Talk:Imani Perry

Bias in Article
The section in the article where we read "has yet to apologize" under the "controversy" section needs to be re-done to remove an obvious bias against the subject of the article by whoever wrote it. By writing "has yet to apologize" the article strongly implies that Perry indeed has something to apologize for, which makes the article side very clearly with law enforcement's characterization of the controversial incident in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.197.164 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The whole section on the arrest is problematic to me. Here is an African American scholar who has done so much, in terms of publications and building the field, and half her entry is about this arrest, which makes up not even one percent of the most important things about her. I am not an experienced editor. How can we make this section less biased and proportionate to its actual importance?--WLBelcher (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. The section on the arrest is a poorly written screed responding to Perry's political commitments, not an impartial description of the encounter. I will work on a revision. Jprschaefer (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this?

On February 6, 2016, Perry was pulled over by the Princeton police for speeding. [10] Her driver’s license was found to be suspended due to unpaid parking tickets, one of which was 2-3 years old. Perry was arrested for the outstanding warrant and physically searched on the side of the road by the male officer. A female officer was present, but Princeton police policy at the time did not mandate a female officer conduct searches of women. Perry was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and handcuffed to a bench during the booking process. Perry posted bail and was released.[12] Perry drew parallels between her experience and the ongoing national conversation concerning the mistreatment of African-Americans in police custody. She attempted to set up meeting with the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office to discuss the issue, but the Prosecutor's Office found that the police officers should be "commended, not criticized" for their handling of the incident.[13] Perry appeared in municipal court the month after her arrest and paid $428 in traffic fines.[13] Perry's arrest led to widespread outrage and condemnation throughout the nation and especially on Princeton's campus where she lectures. Jprschaefer (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That looks great. But do we need the thing about gender. What about taking out "by the male officer. A female officer was present, but Princeton police policy at the time did not mandate a female officer conduct searches of women."? --WLBelcher (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, let's go ahead with your suggestion:

On February 6, 2016, Perry was pulled over by the Princeton police for speeding. [10] Her driver’s license was found to be suspended due to unpaid parking tickets, one of which was 2-3 years old. Perry was arrested for the outstanding warrant and physically searched. Perry was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and handcuffed to a bench during the booking process. Perry posted bail and was released.[12] Perry drew parallels between her experience and the ongoing national conversation concerning the mistreatment of African-Americans in police custody. She attempted to set up meeting with the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office to discuss the issue, but the Prosecutor's Office found that the police officers should be "commended, not criticized" for their handling of the incident.[13] Perry appeared in municipal court the month after her arrest and paid $428 in traffic fines.[13] Perry's arrest led to widespread outrage and condemnation throughout the nation and especially on Princeton's campus where she lectures.

Jprschaefer (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. I think someone can now remove the disputed sign. --WLBelcher (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The "Controversy over arrest" section is now shorter (good) but it leaves the reader with an incomplete grasp of the issues raised. The case took place in the winter following police misconduct leading to the deaths of Freddy Gray and Sandra Bland, and was notable enough to warrant 2 articles in the NY Times and more in local media. (Personally I'd say it was also an unfortunate yet instructional example of a rush to judgment by her supporters and detractors, and a cautionary example of the pitfalls of social media, but of course that doesn't belong in the article.)

Dr. Perry initially claimed on Facebook that the police mistreated her because of her race, stating "The police treated me inappropriately and disproportionately. The fact of my blackness is not incidental to this matter." She received an outpouring of support and (unfortunately but unsurprisingly) criticism, some disgusting. But when the patrol car's dashcam video was released a few days later, and a reporter was allowed to view the video from the booking room , neither showed any mistreatment or racism. Further reporting revealed that, under policies adopted by the consolidated Princeton police in 2014 to *reduce* the possibility of discrimination, officers had no discretion to skip patting down and handcuffing Dr. Perry before transport in a police car, nor to skip handcuffing one wrist to the booking workstation, despite how harmless she was. So, in the end, her key noteworthy claims of mistreatment and especially racism were not supported by evidence.

In her final public post about the incident, Dr. Perry writes, "the officers have emphasized that their actions were consistent with standard protocol. But I don’t disagree with them on that point. I never did." [On Evernote; reproduced at https://whyy.org/articles/imani-perry-statement-on-her-arrest-posted-on-feb-12-2016/] Many would see "I never did" as inconsistent with her key claim on Facebook "The police treated me inappropriately and disproportionately. The fact of my blackness is not incidental to this matter." But, after reflection, she did not reassert any claim of racially motivated mistreatment in her own case. (I suspect that if her original Twitter or FB post had merely said, "I deserved a speeding ticket, but I was shocked to be arrested, patted down, handcuffed, and booked over 2 unpaid parking tickets," the only controversy would have been about the warrants policy, not race. But hindsight is 20/20.)

To explain more fully why this case was notably controversial, I suggest the paragraph should mention Dr. Perry's quote "The police treated me inappropriately and disproportionately. The fact of my blackness is not incidental to this matter," and somehow note that this allegation of racial bias was never supported by evidence. That quote alleging mistreatment based on race is the core of the controversy.

Bob schwartz (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC). Revised based on feedback below 9Apr19.


 * This WP:OR commentary paints an inaccurate picture ... I urge editors to read Perry's final post rather than go by just the quoted line ("the officers have emphasized ...") that was ripped out of context. Jibal (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Bob Schwartz, you are speaking from a biased and unevidenced position. The dashcam showed her statements to be exactly right and if you believe otherwise, then you did not read what she actually said. But even if her interpretation of her own experience was wrong (which is impossible), it wouldn't matter. This is an article about Prof. Perry overall. It is not an article about one hour of her life and that one hour should not be discussed at length in an article about her. It is far more important to discuss her scholarly contributions. Please do not distort this entry on a living person in a biased way. --WLBelcher (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

jprschaefer: I agree, let's let this rest. Bob Schwartz' proposed changes would introduce bias, since he appears to be making editorial commentary with this: "I'd say it was also an unfortunate yet instructional example of a rush to judgment by her supporters and detractors." I do not believe such an attitude is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on a major figure in scholarship who encountered the police once. Compare this proposal to the entry for Henry Louis Gates Jr., who had a much more significant encounter with the police. There's an entire Wikipedia page on the event and its aftermath, but on Gates' own Wikipedia page, the episode takes up 4.5 lines. Jprschaefer (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Bob Schwartz, please stop vandalizing this page. You have been told twice.--WLBelcher (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I have never vandalized this article. The original overly long section was added by someone else, and I have signed all my edits -- a style edit to a section head, adding the ref to Dr. Perry's statement on Facebook, and correcting another ref that has been wrong for 11 months. Those are all constructive edits, not "vandalism." Please delete your vandalism comments about me and I'll delete this. Thanks. Bob schwartz (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Updated 10Apr19 to detail my edits in response to comment below

You are vandalizing the page by insisting on inserting material in the Arrest section. Two experienced editors have decided that it is good as it is, and that such additions are neither needed nor justified. Please stop vandalizing this page with ad hominem attacks. --WLBelcher (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not vandalism (nor do his comments contain ad hominem attacks--the main problem with them is that they are WP:OR). Please avoid such unwarranted attacks on other editors. Jibal (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If you will stop adding specious material, without sources, I will remove my note. Obviously, style edits are fine. --WLBelcher (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The "Controversy over Arrest" entry for Imani Perry's biography should be deleted. BLP guidelines (section 3.6 states) states "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. It is gratuitous to recognize that speeding and unpaid parking tickets are in any biography. Her offenses were violations. They are neither crimes nor insight to her character. Her driving with a suspended license was an oversight. Was this even litigated?
 * In addition, this entry violates the Wikipedia rule on Gossip, section 2.4 that requires a controversial entry to be "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Indeed Perry's traffic stop happened at a difficult time in our history. Nevertheless, her Facebook post on the matter stated her personal feelings. Her comments were not in an academic paper that was supported with data. Self published sources like Facebook (Section 2.3) are discouraged. The use of her writing on a personal traumatic experience is also gratuitous.
 * Finally, editors are also warned not to use Wikipedia to write BLPs that continue disputes. Section 4 of BLPs notes "Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. The fact countless time has been wasted to edit this entry demonstrates the issue has not been resolved. In fact, the issue can never be resolved because no one can tell a person how they felt as a result of a traffic stop. Put it to rest and delete the entry MFBT38 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Delete it 72.130.119.12 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)