Talk:Joseph Pearce

Untitled

Could we have some clarification on Ave Maria College, Ave Maria University, and where it is that Pearce has actually been employed? This is prompted by the recent edit changing College to University, Michigan to Florida. Charles Matthews 13:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, according to [1] the University is newly-founded. So the edit was at least misleading: if the College is effectively moving to a new site, and getting a new name, this has to be spelled out. Charles Matthews 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at [2] for details; the College is in Michigan, and the University is in Florida; the University is new, and the College is still open. Mr. Pearce is listed as a professor at the Florida campus on this web site. They also give his email address. Perhaps we should write him for details. marcusscotus 14:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The changes there will do for now. I have asked at Ave Maria College for clarification; that article certainly needs an update. Charles Matthews 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is massively undue weight given to his youth. From the article, you would think that Pearce's primary importance was being a twenty-something right-wing agitator. Algabal 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Early life and National Front: UNDUE and PRIMARY

I see that people have been commenting, correctly, that the article's coverage of Pearce's violent right-wing early life was covered in WP:UNDUE detail --- and also from WP:PRIMARY sources --- as far back as 2007. The fact is that Pearce had some notability as an extremist; he is now known as a Catholic biographer. That does not justify breaking the rules of notability by covering his early life in massive detail, supported by nothing more than his own memoirs. Indeed there is a danger that such coverage is at best a sign of prurient editorial interest, at worst of a serious breach of WP:NPOV. If we can't find anyone except Pearce who thinks his pre-Catholic days are particularly interesting, it means that we should not be covering them in more than very brief summary detail, perhaps one paragraph in all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

New life, new world: WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP article

Material has been re-added, in slightly modified form, to the 'New life, new world' section. It is sourced only to an interview with Pearce, i.e. it is primary-sourced. It is over 100 words long, the longest paragraph in the section, making it (even if it were appropriate, which is not conceded) WP:UNDUE.

Let's take this in steps, starting from what is certainly true and proceeding from there.

This article is a biography of a living person, so WP:BLP applies.

WP:BLP states in terms that

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view ([[Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Verifiability (V)

No original research (NOR)"

This is both sensitive and a central matter of Wikipedia policy, i.e. it matters extremely, and it cannot be circumvented.

A BLP article on Pearce must not be, or appear to be, a platform for Pearce's opinions.

That means only the most limited use can be made of WP:PRIMARY materials, certainly not expounding the political views of the article subject. The current wording is at best only marginally less obtrusively primary.

There is no mandate in policy to cite primary interviews, speeches, or essays by Pearce in this article on Pearce.

If scholars and book reviewers have written about aspects of Pearce's thought and writings, then we can cite those Reliable Secondary Sources.

The material is contrary to policy and should be removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)