Jump to content

Talk:Joe Perez (writer)

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

Untitled

[edit]

As I noted in my edit, I removed the material that could possibly have been construed as promotional. Perez is an important figure in the Integral movement and should at least have a stub if not an extensive profile. I'm sure he'll get a full write-up in no time which is well deserved. TimZBrooks (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Tim B[reply]

This needs to be asserted with additional sources. Please provide significant coverage from reliable sources. At this time this has not been done. I recommend finding more than trivial mentions in newspapers and magazines. I also recommend finding reviews of his writings. See: Wikipedia:Notability (people). The inline citations also need to be fixed. See: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lines such as "Perez attended the Gay Spirit Culture Summit in 2004, a gathering of "spiritual leaders" and "agents of change" seeking to shift consciousness in the gay community and raise visibility of transformational experiences in order to change the conversation about what it means to be gay. [3] According to the journals published on the MyOutSpirit.com Gay Spirituality Blog, Perez's role at the summit included a daily blog of his experiences there. [4]" still come across promotional. He is not mentioned at all in source 3 and source 4 is his blog. Cptnono (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can dig up reviews of his books online and add the links, but give me a few days as this is new to me. On the one hand, you want the article to cite reviews, but when there *used to be* a review noted in the article--actually a highly prominent article on BeliefNet--you (or another editor) criticized it because it was favorable. I think you're aiming for balance, right? I will study up on the references as well and get them to conform to Wiki style. If anyone else out there wants to help out, feel free to jump in as I'm pretty busy and this will take a few days. TimZBrooks (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Tim B[reply]

Maybe it was not RS. Make sure to follow the wikilinks up above regarding the appropriate sources.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A line such as "Perez's books are the pioneering works in the effort to integrate Queer Studies with the ideas of the Integral movement." needs a source. Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (and deleted temporarily). I didn't realize I'd made that edit since I'm working offline until I get the references in order. I have a reference for that point, but need to finish all the edits before posting them.TimZBrooks (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B[reply]
You should move some sources verifying notability and content in ASAP. I have slapped the construciton template on which is a good heads up to editors who might consider it for deletion. Keep in mind that it might still happen if the sources aren't up to par. Let me know if you get stuck on anything.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 days. I plan on nominating this in the morning (er... when I wake up and have some coffee and stuff in like 12 hours) if improvement isn't made.Cptnono (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do what your policy requires. I have saved a copy and will rewrite as time allows, which now is looking like Thursday or Friday. Like I said, I work full-time and welcome help from any other editors with a knowledge of spirituality or Integral theory. Thanks for your volulnteer spirit!173.10.65.90 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Tim B[reply]
I managed to steal a bit of time today to make the requested fixes, all except possibly one. Here are the fixes: (1) I checked the references and deleted anything that was supported by a blog (however White Crane Journal is published online in a blog platform it is not a blog but a magazine with both print and online editions). (2) I also re-wrote the sentence referring to the Gay Spirit Summit, since you interpreted it to mean that the article was about Perez but it was just providing a description of what the summit was all about. (3) I re-wrote the section on Perez's book drawing directly from three published reviews by independent sources. (4) I re-wrote the sentence about the column in BeliefNet devoted to Perez (which I had removed from the original author's article) so that it can't be accused of hype. I think the new version really isn't hitting the nail on the head about Wilber's view of Perez, in fact, it really underplays his whole view, but since I'm responding to criticism that the article reads too favorably I think it's best to be safe. I did specifically look for unfavorable reviews of Joe's books and all I could find were some comments that Rising Up was chaotically organized and there was one blog that didn't like Soulfully Gay because it was supposedly condescending to Christians, but since it was a blog I couldn't mention it. The only thing I haven't done yet is to verify that all the references are in the style recommended by Wikipedia. I can get to that soon though, but now I have to get back to work. Additionally, there are also a couple of areas I haven't had to time to get to: Perez's role in Queer/LGBT Studies and his book Rising Up. I think those are less important than the rest, but if someone else wants, go for it. TimZBrooks (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Tim B[reply]
I added one more citation, this one for PublishersWeekly.com for Joe's Life section. Also, I'm not sure what to do about the article's final sentence that he lives in Seattle. I don't see any "independent" confirmation of this so far, but it does say that on his website www.joe-perez.com. Omit? Cite his home page? Leave as is? I'm not sure what to do.TimZBrooks (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B[reply]
Cleanup of references in progress. ASAP. TimZBrooks (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B[reply]
I don't mind formatting the refs if it is becoming too much of a pain.
It appears that White Crane Journal accepts submissions from readers and I'm not sure of the editorial oversight. Spirituality & Practice also appears to be a project by a couple. As a source for a book review I really don't have complaints but I don't know if they have the reputation needed to assert the subject's notability. I'm still on the fence and feel that the article needs a couple sources to show "significant critical attention" (WP:AUTHOR). Since I am on the fence I won't be nominating it for deletion now.
It looks like he can be used as a source for himself (where he lives) but there are conditions. See: WP:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the references & added his own blog for a reference as to where he lives. So from my perspective, I think it's good. In terms of notability, I think it's a no-brainer, but then I think the entire field of gay spirituality is somewhat underpresented on Wikipedia. Toby Johnson isn't a reader of White Crane Journal; he's the founder and was editor for a long time (a decade?) and is probably the best known name in the gay spirituality field. In doing the research, frankly I was surprised that Joe Perez's book wasn't reviewed in more outlets like The New York Times or The Advocate--not that I could find online anyway. The best known gay publications I checked are totally mass market and don't really do much in terms of serious book reviews so you have to look to the journals like White Crane. I am personally convinced of his notability as (a) an exciting up-and-coming author with two published books, and (b) founder and former editor of the most widely read gay spirituality blog (though I'm not sure how to establish this blog's notability unfortunately), and (c) the first and only gay author to have a book published by Shambhala, the leading Buddhist publishing house worldwide, in its history (but nobody has actually written about that, it's just a fact).
I think it's common sense to say that a guy who gets a memoir he wrote when he was 34 published by a huge and respected spiritual publisher and distributed by Random House is pretty impressive, not to mention the philosopher Ken Wilber's saying that his book was the "most brilliant" spiritual memoir written in our time (!!!), but then again someone else might say that's all hype by another overhyped philosopher whose followers think HE's the most brilliant spiritual writer of our time. :-) So instead of the hype I point to the reviews in Library Journal, White Crane, Publishers Weekly, etc. as evidence that he at least meets your minimum standards, but it's your (and other editors') call in the end. I'm sure he'll have a Wiki entry some day if not now. Peace, TimZBrooks (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B[reply]

I added a link & entry for Joe Perez in the Hispanic American writers category. It may be worth noting that it doesn't look like Wikipedia has any entries that I can tell for writers who are both gay and Latino, so if you axe Perez there's really nothing else listed at this time, which I hope other editors will correct in time. Sadly there's a wiki entry for the Gay Latino Fan club, a porn site. I would be interested in the discussion around keeping Gay Latino Fan Club as notable but getting rid of Joe Perez. :) TimZBrooks (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B[reply]

Notability can be a tricky thing. When it all comes dopwn to it, is there signifigant coverage available to write a few lines and if so, is the coverage reputbale? Thanks for the clarification on White Crane. I think it is fine. We are not supposed to write articles for who we expect to be notable in the future (there is some essay out there but I'm too lazy to look it up) but really the guy has some coverage right now so screw it. Hopefully, more will come up so the article it can be improved further.
I haven't seen the Gay Latino Fan Club article but WP:OTHERSTUFF would apply. Doesn't matter for now (unless someone else objects for whatever reason) so in the end: Nice work on getting this up to par.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PREZ

[edit]

Please do not refer to my good faith edits as vandalize WP:AGF. The contention to Please find independent sources for this. Wikipedia is not a source. This is not important enough to mention unless a third part (like a newspaper) says "hey look at this". Do not edit war either. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) is a bit inconstant? Either this information is placed, fully explained as to the why (so as not to make Wikipedia look bad) or total removed, per your contention that "Wikipedia is not a source". You can't have it both ways.GuyFawlks (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Joe Perez. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Perez → Joe Perez (writer) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Joeykai (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Perez_(writer)&oldid=1209705130"