Talk:Jeff Perry (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blogs[edit]

Blogs are not normally reliable sources. According to WP:RS, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs...."

So, for example, this blog entry would not be okay for the present Wikipedia article. At the bottom of the blog entry, it says: "Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners." So, this blog of Richard Latimer is not a "reliable source" within Wikipedia terminology, even though Richard Latimer may know exactly what he is talking about. Incidentally, the host of the blog is CapeCodToday which is not a newspaper, but even if it were a newspaper, still it has explicitly disclaimed editorial control over this blog post.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the IP keeps reinserting this unreliable source, and has avoided discussing it at this discussion page, I've raised this matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jeff_Perry_(politician).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no reply at the BLP Noticeboard, and the vandalism is getting worse, I've requested semi-protection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who updated the article. I didn't avoid discussing this at this page because I didn't know about it. I consider the current text to provide just one side of the story. A white wash for Mr. Perry. The source that I have been referencing, in large part discusses publicly avilable documents from the National Archives. However, I can appreciate the fact that Wikipedia doesn't consider blogs to be reliable sources. I will desist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.150.42 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil action[edit]

One settled out of court, by who? what are the details, it appears to me as an outsider reading that Perry made a payment out of court to settle the claim? Am I correct in assuming this? and is there a citation that supports that? Off2riorob (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the 3 news articles is that Perry was dropped from one of the lawsuits which was decided in the plaintiffs' favor. The other lawsuit was settled out of court, and it's unclear who paid what, though I very much doubt Perry paid anything in either case. He never testified in court, in either the criminal or the civil cases.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Wareham police controversy should be a subsection of the campaign for Congress section[edit]

I see a couple possible problems with making it a separate section apart from the Campaign for Congress section. First, the notability only occurred this year rather than 20 years ago; the three cited news articles are all from this year, and the statement we mention by Perry about the whole thing is from this year too, so it's getting coverage because of the current campaign (rightly or wrongly). The second possible problem with characterizing it as a long-ago matter is that this article is organized chronologically so someone might come along and put this way at the top of the article where it will be much more prominent and visible, thus exacerbating the undue weight problem. I'll leave it as-is and see if anyone agrees/disagrees. Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even looking at the sourcing yet, I am afraid to :) I hope this isn't the usuall partisan muckracking talking heads said its notable so it gets its own section business. How widely has this "controversey" been covered by nuetral 3rd parties? I would include it under the campaign section and trim it down, if it was to be included at all. Again, for full disclosure, I am a minimalist/deletionist so :)....--Tom (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are wise to be afraid.  :-) The three cited sources are the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Cape Cod Times. Those are normally considered reliable sources, but the best way to judge their neutrality would probably be to plod through the three respective articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2010

"Subordinate police officer"[edit]

The cited Cape Cod Times article describes Flanagan as a "subordinate police officer" and I think that's a better description than saying Flanagan was subject to Perry's shift supervision, which many readers could misinterpret as meaning that Perry was supervising the assault on the two girls (which none of the cited sources say he was doing).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wasn't he at the scene for one of the two incident?Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he travelled with Flanagan to one of the scenes. By analogy, Caesar was with Brutus when Brutus killed Caesar, and Brutus was a subordinate officer, but that doesn't mean that Caesar supervised what Brutus did to him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

The information pertaining to this individual needs to be updated. In it's current form, the author creates the perception that this individual (Jeff Perry) was only minimally involved in the illegal strip search scandal of teenage girls. Within the last week, three major newspaper stories have published articles that clearly show the Perry lied about his involvement in protecting and covering up for Scott Flanagan, the child molester.

Here are two articles from the Cape Cod Times written by George Brennan who wrote the original article. The first which was published 6/5/2010 is titled: "Police reports contradict Perry's account." Here is the link: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100605/NEWS/6050319/-1/NEWS2315

The second follow up article by Brennan which was published 6/8/2010 is: "Perry's police actions criticized." This article can be found at this link: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100608/NEWS/6080310/-1/NEWS2315

The third article which is also a follow up written by Donovan Slack of the Boston Globe is titled: "Testimony contradicts House candidate." This article was published 6/11/2010 and can be found at this link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/11/testimony_contradicts_house_candidate/

Thanks for the links to the recent news articles. I'll incorporate them into the article tomorrow if no one gets to it first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the description with a more recent article that contains a good summary of the facts of the controversy. It is the entirety of a section entitled "The Facts" from an article in a reliable source (WBZ-TV) so it should not be removed or modified. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements from strip search victims and their families[edit]

An anon editor (166.137.137.228) added a sentence with a statement made by one of the parents of a teenager who was illegally strip searched: "The father of the victim in the other incident stated in 2010 that he now believes Perry was simply doing his job and the incident should have no impact on Perry's political career." He added it to a paragraph with a statement made by the other teenager. He is apparently trying to balance the victim statement. But it does not belong in this paragraph since it is not a victim statement - the other victim has apparently not made a public statement - and to quote only one of the victim's families when both families have made statements is decidedly not balanced. I have moved it to here. It is also questionable whether statements by the parents are notable enough to include in the article. If he or others think it is important to include this information in the article, then he should move it to a paragraph of its own, and include the statement of the other family - see the boston globe article with victim statement that refers to an earlier article with an interview of her father who says Perry should be run out of town. Jgui (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We include a lengthy statement from one of the two victims criticizing Perry. A corresponding statement from the other victim's father, praising Perry, has been removed. If a more slanted treatment is possible, I can't imagine how. I'll reinsert the very brief statement from the other victim's father.
Please try to keep in mind Wikipedia's neutrality policy. We've already expanded the section about these two strip search incidents tremendously, including a very lengthy blockquote that is largely repeating what this Wikipedia artcle already says. I have no objection whatsoever to including the statement from the victim; if she is correct, then voters need to know it. But to exclude the statement from the other victim's family is just not neutral on our part. Please reconsider, and try to look at it neutrally. Thanks.166.137.136.11 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lecture other editors on WP policy until you have considered their careful objections to your edits. You are including a statement from one father of one victim, but you are leaving out an opposing statement from the other victim's father even though I explicitely pointed you to where it is. You also failed to address my objection that the statements from the father's of victims are not notable.
Since you seem determined to expand this section with this statement I have left your change but balanced it with a statement from the other victim's father. I then reduced the size of the section somewhat by moving the final paragraph into a new controversy section with more details on Perry's statement and misstatements since these are clearly more notable and germane than the third-hand parent's statements that you think are so important to include in this article.
Anon 166.137.136.11, please do not revert my changes again without first reading and considering my statement here, and then responding here with any objections first. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read and considered.166.137.139.120 (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the word "controversy" is in a heading, that word is redundant in the 3 subheadings.
According to the footnoted source, "Perry was never disciplined. He resigned in July of 1993....In separate letters, Joyce and Cardalino praised Perry's work as a cop.". This should be mentioned in our article.166.137.139.120 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, here again you are inserting opinions from third-parties that are not notable enough for inclusion in this section of the article. It is fair to say that every politician has supporters and detractors - we should not list them here in the midst of an attempt to present the facts of the controversies surrounding this candidate. Furthermore, these "supporters" have a decidedly mixed record - one of them wrote in a signed deposition that Perry was not honest and the other said that Perry failed to follow proper police procedure and that he did not do good police work. Yet you failed to include that information. Including only the praise and leaving out the condemnation as you are repeatedly doing is decidedly not consistent with the Wikipedia neutrality policy you accused me of violating. Please stop.
Anon, I will therefore restore the text and remove the text you added. If you think it is important to include the praise of these individuals, please add a new section for it, something like "Candidate supporters and detractors", and be sure you include a reference to Joyce's mixed review of Perry: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/08/former_boss_now_backs_perry/ and Cardalino's mixed review of Perry: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100608/NEWS/6080310 .
The change you made to section names is a good one. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(redent). You're welcome. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to remove notable material that accurately summarizes reliable sources. You have additional sources that can be added and summarized, which is fine, but the additional sources do not contradict the material you removed. Additionally, the material you inserted is inaccurate; the cited sources do not say that Perry's role was never examined by the police.
Here is what the pertinent part of this article says now:
"There was never a police investigation into Perry's involvement. He resigned seventeen days after Flanagan was indicted for what Perry has said were unrelated reasons."
Here are the three cited sources:
1) Brennan, George. “Perry's link to strip search in spotlight”, Cape Cod Times (2010-05-15): "Though Perry was named in the civil suits, the complaints against him were ultimately dismissed....In depositions, Wareham Chief Thomas Joyce and Capt. Paul Cardalino, said if they had evidence that Perry and Kearney did indeed witness the Allen strip search they would have been fired....He resigned in July of 1993....In separate letters, Joyce and Cardalino praised Perry's work as a cop."
2) Slack, Donovan and Phillips, Frank. "Perry’s record as officer examined", Boston Globe (2010-05-15): "Perry produced a letter yesterday from the police chief at the time saying he was not under investigation or subject to disciplinary actions when he resigned."
3) Wirzbicki, Alan and Slack, Donovan. "Breaking silence, strip search victim criticizes Perry", Boston Globe (2010-10-20): "Perry was not charged in either the 1991 or 1992 assault. He resigned from the Wareham police 17 days after Flanagan was indicted, but has said his leaving the force was unrelated to the strip search cases."
You have suggested two additional sources:
A) Wirzbicki, Alan. "Former Boss Now Backs Perry", Boston Globe (2010-10-08): "Perry was never charged or disciplined in the cases....Joyce alludes to Keating’s ad raising the strip-search incident and attacks the Democrat for using the case against Perry: "'Bill Keating ought to be ashamed of himself. His ugly attacks against Jeff Perry go way over the line,' Joyce said."
B) Brennan, George. "Perry's Police Actions Criticized", Cape Cod Times (2010-06-08): "Perry did not follow proper procedure the night of the [1992] incident, Cardalino said....Once the department did know about it, Cardalino said, an investigation was launched and Flanagan was fired....Perry, who was never charged or disciplined in either incident, resigned from the Wareham Police Department within days of Flanagan's indictment. He insists it had nothing to do with the strip search and he received positive letters of recommendation from Cardalino and then-Police Chief Thomas Joyce."
In view of what these five sources say, I'll edit the Wikipedia article so that it reads as follows:
"Perry was not charged or disciplined in either incident. He resigned seventeen days after Flanagan was indicted, for what Perry has said were unrelated reasons. His captain Paul Cardalino says Perry did not follow proper procedure in the 1992 incident involving Heather Adams, but nevertheless Cardalino gave a positive letter of recommendation to Perry upon his resignation. Perry's police chief Thomas Joyce gave a similar letter, and says the attacks against Perry regarding the two strip search incidents go too far."
This all pertains to the notable strip search incidents, and therefore I would not support creating any additional section of the article.166.137.137.47 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Anon, you have once again added bias to the article by presenting only one point of view from the references and excluding the other. In the process you completely misrepresented the sources. Nevertheless I have left everything you wrote - I removed nothing. I did create a new section for this material since it does not belong in a discussion of the facts of the strip search case - the material you added consisted of third-party supervisor statements regarding Perry about much more than the strip search controversy so including it in that section was confusing and out of place. I also added the other side of the officer's statements as I asked you to do in my previous note which you ignored. By cherry-picking one point of view from the sources you completely misrepresented the sources, which is against WP policy. I hope you will learn from this and try to write NPOV text consistent with WP policy in the future. Jgui (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified your changes in an effort to render them more neutral. Captain Cardalino only criticized Perry regarding the 1992 incident involving Heather Adams. And Perry did not merely say that Cardalino gave a letter of recommendation; the sources confirm that it was given.
I have also shortened the new material about incidents tangential to strip searches, such as damage to a radar gun, especially because you have decided to omit all favorable info in the cited sources that praises or reflects well on his police service.166.137.138.57 (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The changes regarding Heather Adams and letter of recommendation are fine, except I wonder why you are adding this name when it is not not necessary and not (as far as I can tell) used in the sources - if it is used in one of them could you please refer to it?
Your revert of the cited text I added (which you call shortening) is not acceptable however. We are both using cited material, and I left all of the praise of Perry that you added without modification, so I hope you will do the same with what I wrote in an attempt to balance your text, unless you have some other reason for removing it. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never added any praise of Perry's police service, except for two letters of recommendation that occurred AFTER the two strip search incidents. Then you added negative material regarding incidents that occurred BEFORE those two incidents, without mentioning any positive citations, commendations, awards, and praise (which can be found in the cited sources). That's not NPOV in my opinion. Regarding Cardolino's criticism, the sources are 100% clear that it was regarding the 1992 (Adams) incident, rather than the 1991 (Allen) incident.166.137.138.57 (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make whether praise or negative comments are BEFORE or AFTER - that is completely irrlelevant. The fact remains that you added praise of Perry from sources that you chose - then I used the same sources to give a balanced representation of the sources - then you started reverting out my changes. Are you arguing that your positive comments cherry-picked from an article entitled "Perry's police actions criticized" or "Ex-police chief had doubted candidate's candor" were representative of the articles? Please justify your removals or I will add them back. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notable controversy here is strip-searching. The letters of recommendation occurred after those incidents, so OBVIOUSLY the letters of recommendation took into account Perry's role in the notable strip-search controversy. In contrast, an incident that occurred before the strip-searches is of minmal relevance here, but if we do include that earlier incident then we would need to be clear what it was about (e.g. a radar gun), and we would need to include positive incidents too that are unrelated to the strip searches but reflect well on Perry (e.g. an award from MADD discussed in th sources). I suggest yet again that we just stick to the notable contrversy.166.137.138.57 (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding here. The point of the article is that although this supervisor now says good things about Perry, even making a commercial for him, that this same supervisor used to have very negative things to say about him and his trustworthiness. THAT is the story and that was widely reported in the media and it therefore belongs in this article. I took statements and quotes directly from the article, and it is not acceptable for you to remove them and rewrite them. Do you understand how frustrating that is? Jgui (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very frustrating that you cannot express those ideas in the article concisely. Instead, the idea is stated, and then restated, and then a quote states it again, and another quote states it yet again. But only for the negative stuff. And now this "Contrversy" section Is half the article.166.137.138.57 (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind you that I tried to remove all of these supervisor statements, but you thought it was important to include them. And its not fair to say I'm restating the same quote over and over - I am taking different quotes from the original articles - and not repeatedly restating the same quote. I have a compromise - I'll put back in the parts of the article that I inserted before and you can add further positive statements from the supervisors if you think there are not enough of them. I'll take it back to where it was; feel free to add the positive statements that you think are relevant. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already severely compromised. The huge unnecessary blockquote from WBZ should be removed. The entire section about the strip searches needs to be integrated into a section on both the good and bad aspects of his police service. This article right now is not a biography, but rather an Indictment. I never said you repeated the exact sentences verbatim; you're repeating the same ideas instead of being concise. I oppose your suggested revert, and I caution you about WP:3RR.166.137.138.57 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? You're going to rewrite the whole page on the day of the election? The WBZ section has been there for weeks. The other sections are ones you insisted belong. And I'll remind you that you are ahead of me on the reverts to this page. The deletions you have made from cited RS are not acceptable. It is not OK to include only information you like and exclude information you don't. What do you suggest as a compromise? Jgui (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been an hour and you haven't responded, so I'll have to assume that you don't have any other compromise suggestions and that we'll need to go with my compromise. As I said before, I'll take the article back to where it was before your most recent reversions, and you should feel free to add whatever positive statements made by his supervisors that you said in your 7:54 comment should to be added for balance. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This last-minute addition and expansion of negative material is inappropriate. Since you've invited me to add positive stuff, I will.166.137.136.183 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words[edit]

The expression "controversy arose" is a case of weasel words, inasmuch as it does not disclose who is making a protest or criticism. Some of the newspaper articles about the police case are no longer available in full, so it is not always clear to me who is accusing Perry of wrongdoing. Would editors who have worked on those topics please make the text more specific? Thanks. --Chonak (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the "controversy arose" sentence has been there a long time; I know I didn't write it. I think the problem is that there are many sources who have described and added information to this controversy - it started with Cape Cod Times, but the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, and WBZ-TV have all interviewed Perry or those around Perry to try to investigate and add to the story. These are all cited in detail in the references section. I also have had no trouble finding full newspaper articles - I don't think I've found a dead link yet. I'm not wedded to that phrase, but don't mind it either. Do you have another suggestion? Jgui (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd introduce the topic with something like: "During the 2010 campaign, political opponents criticized Perry over....", etc. Then (new paragraph) present the reported facts about how the case happened; and then (another paragraph) present the 2010 criticism from specific persons by name, and the counter-arguments. About old articles: the Herald archives stories after seven days, leaving only two paragraphs in view, so the Herald references are (or will presumably be) affected by this. "Snapshot" services like "freezepage" or "webcitation" can help work around this. --Chonak (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the improvements you've made so far. Much better. As far as this change, check out this ref http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100515/NEWS/5150321 which says that this issue has dogged Perry since he first ran for state rep in 2002. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Perry_(politician)&oldid=1199489033"