Talk:Rick Perry

Organization

This article is really disorganized; there are far too many headings and most of them could be condensed into more general sections. I'll give it a go, but someone with more knowledge of Perry's career might want to take over. -Fearfulsymmetry 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Trim the top section

There is way to much info up here. It practically reads like a news feed. Most of the stuff is duplicate info anyway.

Thoughts about what should remain?

HypatiaX (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove small subsections

In the Governor section, there are two one-line subsections (the Bilderberg group & H1N1) which in my opinion should be removed. They don't add anything to the article. Thoughts? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The mention of Bilderberg is probably the most important. In fact, the article should mention that he visited the secretive Bilderberg meetings in June of 2007, in Istanbul, Turkey. These meetings have proven to be accurate gages for the up and coming prime ministers and presidential hopefulls for the past 50 years. As early as June 2007, journalists Jim Tucker and Alex Jones were already calling his bid for president in 2012.--75.175.80.220 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it should be in the article. It got news coverage then and is getting more now. Someone just removed his name from our article listing Bilderberg attendees - I've reverted them. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/Cameron Todd Willingham summary put back in

User Malonius thought the excessively long section was itself an anti-death penalty POV. I'm inclined to agree, in part at least. The section I put back in is lifted straight from the top of the Cameron Todd Willingham page - if it's good enough to be a summary over there it should be good enough for over here. I even tried to shorten it some. I personally am not anti-death penalty but this particular case is disturbing and anyone who comes to wikipedia looking for information on Rick Perry should be informed that the potential 2012 US Presidential candidate oversaw the execution of a very likely innocent man. By all means let's kill people, but let's make sure they're ummmm, I don't know, ...guilty? Also added a short Perry-specific thing from the other article that I thought was telling of Mr. Perry's opinion on the mess. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Users that are either severely pro-Perry or severely pro-death penalty keep trying to keep this issue from the front of Rick Perry's wikipedia page. I'm not anti-death penalty and I'm not anti-Rick Perry, but I'm fairly certain the issue is notable and will continue to come up in any potential Rick Perry presidential campaign. As it stands, the first two paragraphs from the Cameron Todd Willingham have been put back in, again. If it's NPOV over there it should be NPOV over here, but I guess people might disagree. Feel free to hash it out, I'm not certain I know the procedure for an NPOV dispute, I just know how to put the tag on it. Knock yourselves silly in the edit wars, fellas. Have fun. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"If it's NPOV over there it should be NPOV over here" doesn't mean that the standards for what's important are the same for the two articles. In terms of Perry's bio, it's important to note that he was presented with evidence of Willingham's innocence before the execution, when, as Governor, he could have done something about it. I'll add this information to the brief presentation here. JamesMLane t c 02:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on Sodomy Laws

The Sodomy laws section appears to be bogus. The one citation is to a website which claims to archive AP stories, but a search on the AP Archive shows nothing for the claimed date. I'm removing the line. Mqbs (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Google search returns several results (ex: [1]), so I'm readding the section 141.211.231.228 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Governor's mansion fire

I haven't been watching this article, but someone should explain why the governor's mansion fire has anything in particular to do with Perry. I mean, he wasn't there ... I didn't see anything about his stuff being burnt up ... searching, I found a quick mention (not in a proper source though) of a funny story where he proposed to put solar panels on the roof and mocked the opposition from the historical society by pointing out that there were air conditioners up there already. [2] It's already covered in the Texas Governor's Mansion article (which includes a claim that an anarchist tossed the molly, which if true might not have had anything at all to do with Perry specifically) Unless there's some burning reason why this is relevant to Perry this should lose its section heading and be condensed, if not eliminated from the article. Wnt (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclined to agree, as nobody has come up with a compelling (or any) reason to keep this section, I'm removing it for now. It doesn't seem to even be tangential to Perry, at present. Seleucus (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Huffington Post bias regarding college transcript

When I saw the Huffington Post article on Rick Perry's college transcript, I knew it would have made it into this article. A few points:

First, the editor who added the college transcript info to this article plagiarized the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post wrote:

He rarely earned anything above a C in his courses -- earning a C in U.S. History, a D in Shakespeare, and a D in the principles of economics.

Wikipedia says:

he rarely earned grades above C – with C in U.S. History, D in Shakespeare, and D in economics.

Second, The Huffington Post is blatantly biased. The article is titled, "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds." In fact, by my quick count he got 20 B's, 27 C's, and 9 D's. That's twice as many B's than D's. An honest title for the Huffington Post article would be "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Bs And Cs." This Huffington Post bias has made its way into Wikipedia because even though both HuffPost and Wikipedia say "He rarely earned grades above C", the truth is that a third of his grades were B's. In fact, B's were his second most common grade. The Huffington Post may not require a neutral point of view, but Wikipedia does.

My third point, and this isn't really a Wikipedia thing, but I feel it needs to be said: It is illegal for universities to release college transcripts without the student's permission. It doesn't matter whether it's a Democratic or Republican politician, or an ordinary person like you or me, publicly releasing college transcripts is a violation of personal privacy and a crime. This should offend anyone who cares about civil liberties (even if Rick Perry himself doesn't care about civil liberties).

--JHP (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't see how what you quoted is plagiarizing as long as it's attributed/referenced. Either case the new current wording is neutral enough for me. 2. HuffPo makes money off of outrage and tabloidy stuff. Your honest title is great for Wikipedia, but doesn't get click-throughs on a tabloid website. 3. I think you meant 20 B's and ...27 C's. 4. Mr. Perry's grades from many years ago are not even remotely out of the ordinary for a politician (see Bush, Gore etc.) which makes me wonder if this is notable?Pär Larsson (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my typo. Yes, I meant 27 C's, not 27 A's. I have corrected my typo.

Regarding #1, it was a near exact copy of the Huffington Post's wording. That wording is removed now. Regarding #2, you are right about HuffPost as tabloidy stuff. That doesn't bother me if that's what people want to read. What bothers me is when tabloidy/sensationalist/biased stuff makes its way into Wikipedia. Regarding #3, I agree with you completely. My experience is that if we remove it as non-notable, someone else will add it back. It's best just to make sure the wording is NPOV. --JHP (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Huffington Post, "While he later became a student leader, he had to get out of academic probation to do so." The academic probation claim has made its way into Wikipedia. I don't see academic probation mentioned anywhere on the transcript. If he was on probation, that should get listed on the transcript. Can anyone else find it mentioned on the transcript? I'm concerned that HuffPost is playing fast and loose with the facts, and Wikipedians are copying these dubious facts into the article. --JHP (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A simple search on Google shows plenty of reliable source stating that he was on academic probation.Ratemonth (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just did a Google search and I don't see lots of reliable sources stating that. What I see are lots of unreliable sources (blogs and user comments) getting their info from the Huffington Post, which I've already proven is distorting the facts. --JHP (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Again - how is this stuff notable? It happened how many years ago? Is the same information really important in your views of Bush, Clinton, Bush 2 or <insert your favourite political candidate>? I think not. It's food for tabloids and simple-minded people. It stinks of pettiness and an insistence on finding tiny faults at all cost. If you don't like Rick Perry 2012 there's plenty actually good reasons not to like him. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is notable. This article is not just about his campaign- it's a biography. A person's performance in college is an important part of their life.Ratemonth (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pär Larsson that it is not notable, but I also know from experience that if you remove it Wikipedians with a left-wing orientation will add it back with POV verbiage. --JHP (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Ratemonth, all you did to get a "reliable source" was find a source that was echoing the Huffington Post, when the issue at hand is the reliability of the Huffington Post. Again, the Huffington Post is lying. They said he rarely got grades above C when the transcript shows that he got lots of B's. They paint him as a C and D student when the transcript shows he got far more B's than D's. They said he was on academic probation when THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO RECORD OF ACADEMIC PROBATION. --JHP (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not really lying to say "a lot of C's and D's", because from the typical parent point of view it takes fewer D's to make "a lot of D's" than B's. But I see that it is ambiguous if not misleading from another point of view. Still, there are other sources covering this (e.g. [3]). I also strongly suggest citing the primary source directly.[4] The nice thing about primary sources is that they are what they are, their only POV is their own, and we don't interpret them for the reader but send him to make up his own mind. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source disputing anything the Huffington Post said? If not, then calling this dubious is just original research.Ratemonth (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm gunna also have to agree, this doesn't seem notable. That I can tell, the argument that "it's not notable, but because people will add it back we should put it in NPOV" just isn't the correct argument to make, and defeats the purpose of fufilling notability guidelines. I could be missing something in the policy though; if I am someone please tell me. Kessy628 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Colbert Super Pack

Not sure if this is worth mentioning, but on tonight's Colbert Report they mentioned how the Colbert Super Pack endorses him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.50.105 (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go again, when did schools stop teaching critical thinking skills? Colbert is a great comedian and I very much enjoy his sketches but he is just a comedian and has never been a reliable source for any kind of article, especially a political article. In short, no, it is not worth mentioning unless major news media picks up on it for some reason. Veriss (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Would this count as a major news media source? Not sure cause it's a New York Times blog technically.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/colbert-jumps-into-iowa-poll-backing-rick-parry/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailemb1 Kessy628 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say no - not until said blog post or subject makes into the mainstream print version of the newspaper. Newspaper blogs are notoriously more freewheeling than the print media, and generally not held to the same standard.Pär Larsson (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. I found a couple better sources if these work:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-colbert-idUSTRE77B3IM20110812

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44121433/ns/today-entertainment/ Kessy628 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Aggie"?

In the Education section, it says that Rick Perry is an "Aggie." Can someone rephrase it so that the meaning is more clear? Thanks. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That assertion was removed for other reasons so there is now no reference to Perry being a Texas Aggie in the article at his point. Veriss (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Parry with an A

Is it spelled with an A? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.123.137 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perry, as in the presidential candidate? No.

Parry, as in deflecting an opponent's sword or other type of weapon? Yes... Seleucus (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1989 Dallas Morning News

This article includes that Perry was named as one of the most effective legislators in 1989 by the Dallas Morning News. This doesn't appear to have ever had a citation, and an archive search of the Dallas Morning News for "Perry" and "effective" in 1989 returns nothing of note. [5] Unless anyone can find a citation, I'm going to remove this dubious claim for now. Seleucus (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Todd Willingham NPOV?

I noticed that Malosinus added a NPOV tag to the Willingham section, stating that "There is a dispute on the discussion page."

Honestly, I cannot see any recent dispute or discussion on this page. There are three old sections, none of which seem to contain any disputes. Does anyone actually have any issues with the section? I must confess that I'm a bit confused about what the issue is. Seleucus (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Not Malosinus. I, rather. 2. The dispute is evident if you read the above. Even more if you go through the edit history and look for CTW tags. The issue is mainly that pro-Perry and/or pro-death penalty advocates want this issue to disappear or they find it irrelevant and have made repeated attempts to delete the section. Anti-death penalty and anti-Perry people want this be a huge deal. I'm neutral on the death penalty (12 years military, killing people means nothing to me) and don't care much for or against Perry - but killing innocent people bugs me. CTW was likely innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Pär Larsson (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gun ownership

We can most certainly "describe each of his policies" in this article. Gun control is a major political issue, and the gun ownership section does not currently go into "minute detail" by any stretch of the imagination.

As for press releases, they are used as sources all throughout this article and all throughout Wikipedia; the sources in question qualify as reliable sources, and aside from that there is no reason to question the accuracy or neutrality of the statements they're supporting in the article anyway. ROG5728 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fiscal Issues Issue

"Texas now has the highest proportion of minimum wage jobs in the nation."

First, the source cited says that it has the highest number (not proportion) of minimum wage jobs, and is "tied" with Mississipi for highest percentage. Second, the point seems to be to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between Rick Perry and minimum wage numbers. If we're going to try to blame him for low wages (even ignoring cost-of-living differences) I think we need a source on the difference in minimum wage jobs before and after his time in office. Third, the sentence seems really out of place considering the preceding and following sentences, unless we just want it at the top of a section to influence voters. Fourth, how is this more relevant to his fiscal policy than current unemployment or number of jobs added recently? Beardc (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We do need something on the state of Texas's economy now, so I'll try to add a line or two about Texas's unemployment rate. Seleucus (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So we are only going to add the information about the Texas economy that is favorable to Perry? This section needs some serious work, as it sits the fiscal section it is nothing but a right wing propaganda. Also, if Texas is tied for highest proportion of minimum wage jobs than it still has the highest number of minimum wage jobs.76.109.102.6 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a problem with citing minimum wage job numbers, my criticism was more that it was sloppily written and placed, and that the fiscal section lacked any balance. I'm not sure if it's different on Wikipedia, but I was taught that sentences should have some logical connection to the paragraph. I don't know how detailed the section should be, but economic indicators to consider could be percentage of minimum wage jobs, unemployment figures or real median income. Or how these indicators have changed over that past year or months. I fear many of these recent statistics will be most easily found in opinion pro- or anti- Perry pieces. Beardc (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how one could see the unemployment data as favorable to Perry. The current stat on the page claims Texas is right in the median position. Anyways, I think most of these facts are more relevant to the complex state economy than to Perry. Beardc (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg - Moved from WP:RFPP

I have important verifiable information to add on Rick Perry's political background. I have provided source citations as requested and believe I am being blocked by one individual whose selfish motivations are to cover up important events in the career of this individual--events which your readers should know about if you want to print the truth-- ie. Perry was invited to the secret Bildenberg meeting in Turkey in 2007 and I have the Dallas Times News article re his invitation and visit.

If censorship and covering up the truth is your policy just tell me and I will know what I am dealing with. I am assuming you have one crank crazed censor on the loose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this at all and have been uninvolved, but if it's something that has limited sourcing, than it's likely WP:UNDUE, whether true or not. If it's important information, then it will become widely published and thus worth including. Wikipedia is not for listing every news event even if we have a source or two - we take a historical perspective so we have to weigh it with all the news and give weight based on what is represented overall in reliable sources. Morphh ^(talk) 03:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. Limited sourcing?? I cited a news story in the Dallas Morning News. I cited the date, article name, and page number. It was a news story about the governor being invited to the secret international Bildenberg meeting in Turkey and attending. Wikipedia has a lengthy article on Bildenberg so you guys understand that this group exists and have an idea of what they do. This is news. I guess you can subjectively say it's not important if you want to deprive your readers of information that I believe most people would believe is very relevant and important. Do I have to cite every paper in Texas? This guy was invited to a meeting of the secret Bildenberg group and he attended. He had to fly all the way to Turkey and he stayed for a week. To not include that in his bio is censorship. You included information on his trip to Asia in the current bio. Why was that news and this isn't?? I believe the objections to the inclusion of the Bildenberg trip are sprinkled with horse manure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What you guys need to do is to google "Rick Perry" and "Bildenberg". There are pages and pages of stories on his trip there--even videos so how can anyone with eyes, ears, and a computer say there is limited sourcing for this story or that is not relevant?? Maybe Wikipedia--then they are the only ones. (Sheilakissane (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

I didn't say it had limited sourcing. I said "if it's something that has limited sourcing", meaning I don't know what sourcing it has to be included or not. I was giving some reasons why something may or may not be included even if it had sourcing. Morphh ^(talk) 14:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

O.K. I guess you can say everything has unlimited sourcing if you don't like the truth and don't want to include it. Is there such a thing as UNlimited sourcing? I was not accusing you--just making the point that I already included sourcing and some yo-yo arbitrarily deleted my insertion anyway--obiously without bothering to check my sourcing. Now I am going through all this to try to get it put back in?? But--bottom line--what do I have to do to get a determination on this?-- I have legitimate background info on Perry that really should be included in his bio. How do I get it done?? Also not sure about how wikipedia works. Can one or two guys with a bias censor everyone with legitimate information?? (Sheilakissane (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

Googled Rick Perry and Bliderberg; I don't see anything significant (outside an Alex Jones report on it, which I assume motivated you.) I found the Dallas Morning News article, but one article is not sufficient to add accusations as such (undue weight - see the WP policy.) Besides, your allegations about 'golden boy of the proponents of the New World Order' definitely are not within the article. Seleucus (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the golden boy part but still believe the Bildenberg trip has more relevance than a vacation in Asia. Why don't you guys take that out?? The relevance of the Bildenberg trip is it violates the Logan Act. See Alex Jones source on the top but count at least 4 or 5 sources below it. Are you doubting that the trip took place?? I don't see your point in not including the trip to Turkey 3 years ago to attend a secret meeting of the international whos who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck, "Ellis County Observer", politico.com,video recording from channel 8 News in Austin,zerohedge.com, "Huffington Post", etc. Must be a couple of hundred pages on Rick Perry's secret trip to Turkey three years ago. Sorry. I still don't get it.(Sheilakissane (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Forgot this--your concern that the news of Perry's trip is an accusation. Yea. So what? It is true, relevant, and it is an accusation. Don't you guys print accusations?? If I read your piece on Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler I guess there won't be any accusations. I still don't get it.(Sheilakissane (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

@Sheilakissane: I will address your posts point-by-point.

1. You need to sit back and take a few deep breaths as you are getting wound up over a very minor point.
2. It helps your case tremendously if you refer to the Bilderberg Club with its correct spelling, not "bildenberg"; this helps your credibility and helps other editors look into what you are upset about.
3. Even a casual reading of the Bilderberg Club article reveals it to be no "Illuminati".
4. There is no secret meeting, each meeting is heavily publicized and Gov. Perry's attendance in 2007 was released to the media and is listed on the daughter article, List of Bilderberg participants.
5. He was invited to attend or perhaps even speak at an annual meeting there -- so what? How many clubs, associations, unions, leagues and coffees is a popular governor of a large state invited to each year all around the world?
6. From the tone of your posts it appears that you may subscribe to some fringe conspiracy theories associated with this group which will not endear you to most editors on Wikipedia.
7. As for violations of the Logan Act, that is almost farcical.
8. Unless you link this meeting to some significant problem or issue recognized by reliable sources then it will probably not be included in this article.

These are my personal observations based on behavior and may not reflect the opinions of the other editors of this article. Veriss (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I will address your points--

I never mentioned Illuminati. I said it was a conference of international whos whos. (Please re read my posts)

Wikipedia article--"Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence.[1] About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names" Meetings are closed to the public but they are not secret???? Article in the Dallas Morning News about Perry's trip in 2007 was entitled "Perry attends secret meeting in Turkey."

Wikipedia article further goes on to say that the annual Bilderberg meeting are designed to "to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues." Again Wikipedia article on the Logan Act--"The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority" So you think the Logan Act issue is laughable?? Why??? Going to Turkey to "foster cooperation on political..and defense issues" with heads of other foreign governments in attendance couldn't possibly constitute "conducting foreign relations"??? I guess we'll never know if US political figures attending this meeting are violating the Logan Act or not since the meetings are secret.

So I guess everybody who corresponds on this blog who doesn't use spell check lacks any credibility despite what they actually have to say.

Ok. Maybe now I get it. You guys just do not want to include it no matter what and every set of objections to its inclusions will be followed by another set of objections. No I am not a conspiracy theorist my breathing is fine thank you and you are so pompous and--at the same time--so full of it. How's your breathing???(Sheilakissane (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Your response is noted but since there are two more recent discussions concerning this same topic I will no longer respond in this section. Veriss (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

More on (NPOV) Willingham

As I discussed in one of the threads above, I added key information about what Perry knew before the execution, citing The Economist. This material was promptly removed by Bdell555, who contended it was "1) redundant, 2) based on the prior New Yorker story as opposed to independent and 3) too definitive: 'NO evidence')".

1. No, it's not redundant. I see nothing else in our presentation of the case that refers to pro-Willingham communications to Perry before the execution, which is an important fact for readers who want to assess the criticism that Perry should have at least delayed the execution.

2. I didn't cite the New Yorker story, but what of it? Is there any good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the statement -- namely, that at least one arson expert disputed the conviction before Willingham was executed? If that fact happens to be in the New Yorker story (which I haven't read), why does that disqualify it from inclusion in the article?

3. The passage I added simply reported what the arson expert had stated. The verbatim passage from the cited source is: "Shortly before he was executed, an arson expert from Austin faxed a report to the governor, Rick Perry, arguing that the 1991 investigation was based on bad science and that there was no proof of arson." My addition didn't assert that there was no proof; it simply reported that one expert had expressed that opinion. If you think the statement is too definitive, take it up with the person who made it. Wikipedia reports facts, including facts about opinions.

Accordingly, I'm restoring this properly sourced passage.

Furthermore, in rereading the text of this section, I see that the wording somewhat blurs the distinction between what's undisputed fact and what's disputed. It's clear that Willingham's children died in a fire, but whether the fire was arson is disputed. Willingham was convicted of murder, on a theory of arson, and those facts are undisputed, but we shouldn't put "the fire was arson" and "three kids died in the fire" in the same category. Rewording to draw these distinctions makes the text flow a little less smoothly but that's the price of accuracy. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first point shows that you're here as an activist. I ask that editors of this page pay special attention to the above user's edits, he is a known POV pusher and even states on his userpage that he is "Hostile to the right wing".--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has their starting preconceptions; if only editors without political views could change Wikipedia, this would be a sad and lonely place. It's a bit... restrictive to revert edits based on the sole argument that the editor is "an activist." The Economist article he cited seems to be a WP:RS, and it adds information to the section. I believe that his wording was too harsh and definitive, but you could revise it instead of simply reverting it. So, I'll be trying to rewrite the offending sentence in a NPOV manner; if you have disagreements, please discuss them here rather than engaging in edit wars. Seleucus (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered the user before, he uses wikipedia to attack candidates he doesn't like. Most of his additions, as the one I just reverted, uses politically charged terms and factual inaccuracies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to William S. Saturn:

• "Your first point shows that you're here as an activist." This is baloney. My first point was that the information would be important and of interest to some readers. I note that you don't bother with anything as tedious as addressing the merits of my statement; you settle for name-calling instead.

• "I ask that editors of this page pay special attention to the above user's edits, he is a known POV pusher and even states on his userpage that he is "Hostile to the right wing". Yes, I have opinions, and I disclose them. If you think that anyone who doesn't make such disclosure is therefore utterly neutral on all matters, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Now you attack me as "a known POV pusher" and say that most of my additions "uses [sic] politically charged terms and factual inaccuracies." You're making personal attacks with no foundation. I'm always careful to make edits that are supported by the cited source and that conform to Wikipedia policies. If you think you can substantiate your charges then you can bring me to ArbCom. (In more than seven years here I've been charged in one ArbCom case. I had complained about the actions of one right-wing POV pusher, so he made ludicrous countercharges at me, but the ArbCom blocked him while taking no action against me.) If you have a problem with a specific edit of mine, raise it on the appropriate talk page.

• Speaking of which, in editing a different section you did at least leave an ES that "'children of undocumented workers' is not the same as 'illegal immigrants'". Yes, undocumented workers can have U.S. citizen children, but I don't think people were trying to exclude U.S. citizens from school, so the issue was indeed illegals (i.e., children who themselves were out of status). This is a very fine distinction. I think my wording was probably correct but to pacify you I'll change it to "children of undocumented workers", at least unless and until I feel like finding a source about the prior treatment of the citizen children of those workers. The really key point here, though, is that, having this minor cavil about the wording, you didn't change it -- you blanked the whole paragraph. To my mind, your edit is an example of POV pushing. I'm restoring the properly sourced information.

Response to Seleucus: Wording is always subject to improvement but your edit here raises some issues. My language tracked the source fairly closely. (I didn't use a verbatim quotation because I thought that would create confusion as to whether the quotation was from The Economist or the arson expert.) Calling a statement "too harsh and definitive" isn't a valid objection when we're reporting an opinion. Our job is to report the opinion accurately. (Does your comment mean that you disagree with the cited opinion because it's too harsh and definitive?) Thus, where the source said that the opinion was that there was no proof of arson, you've changed it to say that the opinion was that the case was "unproven" (which could mean there was some proof, just not enough). Wikipedia shouldn't say that there was no proof, but for that matter we shouldn't even say that the case was unproven, so I think this change reduces our accuracy to no purpose. JamesMLane t c 08:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's redundant because the Economist story doesn't add anything to the New Yorker story. If the Economist's researchers did their own investigation, then fine, but if it is derivative from the New Yorker story then what is the point? re "no evidence", the problem here is that it is misleading to claim that Hurst upended the whole case against Willingham. He upended the FORENSIC case. To make some general comments about this section:

In 2004 after many appeals, apparently Perry was supposed to have promptly recognized that fire expert Gerald Hurst's last minute report was a game changer. But if it was a game changer (and I'll grant that in hindsight it was, given today's consensus that Hurst made a lot of valid criticisms of how arson investigations were conducted in the past) why didn't it carry weight with the 15-member Board of Pardons and Paroles, which unanimously agreed to not recommend clemency just prior to Perry's decision? The Board might have been negligent, but negligent or not this panel's existence at the very least it gives Perry an excuse. One could also ask why Hurst got involved in this so very late in the process. Furthermore, Gerald Hurst seems to have an ax to grind with respect to arson findings. According to Hurst, "National stats are [that only] 14 percent of fires are arson," and Hurst has claimed that "most arson cases turn out to be accidental fires" yet even the New Yorker story notes that the "Texas State Fire Marshals Office typically found arson in... fifty per cent of its cases". In 2008, Hurst declared that he didn't believe the fire at the Governor's Mansion could have been arson because "an arsonist will start multiple fires" such that the damage would have looked different and "nobody would go upstairs [to start a fire]." Yet the arsonist, who Hurst did not believe existed, was subsequently caught by surveillance cameras. As for the issue of the Committee appointments, the timing is arguably questionable but eventually Beyler not only got his report in but he had the opportunity to testify to the Committee. So what, really, did the appointments ultimately interfere with?

There's also a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that the New Yorker story omits, besides the fact that while a firefighter went in and brought out one of the kids who was lying dead in the very bed that Willingham said he was napping in, Willingham preoccupied himself with saving his car. Willingham's story was not just doubted by one or two people but by MANY. The New Yorker story mentions a few, but neglects to indicate just how many, for example declining to note that

-they ran a test of carbon monoxide in Willingham's lungs, and the doctor said that he had about the same amount of carbon monoxide as you would find in somebody that smokes a cigarette, not somebody that woke up in a smoke-filled room as Willingham claimed

-Prosecutors called 17 witnesses, not just the fire officer Manuel Vasquez and psychiatrist James Grigson. Ronald Franks, a Corsicana Fire Department paramedic, testified he returned to the home a few days after the fire. He found Willingham, who complained that his dart set was either burned or stolen from the wreckage. Franks then testified that Willingham told him investigators would likely find cologne in the floor samples they were testing. He told Franks "he had poured cologne on the floor because the children had liked the smell of that cologne." According to Franks, he said he had poured it from the bathroom through the hallway to where the children were found.

-despite the New Yorker's insinuations of poor legal representation, Willingham's lawyers are experienced attorneys who have represented clients in several capital murder cases. One of Willingham's five appeals claimed he didn't receive adequate legal representation, yet this argument was repeatedly rejected by several appeals courts.

-No sooner were his children dead than Willingham went to the local bar and started to party.

-The community hosted a benefit dart tournament to raise funds to help with the kids' burial. Willingham showed up and again appeared to be having the time of life. He bragged to others that he wouldn't have anything to worry about now because the money would start rolling in as people felt sorry for him.

-Willingham wanted a live band at his childrens' funeral because he thought more people would come and provide donations

-Willingham said the older child "always whupped" the younger ones, which psychologists have elsewhere considered evidence that the older one may have "acted out" abuse she was herself receiving. The view of Willingham's wife ("beat me real bad") is underplayed by the New Yorker story.

-Willingham once bragged to a friend that he had brutally killed a dog

-Willingham's sensitivity to the welfare of children was such that after being convicted of supplying paint to sniff to a 12 year old, within just months he is convicted again for the exact same offence

-Willingham's supporters had tried to enlist Hurst's help FOR YEARS but Hurst didn't take on the case until essentially the last person between Willingham and injection was the Governor

-The New Yorker neglects to mention that shortly before the execution Stacy's brother signed an affidavit claiming that, according to Stacy, Willingham had confessed. Indeed, the person Willingham directed his "[expletive] you, [expletive]" final words to was not the Governor some are trying to hold as responsible for his execution but his ex-wife.

-although the New Yorker acknowledges that Willingham eventually confessed to his parents that he didn't try to save the twins, only by this oblique reference is it acknowledged that right after the fire Willingham lied to investigators

-Willingham furthermore told witnesses a variety of inconsistent stories about his actions. For example, he told some that he kicked the door in from the front, others that he kicked it in from the back. In fact there are at least 27 discrepancies in the Willingham stories to various witnesses and the investigators.

-The report by Maryland fire expert Craig Beyler nonetheless takes Willingham's version of events at face value and then goes on to mischaracterize much of the actual testimony, for example quoting Fogg as saying that plastic toys don’t melt, and that latex paint doesn’t burn off wood, which Fogg never said. Beyler seems to agree that there was an X pattern on the children’s bedroom floor, given the diagram he includes, yet Webb, whose testimony Beyler is dismissive of, said he was told the fire was started by pouring lighter fluid in an a pattern which matches this diagram and Webb was the first to testify and did not know about the diagram.

-Beyler complains that there was a failure to "investigate the possibility that the fire had been set by one of the children or by an intruder." Note that the implication of this is that, even in Beyler's view, it is entirely possible that there was arson. It would be a mischaracterization to claim that Beyler ruled out arson, or to otherwise claim that "experts" said it wasn't arson. The MOST one can say is that they said there was an absence of forensic evidence (as opposed to any exculpatory evidence).

-Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

CTW section as it stands right now is decidedly pro-death penalty and pro-Perry. I'm neutral on both of those but anti- killing innocent people or people not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current wording attempts to dodge issues presented fully NPOV and well on the Cameron Todd Willingham page. Hit that page. Ctrl+F or Cmd+F to search for "Rick Perry" and see what you get. If it keeps going like this I'm adding the NPOV tag back to the section. Pär Larsson (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary the current reading generally agrees with the activist position that the Willingham case stands or falls entirely on the FORENSIC case. The jurors have been contacted by the media relatively recently and stand by their verdict despite the doubt that has arisen about how incriminating the forensic evidence is, primarily because the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence remains persuasive. Ditto for BOTH sides of the original trail (Willingham's defence lawyer, David Martin, remains convinced that his client was guilty). There is a continuing misperception out there that contemporary arson experts have concluded it could not have been arson, and therefore that Willingham has been posthumously exhonerated. That's simply not true, and activists like this one have admitted as much, noting that Beyler's report actually eliminated "any hope for establishing Willingham’s innocence." Why? Because as this activist who is fully informed about the case admits, despite the latest arson expert testimony there remains "no clear evidence that the State of Texas executed an innocent man when it put Willingham to death." In other words, the activists waiting with bated breath for proof that an innocent man was executed got nothing of the sort from the Beyler report and testimony. There was furthermore no order from Perry to suppress Beyler's report, in contrast to, say, FDR who ordered George Howard Earle III's report on the Katyn massacre suppressed because it made Stalin look bad. The facts remain nonetheless. The best you've got with Willingham is an ABSENCE of evidence, which doesn't prove anything, and even to just get to that point you'd have to knock down the extensive circumstantial case as well, an effort that would likely beyond the scope of a WP article about Rick Perry and/or WP:OR. NPOV means not overweighting one side of the story. If, for example, more than a few lines are going to be spent on the Willingham case in order to paint a picture suggesting Perry is indifferent to due process for the innocent, a fair weighting would mean fully acknowledging all the process that had already occurred in that case PLUS devoting at least some space to facts that argue against such a caricature, like Perry's pardoning of James Woodward.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Brian Dell: The inclusion of a fact in the New Yorker story doesn't mean it's redundant to include it here. Otherwise our whole section on Willingham could just consist of "see the New Yorker article." It's apparently undisputed that, before the execution, Perry was given some reason to have qualms about the conviction; if so, that's a fact that should be in Perry's bio. I don't feel strongly about whether it's sourced to The Economist, The New Yorker, or both. As for your statement that "it is misleading to claim that Hurst upended the whole case against Willingham," I don't know if it's misleading or not, but it's a disputed point, so Wikipedia certainly shouldn't assert that he upended the whole case or any part of the case. We should simply report his opinion.

Response to Pär Larsson: For purposes of the Perry bio, we shouldn't get into the additional detail of setting out every bit of evidence that Hurst brought to Perry's attention to support his position, just as we shouldn't include all the pro-guilt details that Brian Dell lists above. A reader who wants to know more about the case can follow the wikilink. It might be reasonable to include here a brief summary of the key facts relied on by each side, but my experience is that trying to craft such a summary, and keep it brief, would be difficult. The question here is what's important for the Perry bio, not what's important about the case. Do you think we should try to include a summary of the state of the available knowledge as of Perry's refusal to stay the execution? JamesMLane t c 09:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant racial information in fiscal section

There is no need to mention that Hispanics have twice the drop out rate. This isn't an article on the racial achievement gap. Perry's record speaks for itself. There is no evidence that race plays any part in SAT scores, but the article assumes there is such evidence. Across all indicators Texas's education system is failing. Who is editing this section? They need to be reported.99.169.66.28 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of educational indicators that have dropped under Perry's regime. Blaming it all on blacks and hispanics is hardly encyclopedic, it isn't even accurate, it is blatant racism.McGlockin (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section. If you're just trying to talk about Perry's record, you should cite all of your "indicators that Texas' education system is failing." But if you're just going to pull statistics from a Democratic strategists' opinion piece on "Why Perry Shouldn't Run for President," I think readers deserve more context. With the information that was there, there was no indication that the given statistics had more to do with Perry's governorship than with Texas' demographics that have been unique for decades. If Perry is governing over the state with the second highest Latino population, a comment on how that affects his education policy and indicators would be relevant. Or just mention how the current indicators have changed since he came into office. And you're not helping anyone with accusing people of racism or denying a racial achievement gap. I think the NCES would take issue with such accusations. I'll add some context if no one else does. Beardc (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And why is this even in the fiscal issues section? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the education section? Beardc (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the fiscal section, I support a move to the education section. Furthermore, I don't think it is fair to speculate that the failure in Texas's educational system is solely based of the racial achievement gap. Why not go on to mention the effects poverty play, disintegration of the family unit becuase of increased work hours, the voucher system funneling money out of public schools and into private schools, etc? None of that is within the scope of this article. Simply mention the statistics and let Perry's record stand on its own.99.169.66.28 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just say he is an idiot?

Some grades are mentioned as well as calling him a prankster.

This is just sour grapes. Look at JFK and Obama's biography? There is no mention of grades or being pranksters.

Is this an encyclopedia or a smear. Granted, Perry is a goofy candidate but this website should not be an anti-Perry smear piece.

The JFK's bio does not mention that he and RFY fought over Marilyn Monroe. Obama's does not mention that he went to a Muslim prayer school (which would lead the reader to think he was a Muslim even though going to a Muslim school as a kid doesn't make you a Muslim). Same thing with Perry. Having little details to "prove" that he is an idiot. He is a goofy candidate but idiots don't become governor without having some kind of political saavy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBMacdonald (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I got the point when I read the article on Perry. Guy's from Texas and he's a dumbass--just like George Bush. That was the point. It's valid. I say point well taken and since when aren't a guy's grades relevant?? What kinds of jobs have you applied for. This guy wants to be president. People have a right to know. (Sheilakissane (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

As I said above, I still don't feel like including his grades is relevant enough to include in the article. No other politician that I know of has anything about the grades he/she earned in his/her article, and I've only found 1 source for this (the Huffington Post), with most other sources citing the Post in talking about it. Also, wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kessy628 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for other politicians' grades in college, then we should put their grades in their articles, as a person's performance in college is a relevant and important part of their life.Ratemonth (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama refused to publish his grades, unlike previous presidential candidates, which is not noted in his article (or any of the president's campaign articles). If it becomes a controversy or highly publicized criticism, then I'd say we consider it. As of now, I don't see it as notable in the historical view of his biography for an encyclopedia. I think it would be WP:RECENTISM and Wikipedia not a indiscriminate collection of information. Morphh ^(talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As of now, between this heading and the other heading, I'm counting 5 people against inclusion and 2 people for inclusion. If no one objects by tonight, I'll remove it, but for now I'm generally seeing that this is not notable and, like Morphh said, WP:RECENTISM. Kessy628 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with listing his GPA since it appears to be readily available but I don't see the value of counting all his Bs, Cs, etc., and such detail would come under scrutiny of WP:UNDUE, especially since similar information does not appear to be provided in the articles concerning his peers, namely Obama. Some context and common sense also about a young man from a rural county: His goals at that time appeared to be to qualify for service as an Air Force pilot and then return to help run the family ranch, which he accomplished and are admirable goals in anyone's book. Just my take as a moderate. Veriss (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See but personally I think listing his GPA even would be WP:UNDUE. He graduated with his degree, that's enough for most people (including editors on other politicians' pages), and means the he was smart enough not to drop out. As for his Air Force goals, if you can find a citation about them, that would be well worth including to me, and could be enough of a tie in to put his GPA; "had a low gpa, but goal was to qualify for Air Force service" sort of wording. Kessy628 (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add

Please add

• The Perry Trail collected coverage at The Texas Observer

to the External links as we need local coverage and this seems extensive. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't add it. I was open to your suggestion but after clicking on the link you provided about The Texas Observer and reading the Wikipedia article about it, I am not inclined to add the link as it does not appear to be a reliable source. Veriss (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Veriss1, being a partisan source does not make it a non-reliable source. Perhaps someone more familiar with the EL guidelines, as opposed to the rules for citations, will add it if you're confused about the difference. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The EL guidelines for BLP's (WP:ELBLP) state that external links need to be held to a higher standard than for other articles. This is a borderline reliable source as is, and therefore doesn't belong in a BLP article. Plus, this is an article about Perry, not his 2012 campaign; if the link were to be included anywhere, it should be on the Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012 page, not here, but I personally think that this fails WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Kessy628 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kessy628, Perry's record as Governor belongs in this article, not his presidential campaign article. More to the point, after reading Veriss1's appalling comments at the Anita Thigpen Perry AfD, I strongly suggest she voluntarily refrain from editing any Perry article before someone files an official complaint. She's the one with serious POV issues, not OrangeMike. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My appologies, I looked at the source a little further, and noticed it wasn't purely about his campaign (the opinion I got from looking at the first 2 articles in the spotlight section). Still, my still sit by my opinion on the reliability of the source and the standard for inclusion in a BLP as via WP:ELBLP. Kessy628 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did make that post and I was out of line. I had earlier removed that post on my own and apologized twice: Public Apology and Personal Apology. I also placed a talkback on Orange Mike's page alerting him to my personal apology. Why would you dig it out of history and drag it over here after you knew that I admitted I was out of line and both publicly and personally apologized? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy

Why is there a paragraph with no sources under the fiscal policy title that talks about Perry's redistricting?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.112.120 (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I tagged three paragraphs in that section as {Citation needed|date=August 2011}. Thanks for pointing it out. Veriss (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So I'm slightly confused on which part of the paragraph needs to be cited, not because of the info in it but because of the location of the tag. Do we need citations on Perry supporting DeLay's plan? On the Republican gains due to the plan? On the "23-9 majority" statement? Or multiple of those/something I missed? I do agree that it needs citations, but I want to make sure I'm not adding unnecessary references and clogging up the page.

If it's the current majority, if someone can figure out how to get a static version of this page, we can use it as a citation, but it'll change once 2012 comes around: http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_tn Kessy628 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say that that section is common knowledge and doesn't need a citation, though I may be biased as a political junkie.Seleucus (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Denial of being gay

I'm considering whether to add a line to reflect some recent international press comment on concerns in the Perry camp that resurfacing accusations of him being gay will impact upon his campaign e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006527/Possible-Republican-presidential-candidate-Rick-Perry-battling-gay-rumours--seven-years-denial.html It seems that he went on record in 2004 to specifically refute suh allegations. Any thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you wait, as it's unlikely to get any traction. It's certainly nothing I ever heard before. The Daily Mail does this sort of trolling on a regular basis, printing rumors to see if they're denied, admitted or ignored, and hoping they'll be picked up by other media (which now includes Wikipedia). They try get some back-and-forth going, and then they claim they "broke the story". Any reaction at all means they sell copies. Don't help them out, aka don't feed the trolls. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Contaldo80. I never heard anything like that either. Maybe you should ask yourself whether there's any actual proof that Perry was gay before you start editing wikipedia and inventing stories. In any case, it's not relevant to the article. Mardiste (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a google search and yeah it's there. But it doesn't change my opinion. Nobody's every proven a single thing. Ignore the trolls who are so sure about what they think they know. Mardiste (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding the policy but I believe in a nutshell it states that unless the subject of the BLP affirms they are gay or they are outed in a major reliable source, then wikipedia does not contribute to rumor mongering and the article should remain mute on the topic. Please correct me if I am wrong or better yet provide the link to the correct policy. Veriss (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Veriss has it right. WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:REDFLAG pretty much say this doesn't deserve inclusion from what I can tell. Kessy628 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Veriss! It was in the Washington Post. Mardiste (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.slate.com/id/2266921/

The article you linked stated several times that they were rumors. Why did you link it? Veriss (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I linked it because you asked me to link it. Please scroll up the page approximately two inches Mardiste (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not something invented by the Daily Mail. The rumors have been around for a while. My recollection is that Hutchison tried to push the idea in the 2010 primary but she wanted to do so without leaving her fingerprints on it, and it didn't have much impact. Well-sourced information on that point or on the impact of the rumors on his current campaign could be included in the daughter articles (each of those campaigns already has one), but I don't see anything there that's important enough for the main bio, unless it becomes much more prominent. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AGR (Alpha Gamma Rho)

AGR didn't have a chapter at Texas A and M until 1986. A 1972 graduate couldn't have been a member. "Perry attended Texas A&M University, where he was a member of the Corps of Cadets, a member of the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity and one of A&M's five yell leaders (a popular Texas A&M tradition analogous to male cheerleaders) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.178.233 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Alpha Gamma Rho itself, Governor Rick Perry is a 'famous alumni'. A&M has two chapters: Beta Nu (colony est. 1977) and Beta Lambda (I have no idea). 99.50.188.77 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a site used by one chapter as, among other things, a recruiting tool. Wikipedia itself is as likely as anything to be the source of such a claim. Beta Nu is the chapter at College Station, where Perry attended. Beta Lambda is at the campus at Commerce. The Beta Nu site does say that there was an effort to establish a chapter at College Station in 1967, but it was dropped. Unless they operated underground for 10 years? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(Updated) :According to a different Alpha Gamma Rho chapter, Governor Rick Perry is a 'famous alumni'. A&M has two chapters: Beta Nu (colony est. 1977) and Beta Lambda (colony est. c. 1968, but read this) at East Texas State University which later became Texas A&M-Commerce. History: "in 1962, the name was changed to East Texas State University and in 1996 became Texas A&M University-Commerce." So perhaps Rick Perry actually graduated from East Texas State University, now Texas A&M University–Commerce? 99.50.188.77 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other online sources about the fraternity. As Fat&Happy says Perry went to College Station, I'm totally confused. I'm not aware of any 'pre-colony' step in forming a chapter which would allow someone to be a brother. Surely there's an official list somewhere of fraternity brothers? This just seems really odd. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg/Globalist or not?

Needs a section, one way or the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.132 (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? Veriss (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant to his qualifications for office, a link to this wiki article might be appropriate? List_of_Bilderberg_participants 173.247.29.132 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that list of attendees to an international discussion about various topics concerning the US and Europe. As the governor of a large state who attends hundreds of meetings each year around the world, why do you feel that his attendance at this particular meeting is important and merits inclusion in the article? Veriss (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular meeting might be more interesting to Wikipedia readers, and more relevant to their search for valid information, than the hundreds of other meetings you mention. There is quite a bit of background in the article already, however this is topical to current events. The hundreds of other meetings may not be as important to your readers. My search for this information is what led me to the article. What is the point of leaving it out? 173.247.29.132 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, not a news article. So it needs to be important to the general media and his biography, before it will be considered important here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it becomes a controversy or a criticism of Perry, then it would be worth noting, but we would need to see that reflected in the media and give it WP:DUE weight. We can't include every critical or positive thing about the man. We have to weight the news within a historical context and include material that is part of his notability. Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not realize this matter was already discussed and has been decided. The information is found in small/alternate US media, and also in another Wikipedia article. I just thought it appropriate to link to the information, because sometimes people use an encyclopedia to verify or dismiss articles found on the internet. When searching, the likely term will be "Rick Perry," and not "List of Bilderberg Participants." Thanks to everybody for the work on the article. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

from another section re relevance of Perry attending Bilderberg--

Wikipedia article--"Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence.[1] About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names" Meetings are closed to the public and so are secret. Article in the Dallas Morning News about Perry's trip in 2007 was entitled "Perry attends secret meeting in Turkey."

Wikipedia article further goes on to say that the annual Bilderberg meeting are designed to "to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues." Again Wikipedia article on the Logan Act--"The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority" --Is Perry's attendance a possible violation of the Logan Act??? Going to Turkey to "foster cooperation on political..and defense issues" with heads of other foreign governments in attendance couldn't possibly constitute "conducting foreign relations"??? I guess we'll never know if US political figures attending this meeting are violating the Logan Act or not since the meetings are secret.

Who is not going to want to know this about a guy who suddenly becomes a viable pres candidate 3 years after he attends with money flowing in like water and CNN preempting its broadcasting for him???? Note in particular from Wikipedia quote above--and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names" (Sheilakissane (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs)

I don't think it was "decided", only that during the very short time it was discussed, no one interested in its inclusion was able to demonstrate it was important enough without veering off toward murky conspiracy territory. Please provide sources that it is somehow important for a biography of a living person and I will be happy to add it myself. Veriss (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It was removed with no edit summary (I spent quite a while finding that out). It's actively been discussed now as it's clearly relevant to his being a presidential candidate - why? because people who would otherwise support him are saying this upsets them. It's controversial. And was in the article for at least 3 years until it was removed without explanation on May 1st. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now replaced it twice. As I said, it was removed with no explanation on May 1st. Dead links are not a good reason for removal, see our guidelines on that, and [6] and [7] are live links. One brief sentence is not undue weight, and it seems unusual for someone like him to be an attendee. Maybe if he were much more liberal and a Democrat you could call it undue, but not here. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller: which people? I just did a quick google search for Rick Perry Bilderberg and practically everything I found was blog posts. I can't see any notable sources that talk about him going and its impact on him at all, though if people find them for me I'd gladly accept them. It's interesting, but it's not notable enough or talked about enough reliable sources to accurately source for inclusion. Also, just because it was in the article for 3 years until May 1st doesn't mean it has to go back in. I'd personally like to reach a new consensus on this before taking any action, and from what I can tell there's a consensus at the moment against it. If people have an opinion and haven't spoken yet, they need to. Kessy628 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, guy, look again. Dallas Morning News ran an article on it on May 31, 2007, page 4a, entitled--"Perry attends secret meeting in Turkey", Glenn Beck did part of a show on it, there is a channel 8 newscast recording of the story, and references to some smaller Texas papers who reported on Perry's attendance. Are you saying you doubt he attended??

Relevance to voters is this is a secret meeting with world leaders in attendance. Three years later the guy is a viable candidate for presidency with CNN preempting all their broadcasting to cover his presidential announcement. (Sheilakissane (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

If it's controversial, then there should be more reliable sources reporting on it, not minor and scattered news sources. Also, headings are reserved for Major areas of the person's biography. What is the justification for giving it a header and section of it's own? It has no context and appears to be something pulled together as a conspiracy theory. If we're going to include it, we need to understand why it is important to his notability (and not because a couple editors say it's important - reliable sources need to say it's important and why). Morphh ^(talk) 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you doubt that he showed up??? (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) Kind of important if a guy comes from nowhere to suddenly become a presidential candidate with money flowing like water and CNN preempting all their broadcasting for him. Also according to your article--Wikipedia--on Bilderber--they are kingmakers.(Sheilakissane (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Morph, that's a subsection. Tell you what, I'll start an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, mis-spoke but still the same point. Subsections are to be important as well. See WP:STRUCTURE Morphh ^(talk) 21:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We're repeating ourselves, again. This discussion appears to have run its course unless some new information is found. Veriss (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's enough. I've removed Sheilakissane's last comments accusing him of violating the Logan Act. If anyone ever does end up in court for such a violation, that would be extremely newsworthy since there haven't been any indictments for the last two centuries. Don't repeat it here. Anyone wanting to discuss the Logan Act in general can discuss it at that article's talk page without mentioning names. It's a flagrant BLP violation and if you see any such accusations in an article or a talk page, they can and almost always should be removed.

According to Wikipedia's article on Bilderberg, it is an international gathering of 120 political, economic, and industrial leaders from all over the world held in secret. The purpose of the meeting is to foster international cooperation (according to Wikipedia). Let's drill down a bit on "fostering cooperation"--If governor Rick Perry is at such a secret meeting fostering cooperation, are you afraid your readers could speculate that Perry was discussing an international highway corridor through his state with a couple of Spanish Industrialists, for example. Or maybe discussing the "privatization" or fire sale of assets from the state of Texas (ostensibly to balance the state budget) to some foreign economists--in exchange for the funds needed to make a presidential run??? I believe you guys are afraid of the implications of the trip--not afraid that it is not relevant. Why not put a cork in the inappropriate censorship of the fact that the guy was invited and made the trip 3 years ago--and let your readers form their own conclusions if they wish? The truth will set you free and bookburning and yellow journalism are not cool. (Sheilakissane (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Are you done WP:COATRACKing yet? Or are you going to continue trying to pump spin into this? You need to review WP:BLP before you continue down this path. As I commented further down the page, if it's not verifiable, it can't be included in the article, and you've shown absolutely nothing in the way of reliable, verifiable sources that would support your edits. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite because you don't read. From another editor (sources) but I guess these aren't good enuff. You have to have been there, I guess--

Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Perry's road show‎; Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Jun 26, 2007; Rick Perry says he's eager to travel the state telling Texans his version of what ... A few weeks ago, he was in; Turkey to speak to the secretive Bilderberg ...

Dallas Morning News, The : Perry off to secret forum in...‎; Dallas Morning News - May 31, 2007; AUSTIN Gov Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul Turkey today to speak at the super secret Bilderberg; Conference a meeting of about 130 international leaders in ...

Austin American-Statesman : Perry speaking to top-secret...‎; Austin American-Statesman - Jun 1, 2007; Fresh off of Monday's end to the legislative session Gov Rick Perry is in Istanbul Turkey this week to speak to the Bilderberg Conference a topsecret ...

[two more sources:]

Perry's push for highway raises conspiracy buzz | Front...‎; Houston Chronicle - Aug 18, 2007; AUSTIN Black helicopters the Illuminati Gov Rick Perry and the ... Turkey to attend the secretive; Bilderberg conference which conspiracy theorists believe ...

Comments on: Immigration Collapse A Blow To Bush - CBS News‎; CBS News - Jun 9, 2007; Protesters in the Austin TX area will be joining together to demonstrate against Rick Perry's recent trip to Istanbul to meet in secret with the Bilderberg ...

Those sources, plus the fact that many anti-Perry forces are harping on the trip now (in 2011) make it at least worthy of a minor mention in this article. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read the Dallas Morning News article but would also add a video from Austin channel 8 news, a segment from the Glen Beck show. Hey, Allen, why don't you go and get on the US trip to the moon article and complain that there aren't enuff substantiating sources for that. You know--a lot of people like you believe that the moon landing was all staged. Another little job for you--have you substantiated that it was in fact Osama who was taken out by the uS Seals instead of a fake????? Some of you guys are a piece of work (Sheilakissane (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Intelligent Design

User:Corwin8 recently added the following line into the article: "However, the Houston Chronicle has noted that Perry was only "Playing to the base" and has taken no steps to promote intelligent design in the classroom," referencing the Houston Chronicle. I've reverted it, as the citation looks to fail WP:RS, as it appears to be a blog post. While I agree that Perry's actions are just as important as his views, a better reference would be necessary in my opinion for this to be considered reliable enough for inclusion. Kessy628 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since that same blog post was the only source for the original assertion, I've removed the section as unsourced. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but what about my passage that noted that since Perry has been Governor, he has made no effort to teach intelligent design in the classroom? Doesn't that clarify his position? For any politician, there is always a difference between what they say and what they do. Corwin8 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The current section on Intelligent Design is cited, however it should be expanded if possible. I've found a source with a couple of links to various speeches and press releases Perry has given/released, however I don't know how far into detail in fleshing it out and such. If someone is willing to give it a go, I'd be willing to copyedit it, otherwise I'll give it a try over the weekend when I have more time I guess. http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_religious_right_watch_rick_perry#CREATIONISM Kessy628 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sheilakissane, 16 August 2011 - Bilderberg

Need to add the fact that Rick Perry was invited to and attended the Bildenberg conference in Turkey three years ago (May 31 2007). I have numerous sources--the Dallas Morning News (page no, date, article title, etc.), Glenn Beck, Austin TV channel 8 newscast, another local paper, etc. This is relevant because it violates the Logan Act and per your article on Bildenber--it is a secret organization of international whos whos--and voters have a right to know this and would want this information in evaluating Perry and other candidates. If you maintain that it is irrelevant you should delete the section you have in his biography on his vacation to Asia. Keeping this out is censorship.(Sheilakissane (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Sheilakissane (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my detailed response to your multiple posts on this subject in the section you created for it above at Talk:Rick Perry#Moved from WP:RFPP. Please do not create multiple sections about the same topic just because you don't get your way. Veriss (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not create the additional section on the Perry Bilderberg meeting. Someone else did. Check it out. Guess what?? I am not the only one who thinks the Bilderberg visit is relevant. Most of your voters may not care but a lot of them will. I the question of whether or not you print the truth in you articles determined by popular vote?? Governor of Texas went to a secret international conference of the world's whos who 3 years ago and now he is suddenly a viable presidential candidate with donations flowing in like water. Also CNN preempted their programming on Saturday morning to cover his speech announcing the candidacy. How many other candidates did they do this for? How many other candidates went to the Bilderberg conference?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. Perry has for a while now been incredibly good at fundraising, and likewise has for a while now been talked about as a candidate for president. As for CNN, when Perry said that he was going to officially enter the race, the entire news media went crazy. The fact that they "preempted" their Saturday morning programming to cover the speech is not at all abnormal nor unheard of. If Chris Christie or Paul Ryan said today that they were going to make a major announcement on Saturday, CNN would do the exact same thing.

Anyway, if you can find a source directly contributing his going to the Bilderberg to his viability for president by all means tell us. For now though, the RfC below is showing a consensus for exclusion of this over inclusion. Kessy628 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Perry has for while been incredibly good at fundraising". Since how long is awhile--since he went to Bilderberg three years ago. OK. About 12 candidates announced for president as republicans. Which other ones did CNN preempt its regular morning broadcasts for??? Yea. Right. Good luck(Sheilakissane (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Ok lets see here... For starters, here's an article about his fundraising prowess. Note how it says "over the past decade": http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7638138.html

Here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/us/politics/13donate.html?_r=2&hp

Here's a third: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_22/Perry-Fundraising-History-Faces-New-Test-208131-1.html

Ok now that that's out of the way, lets next look at CNN. I don't know if I would count a major new player in the Republican presidential field making a planned announcement that had been known for at least a week before would be called "preempting." CNN reports on the news, and this was a major news story. Now I'll be honest, I don't know what CNN's "regular morning broadcasts" are, so if you could give more information to this, specifically a listing of CNN programming by hour for a regular Saturday, it'd be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perry raised $100 million in 10 years as governor--more than half of it from 51 donors. All big corporations to whom he gave back a state with the most minimum wage jobs in the country and no limitations on illegal alien inflows. Let's see how he does post his little junket to Turkey. Watch the PAC contributions pour in.

The show that CNN preempted was "Your Money" in a week when the stock market looked like the cyclone roller coaster at Coney Island and everyone thought they would lose their 401ks. I have seen this show preempted twice before--once was for Katrina. Curiouser and curiouser.(Sheilakissane (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Rick Perry's G.P.A.

The G.P.A. was calculated using simple arithmetic in a method acknowledged by the reverting editor Kessy628. This was reverted by myself Quophnix under WP:CALC. As the WP:CALC policy states, "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Kessy628 created consensus in their edit summary by acknowledging, "that is the method of calculating GPA". Therefore, the edit stands under WP:CALC. Quophnix (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To be 100% honest, I had not seen that part of the policy before. My mistake, still relatively new and trying to learn. Kessy628 (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the math per se, but there are other sources that report a different GPA. I've seen 1.9, 1.95, 1.99, 2.0, 2.22, 2.5. So does this then become WP:OR? Also, do we have enough context around it? Critics would imply that his academic GPA is an indicator of intelligence, but there could be many reasons for a low GPA. He may have just had a good time in college and didn't worry so much about GPA, instead socializing, partying, and participating in work or other programs. It's a WP:BLP so we need to get it right and not infer or imply something that is not the case. Has Perry ever talked about it? Morphh ^(talk) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem looking for additional material providing context but so far haven't turned up anything specific. It's likely that, due to the presidential campaign, he'll be under more scrutiny than he was as governor and will end up mentioning something about it at some point. As far as discrepancies regarding the number itself, I've already made one mistake (and, from the numbers you're citing, others have as well) by not counting the first three terms on a four point scale, which yielded the 1.95 figure. First time through I just added the totals the transcript provided. This time, I added the totals myself going class by class through the transcript counting A's for 4 points, B's for 3 points, C's for 2 points, and D's for 1 point. I've listed my work in the edit summary. So, feel free to double check me. In the meantime, I'll be searching for context. Quophnix (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's get this right:

A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt

• ENGL 103, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• HIST 105, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• A S 101, C, 1hr: 2x1=2
• BIOL 101, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 101, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• EDUC 101, A, 2hrs: 4x2=8
• ENGL 104, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 102, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• P E 101, 2 grade points
• A S 102, B, 1hr: 3x1=3
• BIOL 107, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 102, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• HIST 106, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 103, D, 3 hrs: 1x3=3
• P E 102, 2 grade points

So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+2+3+6+8+6+3+2=84 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:

• Fall, 1969: 38
• Spring, 1970: 17
• Summer, 1970: 15
• Fall, 1970: 36
• Spring, 1971: 32
• Fall, 1971: 27
• Spring, 1972: 39
• 1st term Summer, 1972: 12
• 2nd term Summer, 1972: 12

So, 84+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+12 = 312

312/144=2.166666

Let's triple and quadruple check this and make sure it's accurate. It's simple math but there are a lot of numbers to add up. Let's get it right. Quophnix (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I mentioned the GPA in a section above and possibly contributed to the discussion going in this direction, I feel obligated to participate. I had mistakenly assumed that his GPA was displayed on his transcript as calculated by the university under it's rules at that time. Since there are so many ways to calculate GPA and without knowing the method that the school used at that time I think we are merely guessing and going past WP:CALC into WP:OR. The transcript also mentions something about "PAGE 2" but it is too fuzzy to read so the document we see may not be complete. Perhaps GPA, class standing, honors, official activities, etc. are on the missing page. I apologize for opening this can of worms and not looking at the transcript myself before mentioning including the GPA earlier. Veriss (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First, page 2 is accessible and is perfectly readable on my computer. Maybe something's not quite right with your browser? Dunno, just guessing there. As far as how the school calculated the GPA, that's written into the transcript itself. For instance ENGL 203 is a 3 hour course in which Perry receives a B in Fall of '69. The school assigns Perry 9 grade points for the "B" grade. Therefore, the school assigns 3 grade points for a B (3 credit hours x 3 grade points=9 grade points). So, we know how the school assigned grade points. Additionally the first page of the transcript says outright "Four point system effective June 1969". So, the only part of the transcript that might be in question would be before June '69. However, Perry received each letter grade possible in those three terms. So, we know how the school was assigning points then, too. We're not doing fourier transforms here. This is just simple math, no cans of worms. Quophnix (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The only issue I may have is that this is a grey area between WP:CALC and WP:OR due to that first period. I'm not sure if it would count as OR to determine his GPA based on how you described it above (he got every grade, and we can figure out how the school calculated it, so we can convert it). I agree that for the rest of the transcript, once it went to the 4 point system, the calculations are standard and definitely known, however before that could be considered WP:OR. Kessy628 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If included, I suggest we put a brief description of the method used to calculate it in a footnote. Morphh ^(talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, once you go down that road, it becomes a WP:MOS issue more than anything as to how you want to present the data. We can calculate his GPA on the 3 point scale used up to June '69 or the 4 point scale used after but I don't think we should have two different GPA's listed just because they used different scales. It clutters things up. In either case, the conversion falls under WP:CALC and is, therefore, permissible. So, I think a single GPA listing is appropriate. As for which scale to use, the 4 point scale is more current and, therefore, more stylistically appropriate in my opinion. Quophnix (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisions needed:

OK, let's get this right:

A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt

• ENGL 103, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• HIST 105, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
  • Term sub-total = 15
• A S 101, C, 1hr: 2x1=2
• BIOL 101, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 101, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• EDUC 101, A, 2hrs: 4x2=8
• ENGL 104, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 102, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• P E 101, 2 3 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
  • Term sub-total = 42
• A S 102, B, 1hr: 3x1=3
• BIOL 107, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 102, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• HIST 106, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 103, D, 3 hrs: 1x3=3
• P E 102, 2 3 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
  • Term sub-total = 29

So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+2 3+3+6+8+6+3+2 3 = 15+42+29 = 84 86 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:

• Fall, 1969: 38
• Spring, 1970: 17
• Summer, 1970: 15
• Fall, 1970: 36
• Spring, 1971: 32
• Fall, 1971: 27
• Spring, 1972: 39
• 1st term Summer, 1972: 12
• 2nd term Summer, 1972: 12 18
  
  

So, 84 86+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+12 18 = 312 320

312/144=2.166666 320/144=2.222222

Fat&Happy (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Very thorough. I agree with Fat&Happy's calculations. Sorry about the confusion. Quophnix (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the logic used to determine the math and the math look good. I still think we're stretching WP:CALC a bit but I'll support it. Good work decoding it all. Veriss (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, first challenge. Was working through sources to verify them and read this "And he was exceedingly loyal to the corps, which he credited with giving him the discipline to get an animal sciences degree — his 2.5 grade point average wasn’t high enough to go the veterinary route — and join the Air Force." Cite 15: Hooks, Chris (August 2, 2011). "Texas A&M Years Launched Perry — and a Rivalry". The Texas Tribune (Austin). Retrieved 2011-08-07. Veriss (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Should his biography include the fact that he was a Bilderberg attendee

This had been in the article for about 3 years until removed without explanation on May 1st. I only noticed this after someone removed his name from List of Bilderberg participants with no explanation, and it clearly belongs there. Perry is not a typical attendee and if it isn't appropriate here it certainly isn't appropriate in other articles such as Gordon Campbell's, so this may affect other articles. It's become a subject of discussion again in the last few days, see [8]. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll note for editors reviewing this, the current consensus through several discussions above is not to include at the moment. It appears to be WP:UNDUE and there is little context to why the meeting was important in reliable sources vs any of the other events he attends. There are some conspiracy theories around the event, but little specific to Perry. There does not appear to be any controversy around this topic at the moment to make it notable. Morphh ^(talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that this guy's attendance at a PTA meeting or a town hall is the same as if he takes off to go to a secret meeting in Turkey of world leaders and three years later suddently becomes a viable presidential candidate with money flowing in like water and CNN preempting their Saturday broadcasting for the guy. Maybe so--but aren't you stretching it a bit. What other normal meetings do you think a Bilderberg attendance is equivalent too??? --the Austin ladies' club??? Yea. Right. (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would agree with Morphh. After checking the articles on the other attendees, there wasn’t mention of their attendance in many of the biographies. Why is it any more notable for Perry than Colin Powell? ZHurlihee (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that Bilderberg should not be mentioned in the article. Seleucus (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The guy attends a secret conference of world leaders and 3 years later is a viable presidential candidate with money flowing in and CNN preempting all its programing for him last Saturday. OK. Let's just not include anything that's not favorable to the guy. Or why not just ask Perry and see what he wants??? Truth in journalism??? OK. (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's clearly not secret, otherwise we wouldn't know he was there. It doesn't seem to have any specific relevance to his biography. In my opinion it shouldn't be included. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think the Bilderber meetings are not secret you better do some editing on your wikipedia article on the Bilderberg which says that the meetings are secret--ie press not allowed. If you believe this guy did not go to a secret meeting in Turkey attended by world political and business leaders three years ago maybe you should be still waiting for the Easter Bunny.(Sheilakissane (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I've stated in several posts above, I remain opposed to including that bare bit of data unless there is also context as to why it is significant with reliable sourcing. Merely being in the article for three years does not somehow give the assertion more protection then any other assertion. It just means that someone finally caught it or cared enough to remove it. Veriss (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto to what Veriss said. My opposition to inclusion is said relatively extensively above. Kessy628 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is made up too. Hey guys. Wake up and smell the roses. There are three blogs on this subject. How often does that happen?? Guess that shows you may be wrong about this being important--but I guess that depends on your agenda. (Sheilakissane (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Saw this at RfC. It seems clear that one user wishes to put undue weight on a fringe theory. It's best left out. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you add some more information to the paragraph on his vacation to Asia? That's probably more non-fringe and more important than his trip to a secret meeting of the world's political leaders in Turkey.

Yea. Right. There are 3 or 4 separate blogs on this started by 3 or 4 different people. Fringe theory? What theory? Do you know what a theory is?? Are you saying you don't believe the guy took the trip and that it's just a theory?? Or maybe you think its not significant. Maybe next time he goes to a secret meeting in Turkey with world political and economic leaders we can get him to give a press conference announcing that he plans to make some deals, some quid pro quos, and plans to violate the Logan Act. Or maybe you just have an agenda and would still have another series of objections to including this information?? You are on the fringe in censoring information that is true, fully documented, and people want to know about. This is so much BS. (Sheilakissane (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia doesn't care what blogs say, or how many blogs were started, because blogs are not reliable sources. That's because anyone can set up a blog, and say anything they like - and yes, they can even set up four separate blogs and claim to be four different people. Are there any reliable sources that say this guy violated the Logan Act? I don't have "an agenda", I was selected at random by a computer program to comment on this, and I never heard of this guy until today. Your contributions, on the other hand, look rather like those of a single purpose account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Sheilakissane, is that there are no reliable sources supporting the thesis you are strongly implying here, which is that there is some sort of causal relationship between Perry attending a Bilderberg meeting "and three years later suddenly becomes a viable presidential candidate with money flowing in like water and CNN preempting their Saturday broadcasting for the guy", to use your words. It would be naive to not acknowledge that you would like readers to consider the possibility that Perry is some sort of Manchurian Candidate whereby the primary explanation for Perry's current prominence is that some time ago the Bilderberg Club decided that Perry would assume the Presidency such that what we are seeing now is simply the rollout of this plan. I'm sorry but this fits squarely into Wikipedia's definition of a conspiracy theory as a "fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators".--Brian Dell (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he attended is no less a fact, even if it is tied to "conspiracy." Kennedy was assassinated, would you leave out that fact just because there are various controversies over how it happened? The argument that including Bilderberg attendance is verboten, because some people consider that proof of conspiracy is a straw man. Please keep to the facts, thanks. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think people are mixing up the reasons here for not putting this in the article. No one is disputing that he attended the Bilderberg meeting, nor is anyone disputing that there are conspiracies about the meetings in general. What people are disputing is whether this is notable enough to include in the article. So far, no one has produced any reliable, non-blog sources about this event, which in turn has led to a consensus that the event is not notable enough to include. As a reminder, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is Wikipedia a comprehensive source of information on every event to have happened to a person. Also, see WP:EVENT. Kessy628 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, on to the notability. The article is a biography, and being invited seems to be quite an honor, why is that not notable? If I had been invited, I sure would want that in my biography? The whole point for me is that it should be at least mentioned, it is a pretty distinct privilege to be invited to a meeting. Since it is referenced in another Wikipedia article, a link to that information would enhance the ease of use for the encyclopedia, if people are interested in confirming or dismissing the fact as "conspiracy theory." Thanks for making Wikipedia easier to use and helping people find information in it. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Also notable and of significance--according to the Wikipedia list of attendees--Rick Perry is one of only two US governors who have ever been invited to attend a Bilderberg meeting. Also interesting that the only other governor invited was Mark Sanford who--according to Wikipedia--was also a leading candidate for the republican presidency in the 2012 election. Perhaps there are other governors who were invited by Bilderberg but Wikipedia censored this information too. Excluding this important trip from Perry's bio and--yet-- including a blurb about a vacation to Asia is blatant yellow journalism. (Sheilakissane (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Include very brief mention - If the sources indicate that he did indeed attend the meeting (an annual meeting which past presidents and other muckamucks have attended) that simple fact should be included in the article. Trivia could be excluded, but attending a significant meeting is not trivia. Undue weight could be a problem if it were a whole paragraph, but a single sentence is not undue. POV/Fringe could be a problem, if conspiracy theories were included, but if the sentence merely states that he attended, POV/Fringe would not a problem. An even better solution is to include it in a longer sentence that lists several events, such as "Perry has participated in several leadership forums, including AAA, BBB, CCC, Bilderberg, and DDD". That would be encyclopedic and should satisfy all concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Perry, he was invited to speak at the event. He gave a speech on energy policy and then left, only staying for a few of the presentations. We have much more coverage with him speaking at CPAC, the Republican Leadership Conference, and numerous other events. I guess we could list them all out, but I'm not sure we're doing that on other biographies, unless they are major and highly notable in his life based on coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, Bilderberg is not even close to the top. Morphh ^(talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to also mention, I just looked at the List of Bilderberg participants. Not only does the only other US governor on the list, Mark Sanford not have anything about him attending on his page, but the only pages that I found reliably sourced information about any US politician attending were Roger Altman (who's on the group's Steering Committee), Charles Douglas Jackson (who's a founder), and George Wildman Ball (who according to his article attended every meeting except one until died; much more than Perry's single visit). Many of the other people listed on the list have no reference at all in their articles (definitely a majority), including Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, and John Edwards, to name a few. For the ones who do have that they attended, it is either unsourced or in a style mentioned by Noleander above. I think the fact that Sanford not having anything listed, him being the only other governor on the list of participants, is the style we should be looking at, as it's the closest match in terms of similar articles. Kessy628 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

- Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. The fact that Sanford's attendance at Bilderberg is not included in his bio is merely an indication to me that --although it should have been--it was not because it was censored in the past. Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, and John Edwards should have the fact that they attended Bilderberg included on their history. So--rather than showing cause to not include the Bilderberg trip on Perry's bio--I believe you have turned up a number of past yellow journalistic censorships on the part of Wikipedia that have occurred (or possibly just omissions that should be cured). Interesting that John Edwards attended and he was a major Democratic presidential candidate in past years. Curiouser and curiouser. (Sheilakissane (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) — Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've dealt with accusations of law breaking above, and removed a post by an editor. Any accusations of violating the Logan Act should be removed from articles and talk pages. No one's been indicted under this act for over 2 centuries.

Likewise we should not be using adjectives to describe the Bilderberg group meetings in BLP articles, be the adjective 'secretive', 'controversial' or even 'prestigious' - clearly such adjectives are POV and generally used as a way to attack the subject of the article.

Given the number of meetings of various kinds that Bilderberg participants attend, there is rarely any reason to mention Bilderberg and in my experience for most mentions they have again been there to denigrate the subject of the article.

Bilderberg can be mentioned for some people when it's been an important part of their career in some way (eg the founders) or they have played some sort of major role in the Bilderberg group. If it becomes a more important issue in Perry's campaign then it's relevant and can and probably should be mentioned.

As an aside, some blogs can be used as sources where they are in mainstream media with editorial control. It doesn't mean they should be, just that they can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a law is not enforced is is not valid???

No. Better have a look at the wikipedia article on Bilderberg where the meetings are described as secret. "Secret" in the sense that the media is excluded, there is heavy security at the meetings to keep out snoopers (Wikipedia readers), and nobody but the attendees--whos who in industry, politics, and economics from all over the world--know what was discussed. Not "secret" in the sense that the Dallas Morning News did not publish an article on May 31 2007 entitle "Perry to attend secret meeting in Turkey." It is not a secret that the meetings take place.

Maybe you are right. It's much more important to mention that Perry took a vacation to Asia or that he attended a meeting of the Austin pta last week. Are you for real?? (Sheilakissane (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't see where the article describes a vacation to Asia or the meeting of the Austin pta. There is a mention of trade mission to Asia with regard to a controversy of spending Texas funds for the security detail. So the event is not the focus, but the spending of funds and the controversy around it. As for Austin, the only thing I see it added as a location description for other information, not a trip within itself. Could you clarify? We may need to remove the material you mention. Morphh ^(talk) 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg publishes a list of participants and their agenda. They say " Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.

Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-eight conferences have been held. The names of the participants are made available to the press. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, and their standing; all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity." And it is extremely likely that a law that has not been enforced in two centuries is not valid - it hasn't been challenged because there's been no reason to challenge a law that never gets used, but a number of people seem to think it is unconstitutional. But that's beside the point, which is that no editor should take it upon themselves to suggest that anyone has violated any law. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From the Perry bio. Even the guys trip to the Caymen Islands is mentioned but I guess Bilderberg doesn't count-- "In June 2010, Perry went on a 12-day trade mission to East Asia. The security detail for the trip cost $129,000 in state money. The Texas Government attempted to block the media's scrutiny of the use of the funds as they contained information that could compromise the future security of the state's senior executive. A member of White's gubernatorial campaign stated that Perry should, "stop hiding the facts on fiscal issues like what he's charging taxpayers for travel". Perry's campaign countered that the trip led to greater exposure for Texas business opportunities in Asia.[74][75] In all, Perry made 23 foreign trips from 2004 to 2010, including a vacation on Grand Cayman" Curiouser and curiouser. (Sheilakissane (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Caymen Islands is mentioned from what I can tell because it seemed to be a personal vacation on taxpayer money. Just my 2 cents there. Kessy628 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheilakissane, this is a controversy about government funding of trips, just as Obama is currently being criticized for tax payer funded campaigning on his bus tour. It's not about the location or the event, it's about the funding of the trip. Morphh ^(talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Sounds like he paid for his vacation to the Caymen Islands--might has missed it but I don't see where it says the state paid. His PAC paid for his trip to the secret Bilderberg conference so it's not necessarily about funding and most of the money controversy was around the $129,000 plus bills for security (some of which may have been incurred on his junket to Bilderberg). (Sheilakissane (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Seeking Compromise

I still have some reservations about this as I have long opposed mentioning the Bilderberg trip on the grounds of notability and WP:RS. I was also concerned that it would provide a beachhead for theorists to expand even a brief mention of it into something more. However, because an apparently intractable, single-purpose account has besieged this talk page for nearly a week over a single sentence, I am willing to find a compromise to clear the air and let us move on to more important issues.

I think User:Noleander's suggestion is a starting point. "An even better solution is to include it in a longer sentence that lists several events, such as "Perry has participated in several leadership forums, including AAA, BBB, CCC, Bilderberg, and DDD". That would be encyclopedic and should satisfy all concerns."

Please comment Support or Oppose and give your reasoning and if applicable, some suggested wording or attended events with reliable sources along with your position. Veriss (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Undecided: I still have reservations as discussed immediately above but am willing to support a reasonable solution that lets us move forward. Veriss (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I offered a route to a possible compromise but the SPA refused to seize the opportunity to change the disruptive behavior and work with other editors to craft a compromise. For this reason and the fact that I still don't think it merits inclusion at this point in time I have decided to oppose. Veriss (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems we're dealing with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is becoming disruptive. It bothers me that the clear consensus is being bullied with this OCD tactic. Stating that, I wouldn't oppose a sentence, as described by Noleander, that described major speaking engagements / events that included Bilderberg if we find that it's due weight. Problem is, we haven't seen that it's anything but a very minor event reported a few news sources. In relation to other events, it becomes a tiny minority. At this point, using Noleander's example, I see it as AAA, BBB, CCC, YYY, and DDD. YYY being it's relative order of importance in reliable sources, which seems to violate weight. Morphh ^(talk) 20:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I understand that Perry's participation in the Bilderberg conference is a fairly minor event in his life, but it did happen, and I'd err on the side of inclusion (and avoiding accusations that WP is whitewashing a controversial topic). Including it in a list of several political forums that Perry participated in (indeed, it looks like he presented at Bilderberg, which is usually a big deal) seems encyclopedic and informative. --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I understand that this happened, but there has been literally no reliable and mainstream coverage of it outside of blogs. To include this would be to open up for every convention and group that Perry has attended to be included. Furthermore, as noted above, except for those who have had major experiences with the group, no other politician that has attended this conference has this information listed on their pages. Until there is a reliable source that makes this more notable than any other run of the mill conference, I can't see grounds for inclusion. Kessy628 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Kessy628: could you check the sources listed immediately below and comment on whether they are RS? --Noleander (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

They're definitely RS by my opinion, but I still stand opposed. I'm not concerned about the reliability of sources looking at them specifically; like you said, blogs can be reliable sources as long as the info stated is fact vs. opinion. What im opposing its inclusion on is notability and standardization. As I said above, I still don't think this conference alone is notable enough to put in, and if it's added in it sets a dangerous precedent for including any conference Perry or any other politician for that matter attend in a biography. Furthermore, also as I said above, Mark Sanford and other major politicans who went to the conference, including Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford according to the list on wikipedia, don't have any reference at all to the conference. I know it's just an essay and not hard policy, but WP:OSE is another reason for my opposition to adding this in. It's just not important enough as of now, but I definitely agree that if the trip becomes an issue on the campaign trail it should be added. Kessy628 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oppose ...until there is coverage by multiple, reliable WP:RS sources, in which case a mention such as User:Noleander suggests is appropriate. Blogs aren't reliable sources for a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

LuckyLouie: I'm not sure where this "only blogs" information is coming from. Many notable sources wrote entire articles on the trip, such as:

• Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Perry's road show‎; Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Jun 26, 2007; Rick Perry says he's eager to travel the state telling Texans his version of what ... A few weeks ago, he was in; Turkey to speak to the secretive Bilderberg ...
• Dallas Morning News, The : Perry off to secret forum in...‎; Dallas Morning News - May 31, 2007; AUSTIN Gov Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul Turkey today to speak at the super secret Bilderberg; Conference a meeting of about 130 international leaders in ...
• Austin American-Statesman : Perry speaking to top-secret...‎; Austin American-Statesman - Jun 1, 2007; Fresh off of Monday's end to the legislative session Gov Rick Perry is in Istanbul Turkey this week to speak to the Bilderberg Conference a topsecret ...

[two more sources:]

• Perry's push for highway raises conspiracy buzz | Front...‎; Houston Chronicle - Aug 18, 2007; AUSTIN Black helicopters the Illuminati Gov Rick Perry and the ... Turkey to attend the secretive; Bilderberg conference which conspiracy theorists believe ...
• Comments on: Immigration Collapse A Blow To Bush - CBS News‎; CBS News - Jun 9, 2007; Protesters in the Austin TX area will be joining together to demonstrate against Rick Perry's recent trip to Istanbul to meet in secret with the Bilderberg ...

Those sources, plus the fact that many anti-Perry forces are harping on the trip now (in 2011) make it at least worthy of a minor mention in this article. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you post other linkable sources here for evaluation and discussion. The three Texas papers word-for-word phrasing suggests a single news org. The Atlantic is pretty good - however I'd feel better if they published a direct report rather than attribute it as allegations from talk show callers. Never mind, I found a number of G-news references from papers outside of Texas. So if reliable sources report he attended a Bilderberg meeting, we report it appropriately. What's the beef? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander has made some progress with getting sources, but having a reference does not mean it satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Ranked by reliable sources, what if Bilderberg is the 35 most discussed event he attended - do we list the other 34? Or should it be 1-5 and Bilderberg? Due weight takes into account the quantity and quality of sources and the prominence in those sources. Bilderberg does not appear to be anything but a minor news story - a tiny minority. So we can find a source for it, good step, but I can find hundreds of sources to thousands of facts. Why is it important to his biography based on what we have? Morphh ^(talk) 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have requested expert assistance at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:_Rick_Perry so we can get some outside eyes on this. Veriss (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The guy was invited--one of 120 atendees at a secret international meeting including top political, economic, and industry figures from all over the world convening to "foster cooperation" (according to wiki article on Bilderberg). Why conceal the fact that Perry attended and let your readers decide what "fostering cooperation" means-- if someone wants to accuse the guy of some conspiracy --so what??. Are we trying to control people's thoughts and imaginings here or include what is significant and noteworthy in peoples' bios?? I don't see anyone in any of the blogs proposing or putting forward the fostering of a "manchurian candidate" scenario here. That's an old movie and the cold war ended in case you hadn't heard. (Sheilakissane (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose at the moment - partially because I don't think we should be compromising with a SPA, and because although I think it's hovering on being important enough to be included (only due to his presidential campaign and for no other reason), I think it is hovering, not there yet, and our BLP policy I think suggests when in doubt, leave it out. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(Removed text which was a clear BLP violation) Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is any of this available from reliable, verifiable sources? If so, it can be included in the article. If not, it can't. It's as simple as that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And as it is just the SPA's forum style attack on Perry and Bilderberg, and a BLP violation, I've removed it. If he continues BLP violations or even forum style posts he's on his way to being blocked as a disruptive editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from above--in this same section. Duh. I dunno. You tell me---

Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Perry's road show‎; Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Jun 26, 2007; Rick Perry says he's eager to travel the state telling Texans his version of what ... A few weeks ago, he was in; Turkey to speak to the secretive Bilderberg ...

Dallas Morning News, The : Perry off to secret forum in...‎; Dallas Morning News - May 31, 2007; AUSTIN Gov Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul Turkey today to speak at the super secret Bilderberg; Conference a meeting of about 130 international leaders in ...

Austin American-Statesman : Perry speaking to top-secret...‎; Austin American-Statesman - Jun 1, 2007; Fresh off of Monday's end to the legislative session Gov Rick Perry is in Istanbul Turkey this week to speak to the Bilderberg Conference a topsecret ...

[two more sources:]

Perry's push for highway raises conspiracy buzz | Front...‎; Houston Chronicle - Aug 18, 2007; AUSTIN Black helicopters the Illuminati Gov Rick Perry and the ... Turkey to attend the secretive; Bilderberg conference which conspiracy theorists believe ...

Comments on: Immigration Collapse A Blow To Bush - CBS News‎; CBS News - Jun 9, 2007; Protesters in the Austin TX area will be joining together to demonstrate against Rick Perry's recent trip to Istanbul to meet in secret with the Bilderberg ...

And I would add video of a channel 8 newscast from Austin and a show of Glenn Beck's. Do you doubt that the guy attended a secret international Bilderberg conference 3 years ago in Turkey with politician, ecnomists, and industrialists from all over the world to "foster international cooperation"???? Do you think it never happened??? Do you believe we ever landed on the moon??? Hello.... (Sheilakissane (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please stop posting the same thing over and over and over again. It's giving me a headache. Morphh ^(talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I don't know why this is important, but a lot of people seem to think it is, so it warrants a brief mention. Brmull (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are a lot of people - a couple editors or prevalence in reliable sources? The latter is the measure for inclusion, not the former, and I haven't seen much to convince me that it's anything but a very minor event in his biography. Morphh ^(talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources, silly. Someone listed several above. In a 30 second Google search I found several more. Brmull (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What did you search? I just searched "rick perry bilderberg" and every link on the first page was a conspiracy theory blog posting. I've already given my opinion that the above sources are viable, but the issue here still isn't the reliablity of sources covering the event. I don't know why people keep bringing that up the issue when it's been solved the issue at hand here is WP:DUE. Nothing against you Brmull, but I want to make clear the reason for opposition given by me and at least 1-2 other editors. Kessy628 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mention in The Dallas Morning News in 2008. Opinion column from the Joplin Globe in 2008. Brief mentions regarding cost in The Chron in 2009 and 2010. Bilderberg was discussed in several recent articles in The New American. Also recently discussed in two Romanian newspapers Ziare and Realitatea. There's also Politico. Brmull (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The suggested passage seems reasonable and encyclopediac to me, but I do not like the idea of including something simply to appease a single disruptive editor. Seleucus (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen at support to include this from at least 4 or 5 others. So to say I am the only is a gross mischaracterization-again. Also have been 5 sections started on this and I only started one so you comment is coming out of your back end.(Sheilakissane (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your position is clearly non-neutral, and your tone above skirts very close to the WP:NPA line. Use extreme caution here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the caution. And I would advise you to get real.(Sheilakissane (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Trust me. I'm more than real enough. Real enough, at the very least, to state that I Oppose based on questionable reliability and non-neutrality of the sources. And real enough to recognize a single-purpose account when presented with one. My work here is done. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye. You need to go to the Wikipedia article on the US moon landing and contest it based on neutrality and the absence of reliable sources. A lot of people think that was faked on a Hollywood set. Maybe you can prove it(Sheilakissane (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Sheila, you realize that you have to get most of these editors you are insulting to agree to put Bilderberg in the article? Several including myself don't feel that strongly, so being nice would likely improve your chances considerably. Brmull (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the ones who supported inclusion provided it is weighted appropriately (i.e. Bilderberg mentioned in a list of several other conferences Perry attended) and does not contain or even obliquely suggest any fringe conspiracy spin. I do however respect the consensus of experienced editors. If there is a majority who do not want to include it, that's how WP works, I would not lose sleep over it. I suggest the SPA, having said their piece several times over, step back and let the process go forward without disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I hear you. Understand that some of my posts have been mischaracterized. I am not promoting the impuning of any quid pro quos or any conspiracy theories to the guy's attendance. No doubt but that the guy went and I believe it is important to include the fact that he was invited and did attend--120 attendees, the world leaders in politics, economics, and industry, trying to arrive at consensuses (don't have to say all that). I just believe to not report it is yellow journalism and do not understand some of the objections--just don't compute. Please understand that I am new to this just got hooked in because I looked at Perry's bio, tried to put it in, and had my info deleted. But not promoting the inclusion of any implications that the guy was necessarily doing any dirt. It should be reported and--as far as I am concerned--people can make up their own minds about it. I understand you guys don't editorialize--not advocating that. I will rest my case (72.222.135.204 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)) Sorry. Forgot to sign it.(72.222.135.204 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Time for auto-archive?

We have comments from six years ago on this page and it is getting pretty long so I suggest we setup an auto-archive routine. I could probably figure it out but don't want to break the page. Concurrence? Veriss (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. This is getting to be way too long of a talk page. Kessy628 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Morphh ^(talk) 00:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seleucus (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've set up MiszaBot to autoarchive the page. Hopefully this will work correctly and solve the problems. Kessy628 (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have kicked in yet. The settings appear to be okay. Veriss (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

State of Texan economy

Why is this in Perry's biography? Economy of Texas is the appropriate place for this information unless we're directly relating it to Perry's notability, claims he's made, or other sources that directly correlate it to actions of Perry. As of now, there is no context here that would make this appropriate for this article. Morphh ^(talk) 03:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who added the section.

In short, since Perry began his presidential campaign, he and his supporters have emphasized the job creation number (237,000 in last two or so years) as a sort of argument that he would help the U.S. economy. His detractors, meanwhile, have pointed out the unemployment rate (exactly median among U.S. States) among other things, so I thought it needed to be condensed into a mention at least (besides, there were a bunch of others adding specific statistics in a somewhat onesided fashion), so this was my attempt to condense the hard numbers into a concise section without delving too deeply into the arguments between both sides.

You are right, however, that it needs to have relation to Perry, so I'll point out that the state of the Texan economy has been the subject of various claims by Perry's supporters and detractors. Seleucus (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I think these arguments need to be folded into the overall topic where we discuss his economic record in Texas. The economic claims by Perry's supporters and detractors need to be together so that the reader can properly follow debate. Morphh ^(talk) 11:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone collected some relevant BLS numbers on the economy. It looks like the reason Texas has median unemployment in spite of the highest job growth rate is partly from everyone moving there (BLS shows the population growth is much faster than the second fastest-growing state). The guy who posted it doesn't appear to be a Perry supporter, though, so I'm not sure if it's relevant, since the section seems to be about the debate between supporters/detractors, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about these figures. Beardc (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if it was created by a Communist as long as it's valid information. I looked this presentation over and found it to be very interesting. Unfortunately since it's an independent blog we'll have to wait for the mainstream media to pick it up. There was a reply (3rd post - AFMom) that similar data was available at the Texas Workforce Commission/NTI website but I was unable to dig it up. Veriss (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like The Economist at least treats the population growth data and more critiques. It also notes (along with politicalmath) that "Texas’s median wage is close to the national one." I haven't seen the politicalmath data in mainstream media, but Nate Silver (NYT columnist/blogger) and Tyler Cowen (NYT columnist/blogger/economist in his own right) pointed favorably to it. Not sure what counts for `mainstream' though. Beardc (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like ABC news picked it up too. Beardc (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Others (ex: Paul Krugman) have posited that the reason Texas has high job growth rate is just that it's undergoing rapid population expansion (mainly Hispanics who are not exactly motivated by the tax structure.) A bit of a chicken and egg problem here... 141.211.231.229 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The politicalmathblog pointed out a similar idea, I think ("more people = more consumers = more jobs."). The economist article includes another critique that Texas is simply 'poaching' jobs from other states. Not sure whether this is a good or bad thing. Beardc (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the blog is suggesting that Texas has an excellent economy (as exemplified in its job growth), which only looks bad because so many people are migrating there, so fast that it's economy can't create enough jobs. Whereas Krugman has suggested that Texas's job growth is mostly just because so many people are migrating there, thus raising the supply of workers and reducing wages (as also seen in the high number of minimum wage jobs.) Same statistics, different idea. I would be inclined to go with Krugman because his argument makes more sense (the blogger posits that people are moving to Texas to get jobs - an argument that does not make sense, given that Texas has had high population growth for ages, and that a good chunk of the growth comes from undocumented workers motivated solely by the proximity.) At any rate, the blog isn't exactly a journalistic source... Seleucus (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal points out that, in fact, Krugman is wrong. I quote,

BLS pegs the median hourly wage in Texas at $15.14, 93% of the national average, and wages have increased at a good clip: in fact, the 10th fastest state in 2010 at 3.4%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Texas economy section is written in such a way as to undermine perry's claims while maintaining a veneer of objectivity. Job GROWTH in texas is off the charts and is very much a function of the states pro-business policies. The high number of min wage jobs is a plus as it shows young workers flocking to Texas, the health insurance statistic is meaningless unless the high number of illegals in texas is considered..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.159.130 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so minimum wage jobs are a plus because it shows the large amount of young (a good chunk of whom are undocumented) workers flocking to Texas, but health insurance is meaningless since it shows a large amount of young (a good chunk of whom are undocumented) workers flocking to Texas? 141.211.231.229 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it's fairly one sided. It doesn't actually list any of Perry's claims or rebuttals to any of the information. It's pretty much a criticism section without any balance, so we need to improve it or integrate it into other parts of the article that discuss his job growth claims. Morphh ^(talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting article that puts alot of the information into context [9]. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Perry just sent this out, which he links to an article by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Probably good info for balance. Morphh ^(talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Local (Texas) news coverage

As a three-term governor of a large state with several major cities, every major Texas news source has a separate news section just for him, going back to the start of his governorship. To avoid a list of individual articles at the end of External links, including the two we already have from the Austin Chronicle, I suggest listing the following as representative of various local viewpoints. 75.59.226.113 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Local media coverage

• The Perry Trap at The Austin Chronicle
• Perry Watch at The Dallas Morning News
• Rick Perry 2012 at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
• Rick Perry at the Houston Chronicle
• The Perry Trove at the Texas Monthly
• The Perry Trail at The Texas Observer
• Rick Perry at The Texas Tribune

I think your suggestion makes sense and I would add them now. However, looking at the current EL section though it is large, ungainly and very unorganized. I think someone with experience in BLP EL policies needs to go through that section and clean it up some before we add a raft of new links. I can take a stab at organizing it once it's been culled. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We usually try to avoid such lists and focus on the primary sites about the subject, such as official sites. Otherwise, it grows and grows. Why this paper or site and not this one. Next thing you know it's linking to Media Matters and every other site that has a page on him. If we review WP:EL, this list should be fairly limited. At the moment, I wouldn't object to placing it under "Further Reading" but eventually, I think they should be removed and not listed. Morphh ^(talk) 18:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the dogged determination to make this article different from every other Governor and presidential candidate article over the years. Is there a reason for this? 75.59.226.113 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about your concerns. Veriss (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I looked at Obama, Biden, Hillary, Romney, Bachmann. None of them have additional links like this. What articles are you describing? They probably need to be edited. Morphh ^(talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Veriss suggested a mass cull. Morphh is probably looking at current versions of articles rather than the versions at the relevant point in time of the 2008 campaign. Official links (office and campaign) start the list. People with their own campaign site don't have additional social media links added because they're in the campaign site. This also prevents the addition of look-alike social media sites being added, which is a serious problem if they then link to fake fundraising appeals. Therefore, the Twitter link should be removed. I already suggested the separate article links be moved. People in congress have the CongLinks template, governors have the GovLinks template. Those who have been both have both templates. When a governor runs for federal office, federal links such as the FEC and Open Secrets are either added separately, or the CongLinks template is added to provide formatting. During a campaign, the number of relevant links increases. For example, I remember the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times coverage of Obama was listed, as he was then a Senator from Illinois and so Illinois coverage was the local coverage and Chicago is the only major city in Illinois. It was similar for McCain with Phoenix coverage and Palin with Alaska coverage. Clinton was in New York, which meant national combined with local. As the coverage grew across the country, these links were replaced with a link to the matching Open Directory Project category. The official links and the templates remained in External links, but the category took care of everything else. After the election, the categories and their contents might change according to what the person's position became (President, Senator and so forth). Mitt Romney currently has categories for his 2012 campaign and his 2008 campaign. Ron Paul also has two campaign categories. Today, many of the earlier 2008 links are no longer listed as they've been closed, and it's early in the 2012 campaign so links are still being created by the news media, supporter groups and others. In 2008 the major candidates had various subcategories, but after the election the remaining ones were merged into the one category. If you don't think it's too soon, you could add this instead of those seven local media links: Template:Dmoz The importance of local coverage, however it is included, is that it provides contemporaneous reports on the day to day issues of a state officeholder, which national coverage generally ignores at the time unless it's soundbite-worthy. 75.59.226.113 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to check the old versions of those articles, but I'll trust your logic, as it seems sound and feasible. I'd be up for adding the open directory project link, but I do agree that Veriss is right in the need to cull some of the current external links. Until that's done, I'd hold off on adding it, as there's a risk of losing it in the process. Kessy628 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done: I still think there are too many ELs in there but I've added all of the ones you requested. I took a stab at organizing it and it looks easier to use now in my opinion. Veriss (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The EL's needed culling and I culled the dead and broken links and weak, redundant biographies stipulated by the vaunted template. I detected a certain amount of condescension in your last post and I feel that I'm working for you because you chose not to register an account. A bit more respect would be appreciated.

The wonderful govlinks and conglinks templates though handy and nifty are rather inflexible and outdated in my opinion. I even took the step of editing the govlinks template to bring it up to date. I had noticed before that several links resulted in 404 or yielded sup-par biographies that did the reader no service and needed "culling", they were "culled". Please see my very detailed edit summaries. I never stated that a "mass culling" needed to be done, it appears that I need to be much more careful in my choice of words.

I added every link you explicitly requested and even links you intimated might be useful. I am prepared for your feedback. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The NGA changed their website on July 6, according to a press release on their site. If you replace the natgov parameter with "nga = current-governors/col2-content/main-content-list/rick-perry.html" it will work. (The change in parameter name is to allow an automated search of which current and former governor articles still need to be updated.) The National Governor's Association biographies are more useful for less well-known governors, particularly those with very short Wikipedia and state biographies, but they're included because the NGA is the official group. The Washington Post biography is really quite extensive and very different from the Wikipedia article, which is why it's included. Perhaps you didn't follow the additional sections of Path to Power, The Issues, The Network, and Footnotes. We realized readers were having similar problems with the Project Vote Smart site, which is why some subsections are now listed separately. We could do something similar with the Washington Post site if that would be helpful. The ";2012 Presidential campaign related links" title should be something like ";Government service" as it covers both his current campaign and his service as Governor. I see you didn't use the Open Directory Project template, but listed it in full. There are also templates for NYTtopic, WSJtopic, Guardiantopic and Economisttopic available for use. The advantage to a template is both consistency in formatting and ease of change (sometimes, not in the current case of NGA) if a website changes its structure. In this case, I doubt it matters. As for the rest of your comment, I have no interest in trading insults with you. I took the time to provide a fairly full explanation of the history of the EL sections in politician articles as many Wikipedians, Admins and project members, worked things out over the years. What others found to be useful, you found to be condescending. I was curious to see if that's the view you take when working with others on other articles, and I found it often was. You might consider if perhaps the problem is with your own attitude and assumptions, not with those of others. 75.59.207.72 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be an IP editor, but it doesn't exempt you from WP:NPA. He added the links like you asked, and made a simple comment. Watch it with the personal attacks, and if you think he's not doing what you wanted you're more than welcome to make an account and fix it yourself. Kessy628 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us know when the FEC and Open Secrets sites have information on Perry and I'll populate those fields in the Conglinks template. Veriss (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual news articles

In connection with the above, I see the article currently has a WFAA and a New Yorker article in External links. If these could be moved to be references to the relevant material in the body of the article, that would discourage the addition of other separate news articles. They are about two very specific points, and it doesn't appear encyclopedic for those points and only those points to be highlighted in External links. There are so many collected news sources available for this person that separate news articles aren't needed in this section. 75.59.226.113 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The event the WFAA article covers does not appear to have retained historical notability. The New Yorker article already had two inline citations in the section about the condemned. Veriss (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Anyone interested in helping me get this up to good article status? I think that if we can fill in the areas where citations are needed, and do a little touch up work, the article could pass. Looking at the guidelines, for instance, I think it meets guidelines 1 (well written), 3 (broad in its coverage), and 6 (images) for sure, and with some work could meet the rest of them. Who's with me? Kessy628 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll assist where I can. :) Morphh ^(talk) 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Having participated in a GA project before, I think this article is not stable enough to pass review. One problem is the unsettled, long, ongoing dispute about the Bilderberg issue. My two cents. Veriss (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah my plan is to start working on this in order to get it ready, not submit it for review yet. I figure that while we get the whole Bilderberg issue worked out, the other issues in the article can be worked on and solved. I also agree that the article is not at a point where it can pass review, but I feel that with some work it can get there, especially once the whole Bilderberg dispute is finished with. Kessy628 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be good at finding sources, especially Texas sources. One big area looked at in a GA review is accuracy of cited sources, of course RS and then deadlinks. This article already has a number of deadlinks. We may want to get an editor from one of the major projects to consider evaluating it for B status first. Veriss (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still kinda new, so I don't really know the review process so well. Are you recommending launching the B status review now, to get an idea on where we are? And likewise, is it of your opinion that the article can pass it? I've looked at the Good Article process, but less so at the B status process, so I'm not 100% sure what it entails. Kessy628 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Todd Willingham

Perry:""I think people are making a lot of this issue"

Shake-up in Texas execution probe draws criticism, questions, CNN, October 01, 2009.91.39.75.214 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The source and the quote is already in the article. Veriss (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rick Perry leaning against a jet.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rick Perry leaning against a jet.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Environment Positions need to be edited

I don't know why in the hell this article is locked, but the bit in there about his environmental positions related to climate change needs to say that he believes that "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects."

Here is the cite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/rick-perry-climate-scientists-cooking-the-books_n_929876.html

This is a key accusation by this dude on a major policy issue and needs to be included in this (rather lame) entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kessy628 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast, that's a HuffPost blog entry by what appears to be a freelance blogger. Need to be careful with HuffPost blogs appearing as articles. I know you meant well Kessy but I need to temporarily revert it until we can find other sources. Veriss (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Check lower on the page. There's a video of his speech if you want to link directly to that. Specifically look around 1 min in, and the exact quote is said. Kessy628 (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, was working on the image deletion nomination reply so hadn't had time to look for alternate sources yet. Saw you already reverted. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dudes for changing this--however, I think some caveat needs to be put in there that his accusations about climate science and climate scientists are not presented with reference to actual cases. There is a quote in there of this dude saying something about "every day another scientist is leaving the global warming bandwagon" and there is another quote where he says there are a "substantial number of scientists" pushing global warming for cash. These quotes are presented in the article as him "feeling" or "believing" these things. As a matter of accuracy it needs to be clarified that he is just pulling this crap from nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominionism

I think this belongs in the article, see [10], [11] and other sources. His religion section looks incomplete and possibly pov without this. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

His support from Dominionists is definitely relevant to his campaign and could be covered in the daughter article about the campaign (Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012). It's a little harder to get the wording right for the main bio article. The discussion of his big prayer meeting should report that it was criticized on grounds of the separation of church and state, but the problem with reporting his opinions is that, AFAIK, he's been largely dog-whistling. If he's overtly endorsed a theocracy, we can report that. If he's been cannier about it, though, then our task is harder. There are two obvious solutions that are both easy and both wrong: confining ourselves to reporting only his exact words, and giving complete free rein to every interpretation that's been offered. It would help if you (or somebody) would take a stab at using this talk page to suggest a first draft for discussion. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry#Supreme Court Justice Steve Smith

This section has been tagged as uncited since June. After reading it twice, it seems to go into detail about the political misfortunes of a justice but barely relates to Perry. My inclination is that it can be reduced to a short paragraph and moved to the general section about Perry's term as Gov. or removed completely. In what ever form it takes it of course needs to be sourced or removed soon. Veriss (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking for sources in my free time for that section, and I've found limited nonpartisan, non-blog sources detailing it. It may be better to remove it completely, unless someone can find mainstream sources. Kessy628 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Governorship and political positions -- a suggestion

Right now we have a section on Perry's governorship that (properly) includes his record as Governor, but also includes things he's said -- and although he said them while Governor, they didn't relate to his office. For example, the Governor of Texas is not responsible for supervising the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or for having him beaten up when appropriate. This and several other passages in that section really belong in a separate "Political positions" section. This is the organization followed in, for example, the Mitt Romney article.

If the two subjects are broken out, there will be some duplication, as the "Political positions" section should include reference to positions he took in the course of being Governor. I don't see a big problem if there's some overlap of that sort.

Does anyone see any reason not to effect this re-organization? JamesMLane t c 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think yours is a good suggestion. Veriss (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to implement it now. Seleucus (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As you noted, there were a lot of passages that could plausibly belong in both sections; I only moved the unambiguous ones, for now. Seleucus (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add Perry's investment in pornography distributor to article.

I propose that the following text be added to the article:

Perry has been accused of hypocrisy for investing between $5,000 and $10,000 of his own money in Movie Gallery, the country's largest distributor of pornography. The company had been under boycott by the American Family Association, a supporter of Perry's.

71.182.251.33 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a poor source for controversial items. However it has also been mentioned by Salon and the International Business Times (which I've never heard of before). It's a rather small investment, and I wouldn't think it to be especially noteworthy. But in politics it's hard to say which story will get traction. If we add it we should say who is accusing him of hypocrisy.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I recall Movie Gallery mostly rented mainstream movies. Porn being a hot-botton issue, if the article includes this, fairness demands that a statement from Perry's camp also be included. It's going to turn into a whole paragraph devoted to what is not a major story. Brmull (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the original commenter in this thread. Only 3 minutes after posting, the commentator made this substantial post, and is therefore almost certain to be the banned editor User:Grundle2600. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Tracking the Flow of Money

"The administration of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, has doled out millions of dollars in grants that benefit some of his most generous donors. State money awarded to G-Con, a pharmaceutical start-up, provides an example of how state grants appear to be paying dividends for some major Perry contributors."

• Tracking the Flow of Money nytimes.com.84.147.102.235 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Perry Mines Texas System to Raise Cash for Campaigns nytimes.com August 20, 2011.84.147.102.235 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Porn profits

• Rick Perry accused of hypocrisy as he comes under fire for investment in America's largest pornography distributor.84.147.102.235 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed with the relevant link in the section right above this one. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's abstinence education

"The problem here isn’t just that Perry has the wrong answer. The more meaningful problem is that Perry doesn’t seem to know how to even formulate an answer. He starts with a proposition in his mind (abstinence-only education is effective), and when confronted with evidence that the proposition appears false (high teen-pregnancy rates), the governor simply hangs onto his belief, untroubled by evidence. As Jon Chait put it, Perry seems to struggle “even to think in empirical terms"

• Perry, parties, and pragmatism washingtonmonthly.com August 19, 2011. (Featuring a very interesting v clip)
• A Portrait Of Rick Perry's Mind At Work tnr.com August 18,2011

91.4.231.207 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing of one sentence in section 5.3 - Social Policy

The explanation of Perry's "Mandatory Ultrasound Bill" says that "Before every abortion, the abortion practitioner must give an explanation of the sonogram images of the unborn child. The woman may waive this right only in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and judicial bypass for a minor."

The problem I see is that this procedure is mandatory, potentially against the woman's will, which means it is not a right, it is an obligation. I suggest an amendment of the explanation to read as follows:

"The woman has the right to waive this procedure only in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and judicial bypass for a minor."

This more accurately describes the relationship between the woman's rights and the law's force.

Mguttman (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. The former wording was ambiguous. Done. Kessy628 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sub-articles?

The "Governor" section has gotten huge. Do you think it's time to move it into a sub-article and replace with a summary? That seems to be standard practice for articles like this, such as Barack Obama or Sarah Palin. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)