Talk:Perry Marshall

NPOV dispute question

@DGG: DGG, thanks for the tremendous amount of time you put into editing WP. It shows.

I noticed that you flagged Perry Marshall's BLP page. I'm a WP newbie, and a casual friend of Marshall's (non-paid COI), so that's two strikes against me in a sense. However, I've very experienced at writing. I therefore thought that if I have a clearer idea of the problem areas, I may be able to help behind the scenes by suggesting some edits.

In my search for the specific issues, I looked at the NPOV Noticeboard and didn't see anything there. I also read WP:BLP/H to see if I might be missing some obvious way to determine the issues.

I followed the link in the NPOV notice on the article and went to the talk page, where I see the template at the top with many Wikiprojects ratings like "Rated C Low importance", etc. But from reading the definitions of ratings, I cannot tell if those ratings are in some way contributing to the NPOV issue, or if the series of ratings are totally independent of the flag.

reviewing

It would be helpful to understand if there are specific elements on Marshall's page which resulted in the flag.

I apologize if I should have found my answer by knowing better the workings of WP. Thanks in advance for your time.

Copywriter12 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Copywriter12, I'll get to this in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DGG, I hope I'm not being a nuisance, but any idea when I can get your thoughts about this? Thanks. Copywriter12 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

DGG, Could you please elaborate a little? I do not see anything about "Marshall coming tomorrow"; maybe my oversight. Thanks. 73.61.42.56 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have examined the article again from scratch, But I am still writing my reply. I'll post it when I've finished. It should be tomorrow. I really apologize for the delay. I try to get to everythign asked me, but there is sometimes just too much. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

advice

I checked the article. Looking at it in detail, I should not have used a news release tag. I should rather have used the stronger one for "advertising or promotionalism"

The key problem is Vague unsupported claims. or claims not justified by the references

1. "Best-seller" status must be documented from a reliable source, and it has to be clear just what set of list is being reported--e.g we usually ignore Best selling of Amazon, or best selling in a narrow category.
2. "became wiedely accepted" no evidence for this than a book review at the itme of publication
3. "he has delivered lectures" when one lecture only is cited, at an organization sympathetic to his view. In any case, everyone working in his fields invariable gives lectures at meetings.
4. "industry mainstay and textbook" -- there is no evidence for this in the source provided
5. The implication he invented split marketing. , rather than that he just included the concept in his books.
6. The implication that "Adwords stupidity tax" is a significant widely cited phrase.
7. No evidence that his evolution advocacy is significant. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
8. No actual evidence about the significance of his role in " The Next Internet Millionaire" "featured in" is a meaningless phrase--what does nthe book say about it--was he the principal advisor?

Promotional writing is so widespread in the real world, that many writers, even very good writers, find it difficult to re-adapt to an encyclopedic style. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

DGG, Thanks for taking the time to list your observations about Marshall's article as it relates to the NPOV issue. I have gone through your 8 points and created a Google Doc, which lists the current article, your 8 points, and my suggested changes for each point. I added a bit more detail as well.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HeFJxONeUBlxw9O7-EN3fQWrvRUvtPSOszlixH0W51o/edit?usp=sharing As a non-paid COI person, I did not attempt to make the edits myself, but thought the Google Doc commenting feature might help to explain my suggested edits. Please let me know what you think of them, and whether they will succeed in remedying the flags on his page. Also, IF you agree to certain changes, please let me know the process for getting those changes made to the article, given that I cannot do them myself. Thanks again for your substantial time devoted to this and many other articles. Copywriter12 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll look again DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

DGG, Have you had a chance to take another look at the suggested edits I provided? Thanks. Copywriter12 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

DGG, Hi DGG, do you have any recommendations about whether I should try to contact another Wikipedia editor to address the issues that are flagging this article? I've been waiting for two months since sending you recommendations about how to resolve the issues, and have heard nothing. I totally understand that you are a volunteer and a senior one at that, and that you cannot work 24/7 on editing. Therefore, in your opinion is there a different route I should take to have my suggested edits reviewed? I'd do it myself but I'm in an NCOI position and don't want to violate Wikipedia rules. Thanks. Copywriter12 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Would it be possible for you to take a look at this sandboxed version of my proposed edits to this article, and give me your thoughts? I have done my best to address each of your points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Copywriter12/sandbox/Perry_Marshall Because you placed the flags on the article, I don't see a good way of rectifying the situation other than to ask you please to review the suggested changes and either tell me what still needs fixing, or agree that the new language is OK. Thanks in advance for your help. Copywriter12 (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Slightly better, but a list of his speeches is not relevant content to show his view are considered important. I'mgoing to merge your draft in , and make what I consider the necessary improvements. His notability depends primarily on the books, and what is needed to show it iare book reviews. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Thanks for your time on this article, and also for your continuing guidance about bringing it up to Wikipedia standards. In my sandbox version here, I have cleaned up the bibliography, in line with what WorldCat has, and the proper format for citations. I deleted one citation, and then I added several reviews and some references from other books. Due in large part to your editing and in a smaller part to my sandbox edits, we seem to be pretty much down to Marshall's books. Would you say we're in acceptable territory now, or is there something else I should do? Thanks again for your help. Copywriter12 (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Remind me later this week if I haven't gotten to it by then. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I'm just reminding you as you requested. Again thanks for your time and expertise. Copywriter12 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now done as much as I can with it, and incorporated your revisios. What might add to it is 3rd party reviews of the books in independent reliable sources DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I have two items to be added to this article which you and I have worked on. I did not add them directly, given my NCOI status. I would appreciate your incorporating them into Marshall's article if you approve. I have looked at several articles and also searched WP for how best to incorporate these sorts of items, but did not find a firm answer.

The first is a Kirkus Review for Marshall's "Ultimate Guide to AdWords" here: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/perry-marshall/ultimate-guide-to-google-adwords-5th-edition/

The second is an article Marshall wrote for the Harvard Business Review, Italia, relating to the "80/20" section of his WP article. Although it is not a review of Marshall's 80/20 writings, the HBR editorial review process would seem to lend some third-party legitimacy to Marshall's views. http://www.hbritalia.it/giugno-2018/2018/06/04/news/l80-20-e-una-legge-di-natura-frattale-3513/

As always, thanks for your time and knowledge. Copywriter12 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I have come across another review of one of Perry Marshall's books here, to go along with the two that I forwarded about a month ago. Here's the most-recent one:

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/perry-marshall/ultimate-guide-to-facebook-advertising/

Again, I appreciate your help in looking these over and potentially adding them to Marshall's article. Thanks for your time. Copywriter12 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I left a couple of requests for you in July and August, to see if you could please take a look at the additional reviews of Marshall's works, in the hope that they might lead to removing the flags on his article. I appreciate that you are super busy but would also appreciate if you could look them over. Given the multiple revisions and additions that have been made over the last 18 or so months, do you feel OK with removing the flags? Either way I thank you for your work and your opinion. Copywriter12 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have taken another look. AmiI correct that the GoogleDocs version is the current one? If so it is somewhat improved, but it still has most of the problems I have mentioned previously.. Most importantly, the Fractal 80/20 approach is not his invention, and should not be implied; his religious writing has no evidence of general significance or importance and does not therefore belong in the lede; talks he may have given are much less important than books he has written--we usually do not even mention them.  ; reviews or comments from miscellaneous sources are not reliable sources as compared to full reviews in major reliable sources.

I do not want to be in a position of having to do the revising myself, as I prefer to work on topics of interest to myself, but it looks like that might be the clearest way. Please give it another try first. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Thanks for reviewing this article once again. To answer your question, the Google Doc is not the very latest version, because in this thread over many months I've added some other references and modified a sandbox version with your suggestions. Therefore to speed up your review of the latest changes and to see the latest version, I've done two things:

1. I have updated a sandbox version with all the new references, plus other additions and deletions. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Copywriter12/sandbox/Perry_Marshall

2. For your convenience, I've created a Google Doc that highlights the material additions and deletions between the current article and the sandbox version. It is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eVNayYQ4IiuZKwrN8aqr9VANzyVC3dfcmyGHJ1JtelA/edit?usp=sharing

Note: I've omitted the track-change comparisons that have no effect on the message, like capitalization, slight moves in where references appear, etc. If you want the truly granular change-comparison, it is here: http://www.mergely.com/6pma756K/?wl=1

Please let me know your thoughts about whether I have improved the article to the point that the flags can come off, or not.

Either way, thank you for your time and advice.

Copywriter12 (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

References

review

It's been a long time since I got to this. I've decided to review it completely. First, and you may disagree, his notability as a person discussing evolution is minimal. its it his seo and computer books, that are widely known and considered authoritative, The material on him is about this. I do not want to eliminate discussion of of the evolutionary views , but it should not be stressed any more than an avocation.

The books are what need to be discussed , not his talks. This is the way we always handle it in bios. (to be continued later today)

Hi DGG, Thanks for your notes above and for your most-recent edits. I noticed that you did make a lot of edits that de-emphasized the religious activities of Marshall. At the same time you also said "(to be continued later today)". Are you making more changes to the article? Thanks for your help on all of this. Copywriter12 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

as you will have noticed, I need frequent reminders. I'll aim for Thursday, but if I do not get to it this week, remind me again. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Just a friendly reminder, as you suggested that I do. Thanks in advance. Copywriter12 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I' was in the process of writing my response. To follow in a few hours or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Maybe you finished your response and I'm just clueless about where it is posted (that could be!); but in case you're still working on it, here's a friendly reminder. Thanks. Copywriter12 (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, . this weekend. (its a holiday weekend) DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Thanks again for putting your time and thought into this longstanding project; I know you must have 48 hours of work/requests from people during every 24-hour period.

I think your removing titles from the lede makes sense. As to Marshall's religious work: it's an avocation in the sense that he's not being paid to do it, but it consumes a significant amount of his time and attention these days. (Maybe that's irrelevant to Wikipedia; I'm not sure.) Relating to your comment that the topic "shouldn't get more unless there's 3rd party comment on it", I did have in my sandbox the reference to an article in IEEE Spectrum about the Evolution 2.0 prize. IEEE is the world's largest organization for electrical engineers. And the piece by George Church in Frontline Genomics about the prize may be significant too, given that Church is a geneticist and molecular engineer at Harvard Medical School.

Although you've already incorporated material from my sandbox, there may be some additional improvements in the current sandbox that have not made it over to the live article. For example, in the Fractal 80/20 section, I took out references to a reality TV show, and added a reference to the Harvard Business Review in Italy. It seems like those changes are in the direction of improvements over the current article text. What do you think?

Thanks again. Copywriter12 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Just a friendly reminder, for when you have a bit of time. Thanks for your help! Copywriter12 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, This is just a friendly note to see whether it would be possible for you to take a look at my comments above on 25 January about how to improve this article. Thanks, as always. Copywriter12 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I first of all need to apologize. Second of all, I'm pleased that you did what was necessary.The article is no longer promotional, and though I would personally not divide up section 2 into subsections, it's certainly acceptable as it is. . I think the talk page will serve as a record of the coi, so I removed the tags. I want to thank you for having patience with me. The longer I work on WP , the further I get behind. When I was a science librarian, responsible for selecting the new biology books, I dealt with my procrastination by simply discarding all new book announcements at the end of the year. If I had not bought them by then, they would be outdated by the time they were acquired and processed, and if anyone really needed them nonetheless, they'd let me know; that wouldn't have worked in many other academic fields, of course. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Thanks very much for all your help and guidance with this article. Yes I guess once the Wiki community found out that you were taking the time to go through things thoroughly, it was inevitable that you would have 5x the requests for every hour you could devote. About your approach as a science librarian, you're not too far removed from what Napoleon used to do: He would stash correspondence in dresser drawers, and was confident that if anything were truly urgent, the sender would contact him again about it. I appreciate all your help. Copywriter12 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Lantronix

This company is mentioned, but the wiki page for Lantronix is missing. Pls can someone start a page? 82.21.55.166 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

AfD proposal

Regarding the current proposal for deletion, there is absolutely no doubt about Marshall's notability. He has at least eight books released by reputable publishers over a period of 17 years, all selling strongly and continuously in print:

Industrial Ethernet 2004, regarded by many as a reference standard.

Ultimate Guide to Google Adwords 2003-2020, Entrepreneur Press.

Ultimate Guide to Facebook Advertising 2015-2020, Entrepreneur Press.

80/20 Sales and Marketing 2013-2019, Entrepreneur Press.

Evolution 2.0 Hardcover 2015, Benbella Books, Paperback 2017

Articles featuring him and his work have been published in:

Inc, https://www.inc.com/leonard-kim/youre-losing-money-if-you-arent-following-this-pricing-strategy.html

Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2020/04/productivity-skills-to-help-you-gain-time-back

Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/content/dcb2ea12-83c8-11e9-9935-ad75bb96c849

Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-1075-z

IEEE Spectrum magazine https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/diagnostics/5-million-prize-for-origin-of-genetic-code.

A paper he wrote was published in the Harvard Business Review's Italian Edition. https://www.hbritalia.it/giugno-2018/2018/06/04/news/l80-20-e-una-legge-di-natura-frattale-3513/

I will make a start on improving the article in the next few days. DaveApter (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Forbes contributors (forbes.com/sites) should be checked per WP:FORBESCON. The two you offered don't appear to be RS. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I have removed those references. DaveApter (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Improving the article

I have removed some trivia from the article. I'm not sure that his religious beliefs are a notable enough issue to merit a mention, but would in any case not belong in the lead.

Describing him as an online marketing consultant may have been appropriate in 2005, but is clearly too restrictive a description in relation to either his consulting activities or his writing. In any case, online promotion is a standard part of any business activity these days.

The article is little more than a stub at present, and I propose to add content on the following topics over the course of the next week or two, once I have tracked down suitable references:

• The reception of his writing on Industrial Ethernet technology.
• Evolution 2.0, and its significance as a publicly accessible account of scientific progress supporting the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.
• The $10 million prize offered for origin of the genetic code, announced at the Royal Society, and featured in the Financial Times and elsewhere.
• Other recent significant scientific work.

DaveApter (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

HBR 80/20 maths paper

Following discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I am satisfied that the HBR itself is adequate for establishing the verifiability of the fact that he wrote that paper, and that they did publish it. The line here is compliant with the policies WP:ABOUTSELF AND WP:PRIMARY. If the HBR thought it was notable enough to publish, it is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

Please discuss here and establish consensus before removing content from this article. DaveApter (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Since no-one has disputed the point in over a year, I have now removed the 'better sources' tag. DaveApter (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)