchmark: Litigation 2008 guide."
(The sentence quoted above appears in the section titled Awards and Honors.)
- idunno271828 (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications possibly needed 

message: Being that the Controversy section is just starting to have the tone of back-and-forth assertion-and-rebuttal, I'm in favor of deleting the entire section.  However, I certainly have no objections if some editor wants to construct a well-structured section on any controversies in the future as long as reliable secondary sources are used to provide facts, and no original research is included.  If we're not careful about these policies we're gonna run into this same problem of POV, and possibly libelous text again.
- idunno271828 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you're reading my mind. Totally, totally agree.  If the sources are politicized and not vetted, it's no go.Phoebe13 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section