Talk:Richard M. Perloff

Wikipedia is not here to praise or condemn its subjects

To editor Kuninrosmash: Per Wikipedia's Terms of Use, you are required to disclose any conflict of interest you have. The information you added (as well as the content Elearning201 and 147.188.67.193 added) is such promotional dreck that we can only assume this content either vainly comes from the subject, it was added by paid editors, or that it originates from clueless fanboys who made no effort to learn about Wikipedia. If you could explain your goals here, we might be able to help you understand the best way forward. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman and Justlettersandnumbers:I read the policies on verifiability and neutrality. To my perspective, the information added on new work by Perloff and his academic affiliations fit those categories. Regarding a professional connection, I have worked with Perloff as a technical associate on his books and thought it appropriate to add the material that was submitted on June 15. I should have been more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on persons, or affiliated persons, not editing articles of which they are the subject, however, no one is being paid for the edits. The goal is accuracy and completeness with up-to-date information, i.e., Perloff's appointments in psychology and political science at Cleveland State University and recent publications he authored (the 7th edition of the persuasion book, newspaper articles on the 50th anniversary of the Kent State shootings -- these were linked and verified). I can appreciate that the 7th edition link contains endorsements that are seen as self-serving and inappropriate to put on the site and something more neutral should be used. Can the article be reverted to its June 14 form, which at least had more current information, and leave it to others not connected with Perloff to contribute? Thank you for your very helpful response. Your suggestions are appreciated. Kuninrosmash (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Because you admit a connection to the subject, you are welcome to ask here for edits to be made. Regardless of money changing hands, Wikipedia prefers that editing is not done by those whose objectivity may be impaired by real-life relationships, especially among new editors without a proven track-record of contributions to this encyclopedia. I cannot agree to returning to the earlier version of the article as it still contains problematic portions. For example, the version you point to says "He has written extensively" Says who? The use of the world extensively is puffery if we don't have a third-party saying so. That version also makes claims about awards won, none of which seem to be notable, and with no citation to prove. That version cites his personal bio claiming that he eats bagels, as if to humanize the subject. Finally, that version contains external links to the subject's work in violation of WP:ELNO. I have found that most people aren't notable until they're dead, which is likely the case here. I'm afraid the article will have to stay as-is. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:Please review the suggested addition to Perloff's bio, noted below, to determine if it is acceptable for inclusion in the article.Kuninrosmash (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kuninrosmash: No, I quit writing and improving articles. Now I just send things to deletion and talk to other editors. You'll have to find someone else. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Perloff bio

@Justlettersandnumbers:As disclosed above, I have worked with Perloff as a technical associate on his books and articles. As you seem to be a unbiased editor on this article, I would request that you add the hostile media effect to the list of subjects on which Perloff has written. A verifiable link to his work on that subject is: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15205436.2015.1051234 Kuninrosmash (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Kuninrosmash, thank you for disclosing your WP:conflict of interest; if you are or have ever been paid by Perloff, then if you have not already done so you must disclose that on your user-page, User:Kuninrosmash. I'm afraid you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Unlike a personal or corporate website, where people routinely trumpet and inflate their own achievements (often with total disregard for ordinary modesty, sometimes with scarce attention to the actual facts), this is an encyclopaedia, and deals, as neutrally as possible, only with what is verifiable by reference to solid third-party independent reliable sources. A paper written by Perloff is (obviously!) not independent for this article. What is the evidence that his opinion or insight has been widely seen as significant in this field? Has the paper been extensively discussed by other academics in peer-reviewed academic publications? If you look at Scholar, Perloff's article has 92 citations (which is not nothing), while the original paper by Vallone, Ross and Lepper has 1390. Their work has been discussed by others, Perloff among them. Has his? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)