Jump to content

Talk:Rick Perry/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Merge Economy and Fiscal Policy?

Per the discussion above about expanding the economy section it's increasingly clear that the section cannot be expanded with out getting bogged down in a quagmire of campaign claims and counterclaims. I propose that the Economy section be placed as is under the Fiscal Policy section, which would then be renamed Economic Policy. Brmull (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We're suppose to be converting the entire Governor of Texas section to a summary style anyway. There should be no Fiscal Policy or Economy section in this article. Any discussion with regard to it's detailed contents should be handled on Governorship of Rick Perry. Morphh (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Brmull (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry as Governor of Texas - a copy & paste move which deleted material here & lost the page history

This new article is a problem. First, where's the discussion here to remove all the material to a new article? Secondly, as it stands it is copyvio because it's lost all its contribution history. See Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Fixing_cut_and_paste_moves - it's got to be fixed by someone if it is agreed that this was a good move. I'm also not sure about the title. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a coy/paste move, it's a split. It may not have the proper contribution history, but splits are allowed. See #Sub-articles?, above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The move was inappropriate and undiscussed. The Political views section of this article was gutted by the move, with the editor responsible for the move deciding for himself which subsections stayed and which ones were deleted ("moved"). The entire move was unnecessary and should be undone. ROG5728 (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I've undone it and changed the new article to a redirect here pending discussion. Yes, splits are allowed but you still need to do them properly, and as it was done it's also copyvio. If the article is to be split it should be done through a discussion and in a way which gives us two sensible articles, probably with some duplicated material. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is taking place a few sections up Organization_of_article. Morphh (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I see. But I don't seem to be the only one not happy with it. What seems to have been agreed is that "the next step would be to lay out what goes where. And there is the challenge of writing good summary paragraphs in the main article, summarizing the content of the daughter article". Not that the next step would be a copy, delete and paste leaving the problems I mention above. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ya, I think we have some agreement that the article is becoming too long and the Governorship of Rick Perry would be a good sub-article, but haven't discussed the transition. Guess a couple editors are being WP:BOLD and trying to get things done, figuring we'd work the summary out as we go. Either way, I'm sure we'll get it strait. :) Morphh (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I started the sub-article this morning based on the conversation above -- I didn't realize there was a similar conversation going on here. Having a sub-article is uncontroversial -- many, many biographical articles have them, including Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and John McCain. What will no doubt generate controversy is reducing the "Governor" section of this article to a summary. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You were the second person to do this! Anyway, the only controversial thing would be how to do it. See Wikipedia:Summary style which describes how it should be done, and especially Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which deals with the problem of copyvio (which the sub-article technically is at the moment, will you please fix this?). As talk page histories get archived, deleted, etc. I always recommend a null edit (just add a space somewhere and an edit summary saying 'Null edit, this article was copied from whatever). Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea attribution would be an issue. I made the null edit as you recommended. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It took me a while to figure this out also, but I've seen at least one editor blocked, but then he was refusing to do this. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's a mess and has to be cut and summarized substantially. Plus there probably have been improvements here that need to be moved over. It's called a big job. Who wants to take it on?? (Later note User:Coemgenus said on Governorship article he'll try.) CarolMooreDC 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I just took a moment to review the entire article after the summary style conversion work and I think that over all the editors did a good job. The article was much too long before forcing the reader to wade/skim through much too much local detail to get the gist. The article is still fairly long at 80k. Good job, that task was not easy. Veriss (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Stem cells

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/perry-touts-stem-cell-therapy/ Questions raised over legality of Perry’s stem cell treatments

Which section does this go under, personal life or health care policy? Hcobb (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is the Houston Chronicle not considered a proper source for the Governor of Texas?

c.f.:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

Hcobb (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"N*ggerhead" hunting camp

This is all over the news, but nowhere on this page, because the slightest mention is reverted. Hcobb (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Any contentious claims made in a BLP must be strongly sourced. I noted that the WaPo article which seems to have been one source for the HuffPo opinion piece given as the cite might be usable, but that the claim must be precisely worded in accord with facts in that article. I am sorry if you feel this is censorship in any way, it is just required by Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I normally don't get too involved in overtly political discourse but this issue needs to be addressed right away. I'll provide some sources from a few of the more liberal oriented papers to get things started:
Need some conservative commentary to balance things out. Let's do this right. Veriss (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating society. The aim is to write BLPs conservatively (not in the political sense of the word) and to that end WP:BLP has specific rules. One of which is that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and another is that material of minor significance should be given weight only in proportion to its significance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand your objection. I provided three WaPost, two NYTimes and one LA Times article as potential sources. What about those sources is not strong? I recognized those three sources are seen by some as having a liberal viewpoint so I suggested that sources from more conservative reliable media, such as the Washington Times, be considered to keep a balance. Veriss (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think the paragraph belongs in the "Presidential Campaign" section. I'm not sure where it should go. If there was a "Controversy" section, I'd say put it there, but there isn't one. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it belongs there as well but since it appears that he and his family have been associated with the camp since 1983, basically his entire political career, it doesn't really belong in the personal section either. I don't think controversy sections are encouraged so one shouldn't be made. Veriss (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Controversy sections are common on Wikipedia. How about "Hunting camp controversy"? Here is another article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behind-the-rick-perry-hunting-camp-story/2011/10/07/gIQAbNvzTL_story.html --Timeshifter (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Find me the controversy section on Barack Obama and we will look at adding one here.--JOJ Hutton 14:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Policy: According to Wikipedia founder, Jim Wales on the policy page Wikipedia: Criticism

"The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic."

There is a much more in depth discussion about it on that page but the take-away is that dedicated controversy sections are often just potential dumping grounds, adversely affect due weight and are disencouraged. Veriss (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Here's my two cents on the matter. Does this belong in an article about Rick Perry? Yes, it is a big deal. Does this belong in his biography? Not really. I'd personally say lets put this in his presidential campaign article and call it a day. Kessy628 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it does belong in his biography. It is not an isolated gaffe or oopsie that happened while on the campaign trail last month. It appears to have been part and parcel to his whole 28-year political career. Many will feel that his association with it reflects on his humility, wisdom, judgement and commonsense; if not also his capacity for awareness of racial issues. It is part of Rick Perry the person and the career politician, not just the 2012 campaign. Veriss (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually most in the media have already moved on. Its really a non-story compared to attending a racist church, which also is not in anyone's biography.--JOJ Hutton 02:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's be careful to keep our comments centered on the point at hand, and not make snide political remarks about what is and isn't in another wiki page. What is or is not added should be based on wiki policy, not a political tit for tat POV pushing. 204.65.34.39 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Subprime Perry

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/10/03/perry_bet_big_on_tax_grants_to_subprime_lenders/

Is the AP a reliable source anymore? Hcobb (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The AP churns out a lot of stories that are heavily abridged by their subscribing media outlets. So the answer to your question is that it depends. The Washington Post editors did a much more in depth analysis of the same article that appears to be more balanced then the abridged boston.com article and would be a better starting point for research.
The WaPo version includes context such as motives for governors, that caps were put in place for Texas loans, some enterprise funds were contractually recouped from Countrywide and that his Attorney General conducted investigations. If it doesn't become a national campaign issue then it may be best to present it in the Governorship sub-article. Veriss (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

(An Editor) has been officially warned about that policy and the fact that anyone could likely report the current apparent violation at WP:AN/EW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, and I was worrying that I had become too confrontational regarding this article. Sir, you just called out an editor by name on the talk pages. That is really not good. I won't insult you by pasting in the WP:Links concerning AGF that say we shouldn't do that as you are an experienced editor with almost 20k edits and surely know about them. I have taken a couple breaks from this article, perhaps you might consider one as well. Veriss (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutrally worded notices are not "attacks." I have made few edits to this article other than to follow WP:BLP requirements which some seem to forget. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy on the English Civil War

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/12/8279640-perry-commits-post-debate-gaffe-on-revolutionary-war

What section does support for the English Civil War go under? Hcobb (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Prolly as "really important" as someone saying there are 57 states. The English Civil War was in the 17th century. Wikipedia has enough totally unimportant stuff that it need not seek out further unimportant stuff. `Collect (talk) Collect (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Perry appears to be referring to the American Revolution, and not the English Civil War. -Darouet (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a simple slip of the tongue rather than a significant gaffe. Unless the story gets more traction it'd be too trivial to add. If it does get more attention it'd belong in the campaign article.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's gotten enough coverage to be a notable gaffe, in the campaign section. But I wouldn't spend more than a sentence on it, and one might want to put it in context of it being notable based on other historical gaffes Perry has made (Texas secession, etc).204.65.34.39 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs improvement

This article needs improvement. Step back for a moment and think of what a biography is. Then look at the article. There is too much emphasis on the NRA giving him a A or he opposes Obamacare (but he is a state governor, which has no say). Why not include his opinion on Hawaii Five-O or Sudoku? See, let's focus on his biography.

I will let others make suggestions first. This is to show that I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not have a political agenda for or against the man. Only if there are no suggestions will I start adding and deleting. BAMP (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BAMP. This article needs a lot of work, especially in the "Personal life" section. I understand that Anita Thigpen Perry has a very accomplished career and appears to be a very successful person by her own merits, but her professional life should not be the dominant material for a link to her husband's personal life. It makes it seem as though perhaps he has little to no personal life whatsoever, and makes me wonder if this information was crammed in here to hide that fact and make his article longer; this would be a poor, transparent attempt to make him look better. It would be better not to have the section here at all. I do not know much about Rick Perry. That is why I came to this page in the first place. I was very disappointed. I am sorry BAMP that I cannot give more information to improve this article. It is looking like no one else has information either. You may have to delete it down to a self sustaining size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardGindel (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In a BLP - the claims must actually be relevant to the person

Wpiki with 22 edits seems bent on adding material which in no way has a direct connection to Perry. I suggest that this be dealt with sternly on this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not "sternly on this talk page". The editor in question has edited this article and this article only, with zero talk page edits. There is no indication the editor will read or respond to anything here. Each inappropriate edit should result in the appropriate edit. For material that is not about Perry, the appropriate warning is for original research. I have just tagged the editor with {{subst:Uw-nor1|Rick Perry}}. Once the editor has racked up four of these, take them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a block. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
EW warning now given to him (he had one from me last month as well). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Governorship of Rick Perry

Since we have such an article, can we chop down everything about it to a paragraph or so with the big reference to the article in question? Anything more would be duplication and cherry picking. Hcobb (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

On 7 October, I cut the section down from 82k (12k larger than the actual separate article dedicated to the topic) to 23k, although it was doubtlessly expanded some since then. My intention was not to "cherry pick", but to retain the information that seemed most significant while presenting it more compactly and to cut out unnecessary details, as well as statements that had no reliable citation. I don't think it's "cherry picking" to make a judgment that some events and actions are more significant than others. I have no particular opinion about whether the section should be reduced further; I simply wanted to provide you with background on the state of this section that you don't appear to be aware of. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New doctors

The WaPo article states: Medical rolls increased by 24 percent since 2003, while Texas’ population was soaring by 20 percent during the decade. Any claim made in this article which implies that grwoth per capita in medical coverage did not occur is a misuse of the WaPo source, as it does not make such a claim. (I find that a 20% increase in population is "soaring" while a 24% increase in doctors is merely an "increase" to be odd. <g>) Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to the text I suggested, which was: "However, state data suggests the resulting increase in access to medical care has fallen far short of what Perry had predicted." That text, which has nothing to do with the number of doctors, appears to me to be exactly what the Associated Press article (not originating with the Post) is saying: "[T]he bulk of that influx has come in larger cities where health care was already abundant, leaving large rural swaths of Texas still without doctors... Health care shortages have plagued rural Texas for decades and few regions struggle more than West Texas... Perry made access to health care a major argument for tort reform... Perry told a New York audience how three out of five Texas counties lacked an obstetrician...Eight years later, that ratio is the same." The point of the article is that the areas that struggled for access to medical care before tort reform, are still struggling, regardless of whether there are more doctors in the state. "State data suggests the resulting increase in access to medical care has fallen far short of what Perry had predicted" does not misrepresent that point.
That being said, I would be open to including some mention that the number of doctors has increased, perhaps: "While the number of doctors registered in the state increased, state data suggests the resulting increase in access to medical care has fallen far short of what Perry had predicted." (And, to address your aside about "soaring" vs. "increase": 20% is a very high rate of population growth. Since you would naturally expect the medical rolls to also increase by 20%, commensurate with the population, a rate of 24% in the medical rolls isn't as impressive as the 20% rate for the population.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires claims to actually be relevant to the person involved. The proposed claim was : However, state data suggests the resulting increase in access to medical care has fallen far short of what Perry had predicted. This claim is not borne out by the source. In fact, WaPo states the number of doctors has increased by 24% while the population increased only 20%. By any standard, this means there are more doctors per capita than before. As Texas has increasingly urbanized, it is not amazing that tiny rural counties, some with populations under 25,000 (which is a tiny population to support any specialist physician anywhere in the US) number roughly 198 (roughly 2/5 counties would never have a specialist physician under any reasonable circumstances). - and none of them would in any part of the US be remotely likely to have a specialist doctor! In fact, some counties have under 100 total population - so playing the "number of counties" game when the article clearly states that the number of doctors rose faster than the population would be an abuse of Wikipedia. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
1. Increased access to medical care is not the same thing as increased numbers of doctors. If Texas has enough doctors in Houston, and not enough doctors in Fort Worth, and a thousand more doctors move to Houston, there has been no increase in access to medical care, because nobody is able to access medical care who wasn't previously able to. 2. Perry said that tort reform would significantly increase access to medical care. One example he gave of poor access was that three out of five Texas counties have no obstetrician. 3. The AP article says that tort reform has not significantly increased access to medical care. One example it gives is that the situation Perry described as inadequate has not changed. (If it's not a problem that 3 out of 5 counties have no obstetrician, why did Perry bring it up as an example of inadequate access?) 4. The statement "State data suggests the resulting increase in access to medical care has fallen short of what Perry had predicted" is an objective summary of the preceding facts. (I revised "far short" to just "short" -- that was really another editor's phrasing, not mine.) 5. In an undoubtedly futile effort toward compromise despite no indication of any interest from your end, my new proposed text would be: "While the number of doctors registered in the state increased, an Associated Press analysis of state data suggested the resulting gain in access to medical care has fallen short of what Perry had predicted." Theoldsparkle (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The article specified rural areas - like the county with 65 total population. The article also specified the 24% increase in doctors - so eliding that in order to make a political editorial point is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well as violating WP:BLP. Cheers - I don't particularly care for Perry, but he dang well is entitled to a proper WP-policy compliant BLP. Collect (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty impressive how you can continue to pretend, without apparent shame, that you're unable to understand the difference between an increase in the number of doctors and an increase in access -- even when I've suggested that we refer to both points in the same sentence! The distinction really isn't very complicated, but it is essential to understanding the article's point that, while the number of doctors has increased significantly, the access to those doctors has not increased significantly. (Although maybe your policy references are meant to imply that the article's point shouldn't be mentioned because the Associated Press is unreliable because a source with a neutral POV wouldn't try to make that point. But apparently it would be okay with you if we only used the part about the number of doctors increasing, so I dunno.) I don't personally care that much whether the content is included or not, and since nobody else has chosen to support it, at this point I'm planning to move on from this discussion/tutorial in critical reading skills. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an Obama moment!

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I wish someone in the campaign gets hold of the video when Obama could not remember something he wanted to tell the audience about the economy, a couple of years ago and he labored for longer time trying to remember. I would play a Governor's video saying that he had an Obama moment(laughing). This would stop the liberal media from making too much of what happened at the debate.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.221.23 (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox? Liberal media? Writegeist (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A&M Transcript

The article's reference to a 2.5 GPA seems to be second- or third- hand.

The primary reference on Perry's academic performance seems to be: Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds, by Jason Cherkis at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html First Posted: 8/5/11 12:57 PM ET Updated: 8/5/11 05:18 PM ET, or equivalently http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript CountMacula (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That topic was discussed at excruciating length a while ago; see: Talk:Rick Perry/Archive 3#Rick Perry's G.P.A.. I gather that the consensus – not too surprisingly – was to follow Wikipedia policies and use the number printed in a reliable secondary source rather than making assumptions about A&M's computation methodology, possible adjustments, and procedure for combining two separate grade-point scales used during his time there in order to compute an average ourselves. There were also some questions about the validity and provenance of the document posted online. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I don't see that the exact number is of extreme importance. But I think we could afford a reference to what has to be considered the most telling record of his academic performance. It is not as if it would be worthless clutter. It can just sit there at the bottom of the article with one little superscript in the main text.CountMacula (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
As to provenance and validity, I don't see that the putative transcript should be more dubious than the Texas Tribune article mentioning both his GPA and the unbelievable story about the M80 coming up through a toilet. I hear neither of Perry suing Huffington over a forged transcript nor of anybody being imprisoned for blowing off somebody's genitals with a giant firecracker.CountMacula (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
In the US it is virtually impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel suit - so they are exceedingly rare. Lack of a libel suit does not mean anything about the "truth" of printed allegations. Collect (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

many sources say perry is out of the running after his debate freeze

Rick Perry scrambles to recover from debate 'oops'

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111110-rick-perry-scrambles-to-recover-from-debate-oops.ece

And Mark McKinnon, the media consultant to Bush, wrote for the on-line Daily Beast that Perry had officially disqualified himself for the presidency.

"Perry is now a dead man walking," McKinnon wrote. "Once they’re laughing at you, you’re finished. Perry supporters Wednesday night were running out in the dark and pulling out yard signs."

The reaction followed from a moment in the second half of a CNBC-sponsored debate when Perry spoke about slashing federal spending.

"I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the -- what’s the third one there? Let’s see."

After struggling for more than 30 seconds, searching notes, looking to opponents, Perry still could not recover.

"The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with, Education, the...Commerce and, let’s see. I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops," Perry said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Paterno (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In a recent debate, Perry mentioned this mental lapse. It is becoming important for the article. Jack Paterno (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What others say about him doesn't matter. As far as the event, it is mentioned in the Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012 article. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gore Campaign

Last I heard, it was revealed that Perry was NOT the Gore '88 campaign chair in Texas. The article cited from Politifact has since been updated (see here) and the other one is dubious at best. I didn't want to change it unilaterally without discussion, so I will wait for a couple days to change it. Because honestly, it seems to me that, AT BEST, this sentence "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas" should be changed to something like "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries." Or, possibly "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and served in the Texas campaign in an un-specified capacity". What do you think? Vyselink (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been awhile, and no one has said anything, so I changed it using updated information. Vyselink (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Glebe edit

I removed this statement from the bottom of the section on the 2012 Presidential Campaign: "Glebe resident(sic) are fond of their dilapidated tram sheds, and are not happy to see them traduced in this way." Perhaps it could be replaced by a similar statement which includes citations and NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoUnDoLe (talk • contribs) 09:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Death Penalty NPOV

The current wording of the section reads like a campaign commercial for Rick Perry, "bucking the system and killing people." While I'm actually a fan of Rick Perry for President and don't really care one way or another about the death penalty as long as the people being put to death are actually, you know ...•guilty•, this doesn't do wikipedia justice to how disputed this information is, by the vast majority of the scientific community. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your contention that the section is pro-Perry; any section which accurately presents a politician's position and actions on an issue will be seen in a positive light by those agreeing with the stand and in a negative light by those on the opposing side.
The article factually states:
  • He supports the death penalty.
  • He vetoed a law restricting its use.
  • Texas has executed 200+ people during his term as governor.
  • He has been criticized for not intervening in some high-profile cases.
  • He has commuted the sentence of one person and pardoned another, both on the recommendation of the appropriate commission.
The one objection I could see here would be that the two cases in the last point seem a bit random; it would be nice if reliable sources could be found to flesh out questions such as "in how many cases has the commission recommended a sentence reduction of some type?" and "in how many cases has Perry followed that recommendation?"
In the past, others here have pointed out Texas' constitutional limits on the ability of the governor to unilaterally intervene in capital cases. Those posts have generally consisted of synthesis, and are not in the article for that reason. Similarly, any opinions of the "scientific community" – or the "religious community", the general "anti–death penalty community", or any other community – on the death penalty itself belong in the article on capital punishment; they are irrelevant here unless Perry's actions or positions are specifically addressed in a widely reported communique from that community. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


No SYNTH is needed per [1] which is an official page of the Texas government and is thus RS for this.
The governor has the authority to grant clemency upon the written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
that is, he can not act in cases not recommended by that board. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to site sources, which I believe needs to be done for the second paragraph of the death penalty section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MademoiselleBelle (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it reads negatively for Perry. It makes him seem like the biggest Pro-Death Penalty conservative of all time. It should be written to express his view with facts showing both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.142.228 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Crime

The quote in the reference saying Perry has done more than any other governor for the Innocence project goes on to say, "Unless, of course, it involves the death penalty. On the death penalty, Rick Perry has a profound mental block."

I know that there is a separate section on the death penalty, but it is misleading to have half of a quotation in one section. It makes it seem like the quote says that Perry has done more than any other governor for the innocence project, and this is not what the quote says or what it implies. It is therefore taken badly out of context.

Createangelos (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


Further to this, I would like to give an analogy to explain my exact point. Suppose someone said "The head and feet of a hippo weigh less than a gazelle does," and this were quoted in Wikipedia as "a hippo weighs less than a gazelle does."

There may or may not be a hippo weighing less than a gazelle, but my point is that the quotation does not say anything about the relative weight of a hippo versus that of a gazelle, it is a neutral statement on that point, only comparing the weight of the head and feet of a hippo to the weight of a gazelle.

The fact that the article has a separate section about crime and a separate section about the death penalty is fine, but again that does not justify the mis-application of the quotation, any more than putting the quote 'A hippo weighs more than a gazelle' into a magazine about butchery and exotic meats would justify the deletion of part of the quotation. It is not more true, in the context of sale of animal parts, that an entire hippo weighs more than an entire gazelle, than it would be true in any other context. If it is true it is true, if it is not true, it is not. It is just not what the un-excerpted sentence says. Deleting part of a quotation to change the meaning is not unconditionally corrected by using the truncated quotation in a more limited context.

92.26.60.81 (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I have edited this to include the rest of the Blackburn quotation. I admit that this is not ideal as in essence two sections include a quote about the death penalty, I'm certainly OK if someone has a better solution than just including the full Blackburn quote in the Crime section. But again to stress that the subdivision of material between sections is a more minor issue than a quotation taken out of context in a way that alters its meaning.

A better solution might be to combine the two sections, or else to replace the Blackburn quote with separate quotations that separately deal with punishment of crimes through incarceration and through death.

The layout of the article isn't ideal but questions of layout should take a back seat to questions of how much of a quotation is relevant to the meaning of what is said.


Createangelos (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2011

This article deliberately misquotes Rick Perry's recent 'Strong' Campaign, only quoting the first part of Rick Perry's sentence, "There's something wrong when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, and your kids can't openly celebrate Christmas."...............just quoting "There's something wrong when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military."

This is not objective, and represents the editor's critical view of Rick Perry which might biase the opinions of others by misquoting.

Minho576 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The quote has been fixed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 2011/12/12

After the line about the 'Strong' campaign, it would be nice to mention that "It was widely parodied". Here's a reference. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-strong-ad-spawns-parodies-20111212,0,2863984.story 97.112.203.215 (talk)

At most, this would belong in the campaign article.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction - slight change proposed

I cannot edit the article. I propose a slight alteration to the introduction to move the present sentence "Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas state history" to run directly on from two other statements about his length of tenure. It would look like this (with the changes highlighted here in bold).

A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full gubernatorial terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010. With a tenure in office to date of 23 years, 339 days, Perry is the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor, the second longest serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa, and is the longest serving governor in Texas state history. Perry served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 (succeeding Sonny Perdue of Georgia) and again in 2011.[1] Due to his long tenure, he is the only governor in modern Texas history to have appointed at least one person to every eligible state office, board, or commission position (as well as to several elected offices to which the governor can appoint someone to fill an unexpired term, such as six of the nine current members of the Texas Supreme Court).

One of you auto-confirmed editors can do it. It might be noted that the statements about his tenure records, and his having made appointments to every possible office, should have cited references. Darcyj (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Small suggestion - instead of saying he took office "in December 2000" - why not state that he was sworn into office on December 21, 2000. I mean isn't this supposed to be an online encyclopedia? Isn't specificity and fact the kind of thing people want when they come here? Trevor Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.46.116 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive.com

The linked page off archive.com is not a reliable source for the assertion that he has Choctaw ancestry. Firstly it is anonymous, secondly these pages are not vetted, thirdly they are not independently published, fourthly the writer (unknown) is not a professional in their field.Wjhonson (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

transcript

So far I can not find any reliable source for his "transcript" other than HuffPo ascribing it to an anonymous source. This is less than required by WP:BLP at this point. The NYT simply calls it a "transcript circulated on the Internet" which means the NYT seems to have doubts as to its provenance. [2] Collect (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry: Tort Reform Hypocrite

http://kansascity.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/rick-perry-tort-reform-hypocrite.aspx?googleid=297120

I don't think this is quite up to BLP RS standards, but somebody notable will most likely point this out soon. Hcobb (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Send Troops Back To Iraq"

His remark about sending U.S. troops back to Iraq ought to be mentioned on here. 70.253.88.172 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

lede

Why is there nothing about his strong anti-gay stance in the lede? He's one of the most anti-gay politicians in recent memory. Pass a Method talk 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No other of his political stances are in the lead. Is there a reason why this particular political stance should be in the lead and not any other?--JOJ Hutton 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

inaccuracy in selected "strong" quote

the article claims that Rick Perry, in his ad "Strong", says that "children cannot openly celebrate Christmas", however, the actual line he says is that "children cannot openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.". I don't claim this needs to be edited in, but am just pointing out that the selected quote does not capture the entire message that Rick Perry was conveying in his sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.170.82 (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Perry isn't pro-life

Someone who approved 200+ executions (including the innocent, juveniles and mentally disabled) cannot be considered or described as "pro-life". Therefore, I suggest changing the "pro-life" phrase in the health section to something like "opposed to abortion rights". 38.111.32.82 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

While I may tend to agree with your sentiment, there's no denying that the term "pro life" has come to mean anti-abortion (and the legalization of it). --Musdan77 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as the terms 'Pro-Life' and 'Anti-abortion' are analogous to one another, I don't see the substitution as necessarily improper. I do understand Musdan77's point about how the term "pro-life" has been used by the political class and has the general understanding that he states. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


Off Topic: Request for Comment on Mitt Romney

I figure since Perry has ended his presidential campaign that wiki editors that have followed the Perry article can be good neutral voices on the discussion page of the Mitt Romney article, Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time. Any feedback would be appreciated! K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This Entire Entry Should Be Heavily Pruned

The presentation and interpretation of information in this entry is so politically and philosophically biased that it is something you would expect to read in the /r politics area of reddit. I doubt the 57% of Texans who elected Mr. Perry over his Democrat opponent see him as this article portrays him. For example the budget "deficits" are juxtaposed with corporate tax breaks in a obvious manner such as to create a cause-and-effect relationship. The use of the term "deficit" is in itself a biased term, since Texas, unlike the US government, cannot operate with a deficit. That the press chooses to be inaccurate in its use of this term is no reason why wikipedia should allow political bias to creep into its usage.

Failing a substantial re-write of this entire entry, it should be reduced to a minimum of non-controversial information and eliminating obvious political bias. Carrellk (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)carrellk

After seeing who added the Deficit section I am not suprised at all. I am sure there is more that could be done, but you are correct about the blatent POV pushing within that section. Arzel (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
How true, but this is wikipedia; generally what possibility is there that a non-Dem could get unbiased treatment; no one who takes reality seriously can generally take wikipedia seriously. 192.182.40.241 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)RussD

Perry blames Satan: Separation of religious and civic institutions

"“Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena,” Perry said during the call on Tuesday, organized by the Rev. Rick Scarborough...Perry said the separation of religious and civic institutions in the U.S. began with a “narrative” that first took root in the 1960s."

Branstad?

Isn't Perry the longest serving current Governor? Branstad of Iowa, was out of office, from 1999 to 2011. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

These kinds of statistics do not normally have to be concurrent. Even so it would result in a strange statistic to present in any other manner. Branstad was the longest serving governor in straight years from 83-99, exceeding Perry's 12 years. To be grammatically correct for your statistic you would have to say that Perry is the longest current serving conrrent Governor. Branstad still has more time as Governor and also still has the longester consecutive time spent as governor. If Perry makes it to 18 years he could take the longest consecutive term, but it would take quite a bit of time to take over the top spot for total time. Arzel (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Death Penalty

I included the link to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the cite to their website (which, incidentally, I got from another article-- scarcely original research) because (a) it is mentioned in the very section I was editing, and it probably helps explain to readers why it's relevant that the Board issued a recommendation in the cases where Perry granted clemency, and (b) it corrects an NPOV issue, which is that the article refers to criticisms Perry received for not acting, without mentioning the constraints on his action. Please do not revert. I would be happy to discuss the issue further here to try to reach a consensus if you have concerns. DCB4W (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It occurred to me that there ought to be a news article somewhere that said the same thing. I found it, and have added it to the current version. DCB4W (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The news article, referring specifically to Perry, is what we need. Pulling a source that does not mention the subject of the article (Perry) and using it to explain something you feel is relevant about the subject is synthesis, which we do not allow. Without this guideline, we could state that Perry looks [insert adjective here] in the photo because red ties make men look [insert adjective here] and cite some source somewhere discussing red ties.
As it stands now, the article says something that the sources do not. The source does refer to Perry, but the article cites it regarding Perry in the Foster and Brown cases, which the article does not discuss.
We should probably use the source to discuss Perry's image as someone who "presides" over lots of executions vs. the reality that he has little say. We will need to be careful to separate it from the material on Foster and Brown so as not to imply that this necessarily applies to those cases. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I disagree with you about that constituting synthesis. By your logic, stating that President Reagan left office after two terms, followed by a statement that the Constitution limits Presidents to two terms, with a citation to the relevant constitutional provision, would constitute synthesis. Or citing a source that the F-22 can move in excess of Mach 1 without using its afterburners, and then citing another source to comment that "speeds in excess of Mach 1 without using afterburners are known as 'supercruise' capabilities" citing a source that doesn't specifically refer to the F-22 would constitute synthesis. I don't believe that is the correct application of the policy. In this article, given that the Governor of Texas NEVER can pardon without the blessing of the Board, it necessarily does apply to these cases, but I didn't actually say it did. (The "therefore C" line from the Synthesis policy is missing.) I merely included relevant data, which the reader could consider. Nonetheless, we seem to have straightened out this article reasonably well. DCB4W (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Reagan and F-22 examples (as you describe them) would be synthesis. The WP:SYN limitation exists, IMO, to prevent editors from adding original research in various ways. Cite the Bible saying God did whatever, cite a scientific text saying that's impossible. Hey presto, God does not exist. Cite a source saying John Smith did something, cite a source saying that's illegal. Bingo: Smith's a criminal. Wikipedia does not exist to present novel arguments about Perry's powers as governor, God's existence or Reagan's qualifying to run for a third term. If the information is relevant to the topic, there will be sources discussing the information in relation to the topic. If such sources do not exist, the information (for our purposes) is irrelevant. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we're just going to need to disagree on this one. See WP:SYNTHNOT. There's no "position" that my examples advance. I'd also dispute your characterization of my original edit as presenting "novel arguments," but that's water under the drawbridge now. DCB4W (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't normally monitor this article; in fact, I don't recall why it's on my watchlist. But what you described as not being synthesis clearly is synthesis. Determining whether the actual juxtaposition constitutes synthesis would require more work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I removed the stale -- 1 year and 7 months old -- tag. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Rick Perry's residence

Rick Perry's residence is Barton Creek Estates neighborhood in West Austin and not the Mansion which is under renovation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco2013 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Again? They just completed a major one a little over a year ago. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Typhoid Perry

What's the beef against reporting the return of historical diseases to Perry's Texas? Is it the sourcing? Hcobb (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources mention Perry and one of the sources states that these diseases are likely to have been around for quite awhile. How do you come to the conclusion that they belong in this article? Your insertion of this material leads one to believe that Perry is responsible when even the sources do not make such a accusatory claim. It is almost impossible to assume good faith regarding your edit. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

NYT editorial

Covers the indictment, and is scarcely kind to Perry, but less kind to the indictment. Collect (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a great find. I've made some minor wording tweaks to make the NYT opinion conform to WP:NPOV.- MrX 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Felony indictment

I'm a little puzzled by the removal of this information from the lede and also the factual content that was removed from the body of the article in these edits. For example, why remove the penalty for the charges? Several sources have made note of it. What about the facts about the Governor's office defense? A felony indictment is not a small thing, so I see no reason to treat it as a footnote.- MrX 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We of course need to follow the lead of reliable sources. Still those reliable sources are being stupid by reporting the statutory maximum sentence when there is realistically no chance of the accused getting such an extreme sentence even if convicted. Its misleading, but as long as its the reliable sources being misleading, its probably a lost cause to try to stop the inclusion. Monty845 16:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That was generally my thought as well.- MrX 17:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
MrX: There is an article from a reliable source that points out several Democrats and liberals who disagree with most of what Perry believes finds the indictment to be political and weak. I put in the information with the information sourced and you removed it. That information is notable and you need to explain why you ripped all of it out without explanation. The only comment you made is that I need to talk on the talk page. There is no consensus for your edit.--NK (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edit removed several sources and replaced them with other sources, I guess to support the ~40% of this content which now dismisses the seriousness of the charges and which is supported by a single article (Business Insider). This is WP:UNDUE based on what I've read in the sources.
The biggest and most inexplicable issue though is that you removed the content from the lede with explanations of "This information is in the body of the article. No justification for it to be in the lede." and "info does not belong in lede". This contravenes WP:LEDE, specifically "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Please explain why you did this. I'm willing to compromise on how we present this material, and review sources with you to make sure that they're represented with due weight, but let's not simply edit war this content into obscurity. - MrX 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the biggest and most inexplicable issue is the fact that you removed all attempts to place information in the article that presents the other side of the story. There is zero justification to put in the article only worst possible penalties for the charges, when the indictment only happened yesterday. Also, you removed the fact, supported by reliable sources and presented in NPOV manner, that many, many well-known Democrats and liberals have expressed their opinion that the indictment is weak and really not supported by law. You also removed without discussion, in an edit war manner, the fact that there are well-known Republicans that call the charges "partisan" and "political grandstanding". Those edits are classic edit warring and their removal violates BLP. You have provided no justification for your incorrect editing. Your editing cannot be supported. There must be the other side presented and both sides must be presented in NPOV, which you are attempting to stop. The version that you keep reverting to violates BLP and violates NPOV. Please stop violating BLP and NPOV.--NK (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is no consensus for your removal of this material from the lede and the neutering of it in the text.Please note, more than one editor reinstated it in the lede. And it seems to me the POV editing is the removal, not the inclusion. Tvoz/talk 05:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Surely the indictment is important. It belongs in the lede. But so is the reaction to it. It's a fact that even left-leaning people have found the indictment weak at best. That should be included in the lede, too. It's not fair to mention the indictment without it.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting

We now have 71 words about the grand jury felony indictment in the body of the article and 154 words of opinions criticizing the indictment. Should 2⁄3+ of this content really consist of various opinions critical of the indictment?- MrX 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that much of the reporting now is critical of the indictment, so that is probably about right. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually - with three of the most major liberal newspapers in the US having editorial positions on the topic, the weight is likely correct. I suppose we could add editorials on the other side, but remember the section ab initio implies it is primarily Republicans who doubted the indictment value. NPOV suggests adding the other material as there is no question the newspapers given are at the head of the class, and their editorial do not praise Perry, but only disparage the nature of the indictments. Collect (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
We likely should include all million+ circulation papers here -- I added USA Today as the paper with the widest circulation, but we should add others which opine officially. Collect (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
On further review of recent sources, it does appear that there is large amount of criticism of the indictment. I also agree that comments from editorial boards of large newspapers are worth noting.- MrX 21:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I added ", including those on the American left, " to the lead, but because I don't edit politics I'm not sure if there is a better way to word that. Feel free to change/remove it as needed.--v/r - TP 01:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting back story to the indictment

I know that the HuffPo is considered by some to be a liberal source, but this explanation and commentary is sobering [3], and has material that I have not read before and that is not present in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, we need to add:

  • that Karl Rove ran his campaign for Texas agriculture commissioner in 1990, the alleged shenanigans Rove played on his behalf to discredit Hightower, as well as that Rove convinced Perry to switch parties.
  • Details about the fact that two other Texas DAs with DUI arrests, were not asked to resign and no defunding vetoes were used in these instances.

I will do some research to find additional sources, if any, on these two subjects. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Partially done. Added info on Rove and the 1990 Texas agricultural commissioner campaign, details on Stubblefield, he presiding judge in the abuse of power case (and Perry's appointee), and Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor behind the indictment, appointed by Stubblefield Judge Bert Richardson of Bexar County, a Republican judge who was assigned to head the grand jury by Stubblefield . - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Richardson appears to actually be a retired judge - and I am unsure why it was important to note that both Texas senators backed an appointment when that occurs for essentially every such appointment as an objection from a single senator from a state blocks consideration of a US Attorney appointment in practice, and there is no source for Crum's political affiliation at all. Stubblefield is at least two full steps away from Crum, and so his political affiliation is nicely irrelevant - and your added material essentially duplicates the USA Today editorial already given. I am unsure exactly what Rove has to do with all of this by the way. Was he indicted? Collect (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Richardson is not "retired". He is a former judge of the 379th District Court in Texas, and a 2014 candidate for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Regarding the importance of that material, we need to make a distinction between opinions and facts. The majority of this section was dedicated to opinions from newspapers and people, and there was almost nothing about undisputed facts. My attempt was to move this section toward facts, in addition to the opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In addition, we now include the "Republican" appointee bit three times in a single section. Are we hitting UNDUE at that point? Or just "excessive iteration"? Collect (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we? How can facts be UNDUE in this context? Look at it this way: if these people were Democrats or Democratic appointees, would that not be included in the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Rick Perry Youtube video

I'm not going to get invested into an edit war of a topic I just don't really care about. I don't know why I am here in the first place. However, as a primary source, we cannot include the material without a 3rd party source saying that what he said has any real bearing on his overall biography.--v/r - TP 02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Indictment

I think the opening statement on the Indictment section is not accurate, bordering on a completely misrepresentation of the facts. It describes a public corruption case "after the head of that unit, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, refused to resign after having been convicted of drunk driving." But that seems to be incorrect. What I am reading is that the indictment came for abuse of power for threatening to veto a budget to force the resignation of a public official, and for corruption for attempting to bribe a public official to resign and get another gig instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the PDF of the indictment [4]. It describes two counts: Count I: Intent to harm Lehmberg by misuse of government property ($200,000) to deny funding the operation of the DA office; and Count II: coercion and threat to veto legislation to force Lehmberg’s resignation. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The original complaint is on the TPJ web site and it makes no mention of the CPIT investigation.

I think this article in the Texas Observer explains it very well (my highlights):

The Travis County DA is no different, in almost every respect, than the more than 300 local elected prosecutors in Texas. She is locally elected and is a servant of the jurisdiction she represents. The only thing unique about the Travis County DA’s office is that it contains the Public Integrity Unit, which polices corruption in state government. Practically speaking, this anti-corruption unit is one of the few checks on the power and influence Perry has accumulated over 14 years in office.
The Public Integrity Unit is largely funded by the Texas Legislature. That money isn’t earmarked for Rosemary Lehmberg; it’s earmarked for the oversight function of the Travis County DA’s Public Integrity Unit. It is that money that Perry threatened to line-item veto if Lehmberg did not resign. When she did not, and Travis County opted not to remove her, Perry then yanked the funding. Afterwards, he continued to make offers to restore the funding in exchange for Lehmberg’s resignation, according to media reports. One account says he signaled that he would find Lehmberg another well-paying job within the DA’s office. Had she resigned, Perry would have appointed her successor.
The criminal case against Perry centers on his “coercion” of a local elected official using threats and promises. It is not premised—as has been repeatedly misreported—on the veto itself. Craig McDonald, the head of Texans for Public Justice and the original complainant, has said as much. As McDonald told CNN:
“The governor is doing a pretty good job to try to make this about [Lehmberg] and her DWI conviction. But this has never been about his veto of her budget and about her. This is about his abuse of power and his coercion trying to get another public citizen to give up their job.[5]

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have placed a {{POV section}} tag until this is addressed and corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to correct this myself, please feel free to improve upon it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can quote McDonald and the indictment itself at the same time and pretend you have legitimacy. The indictment clearly says, as you quote, "coercion and threat to veto legislation." But you are also saying at the same time "It is not premised—as has been repeatedly misreported—on the veto itself". Those are contradictory statements. Please clarify what you mean.--v/r - TP 17:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading this again, I'm not sure we can use McDonald at all. First off, he's a primary source as "the original complainant", second, he's all over the place. Besides what I quote above, he also says "this has never been about his veto of her budget and about her" and then says "This is about...his coercion trying to get another public citizen to give up their job". Those statements also contradict each other. McDonald is not a RS in the first place and we should not be basing the weight and neutrality of an entire section of a BLP on the claims of a primary source.--v/r - TP 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I have not used MacDonald as a source in the article. I used it to research the subject and the sources I used in the article are all kosher. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources you are using have quoted MacDonald instead of stating the issue as fact. You, however, have written the claims in Wikipedia's voice. You should treat MacDonalds claims exactly like the sources have and attribute the claims to him.--v/r - TP 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I have not done any of that. Can you please point where I have done what you claim? Also note the last sentence in the section, in which Perry pleads non-guilty "and waived an arraignment on the accusation that he abused his power to try to coerce the resignation of Travis County district attorney", per the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The way you've written the first paragraph gives more weight to the claim that Perry is doing this because he is being investigated by them than it does to the drunk driving claim - based on MacDonald's claims. If that's not your intention, it needs to be rewritten.--v/r - TP 19:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What I have written is facts reported by reliable sources. This is the first paragraph:

On August 15, 2014, Perry was indicted by a Travis County grand jury for abuse of power and coercion, [2][3] for threatening to veto $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit, a state public corruption prosecutors department currently investigating Perry's Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and coerce the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, [4] after she was convicted of drunk driving, and subsequently incarcerated. The indictment includes two charges: abuse of official capacity (a first-degree felony), and coercion of a public servant (a third-degree felony).[5][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ "RGA Announces New Leadership". Republican Governors Association. 2010-11-18. Retrieved 2011-03-26.
  2. ^ Benjy Sarlin (August 12, 2014). "Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power by grand jury". MSNBC. Retrieved August 17, 2014.
  3. ^ Hoppe, Christy. "Gov. Rick Perry indicted on charges of abuse of power, coercion | Dallas Morning News". Dallasnews.com. Retrieved August 17, 2014.
  4. ^ Manny Fernandez (August 15, 2014). "Gov. Rick Perry of Texas Is Indicted on Charge of Abuse of Power". The New York Times. Retrieved August 20, 2014.
  5. ^ a b "Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted for alleged abuse of power in veto dispute". Fox News. October 1, 2006. Retrieved August 17, 2014.
  6. ^ Sullivan, Sean (August 8, 2014). "Rick Perry claims indictment part of larger 'rule of law' problem". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 17, 2014.
  7. ^ Paul J. Weber and Will Weisseet (August 8, 2014). "Texas' Perry Indicted for Coercion for Veto Threat - ABC News". Abcnews.go.com. Associated Press. Retrieved August 17, 2014.

Please let me know what is incorrect in that sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have re-read the sentence and it is accurately describing the indictment. Count I: Intent to harm Lehmberg by misuse of government property to deny funding the operation of the DA office; and Count II: coercion and threat to veto legislation to force Lehmberg’s resignation.[6]. If you disagree, please provide arguments to the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What you just said has zero to do with my complaint. Your rewrite of the first paragraph paints the indictment as about the cancer research center. It lists "Perry was indicted by a Travis County grand jury for abuse of power and coercion, [1][2] for threatening to veto $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit, a state public corruption prosecutors department currently investigating Perry's Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and coerce the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg" as the reason for the indictment and only mentions "after she was convicted of drunk driving, and subsequently incarcerated" as a sub-component and/or a matter of timing. That's not at all what the source for that part of the sentence says, here, where it spends 5 paragraphs detailing Lehmberg's arrest right from the start of the article and only spend 2 paragraphs at the end discussing a possible connection. It also explains it as "Mr. Perry’s critics accused him of using Ms. Lehmberg’s arrest to try to dismantle the public corruption squad." Yet, you've laid it out in Wikipedia voice as the one and only reason instead of writing it in "the critics" voice. You've taken something that the source paints as minor and secondary and written it as primary and dominating - and you did it in Wikipedia's voice. That is a WP:NPOV violation.--v/r - TP 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. I think I understand your concern now. I will move the cancer research center text to a different paragraph as to not conflate the two. Thanks for the clarification. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's fine if you move it, just remember to give it appropriate weight and attribute it to the right people. For the record, I'm not opposed to any counter claims being attributed as well.--v/r - TP 20:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if that works, and thanks again for your patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. I find that the two problems of weight and attribution still exist. I've added "According to the original complainant in the district attorney's office" to address the attribution issue. As far as weight, I'm not sure you could explain the issue in appropriate context at the appropriate weight so I'll just ignore it.--v/r - TP 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The attribution is fine with me, although we don't have a source that asserts "According to the original complainant in the district attorney's office". It will be good to find such as source, so this is not challenged later as a WP:SYNT violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I misread the source. I've corrected it to Texans for Public Justice.--v/r - TP 21:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It just occurred to me during lunch that I did read a retort to this. Something about Perry being willing to appoint the deputy of Lehmberg's choosing and restoring state funding if she resigned. Are you opposed to moving this into it's own paragraph and including this counter claim if I can find the source again?--v/r - TP 22:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if that is your intention, but that fact is one of the issues behind the indictment. According to sources, that is also corruption/abuse of power. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that the job is being alleged as bribery but the other part of that, no, is not part of the indictment at all as far as I am aware. Either way, doesn't matter, just reporting what happened.--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: The belief was if Perry could, he would appoint a Republican district attorney and hinder the investigation. Is that not Wikipedia voice used to assert someone's opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Not sure who to attribute it to because it's a general feeling. I suppose I could grab the specific article and attribute it to that but I don't think the article where I read it is the original though. Feel free to write it to explain the context though. It's tough to contextualize the first sentence and the third sentence without the second one.--v/r - TP 04:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead

Concerning my revert. I didn't get a chance to explain it in the edit summary, however, I see that 3 out of 7 paragraphs in the indictment section cover the criticism of the indictment. This is pretty consistent with mainstream media where all conservative sources and many liberal sources, including two of the biggest (NYT, LAT), are critical or at least view the indictment in a dim light. Because half of the indictment section is about criticism, it stands to reason, and per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD, and half of the paragraph about the indictment also cover the criticism. I believe the way it currently sits appropriately addresses WP:NPOV. Nuances should be discussed in the indictment section. At least, we might change the lead to say "The indictment has received some support but also wide cross-party criticism".--v/r - TP 02:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As this story evolves, and if you read Texas newspapers, they are quite surprised about the seemingly bipartisan support of Perry on this issue. I have noted your revert, but the lede needs additional text to reflect that fact. Please re-read once more the Indictment section, and see if a better summary of the indictment could be crafted. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Texans are, but this is a global encyclopedia. We describe the issue from a global perspective - not a Texan one. I'm doing my homework right now (EN105) so I'll try to get to this tomorrow.--v/r - TP 04:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Principles of English Grammar? Neat. I never got to study that... - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No, "First Year Writing Seminar I: Critical Reading Writing and Thinking Across Contexts" Kind of apt for this article, don'tcha think?--v/r - TP 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I like the argument about global perspective, but what we are reporting is just US sources (Texan and National). I will try to dig international news sources to see if the story picked up interest outside of the US. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The Guardian (UK) [7]
  • The Times (UK) [8]
  • The Telegraph (UK) [9]
  • Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) [10]
  • The Australian [11]

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Texans for Public Justice

As the group that filed the complaint that formed the indictment, can we get someone to mosey on over here and do some work on this article?--v/r - TP 08:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Added name of director from its website (for which it is a reliable source) and the Texas Tribune article on the group. Collect (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

PJ Media

I am not sure if PJ media [12] is a reliable source, and in any case that opinion is tangential. If that opinion is reported in mainstream sources we can consider it, but until that time this is a minority viewpoint and should not be included per WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct; PJ Media is a partisan website with no established reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and is thus totally unsuitable as a source for factual claims anywhere (but particularly in a biographical article). Hopefully this is clear to everyone. If the material in question appears in actual reliable sources, then it can be re-inserted with reference to those sources. MastCell Talk 03:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

editorial opinion critical of indictment

NYPost In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry was charged Friday with abuse of power — essentially, exercising his constitutional right to veto legislation. WSJ: Prosecutorial abuse for partisan purposes is common these days, and the latest display is taking place in the all-too-familiar venue of Austin, Texas.

Of the 7 highest circulation papers in the US, 6 editorially criticized the indictment.

NYDN: but the circumstances of the charges left Democrats and Republicans alike wondering if they are politically motivated.

Make than 7 out of 7.

Chicago Sun-Times (number 8) It turns out it isn’t good and it may well backfire on the Democrats.

8 out of 8

Denver Post has only used AP reports and zero commentary editorially.

Chicago Tribune: Republicans and a whole lot of Democrats have had a common reaction to this news. They're amazed, astonished, aghast ... By any stretch, it's hard to envision how a governor broke the law by exercising his veto power and publicly stating exactly why he was doing so. ... This case is, as Harvard legal scholar (and, if you're wondering, liberal) Alan Dershowitz called it, 'the criminalization of party differences' and 'what happens in totalitarian societies.'

9 out of 9 of the top newspapers in the US are unanimous in criticizing the indictment. Oh -- the Denver Post ran a WaPo column by Catherine Rampell in lieu of its own editorial ... Whether his actions rose to the level of criminality is a matter of debate even among his critics.

Ten out of ten have criticized the indictment or published specific criticism editorially. Sounds like saying "some" is a silly claim to assert - no? Collect (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, good call. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And yet, the more recent commentary as the story evolves is that it is a bit more nuanced than a blanket condemnation of the indictment. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good Article status

What do you guys think we would need to do to this article to get it up to GA quality? It's got the content and sources. I would think most of the changes are formatting and NPOV. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be work done on the citations and I can assist with that.--NK (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Length of Indictment section

The indictment section has become excessively long and is now longer than the Presidential run section. I think it's time we either start trimming this part of the article or split it into its own article and cut the material in this article by 25%.--v/r - TP 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--NK (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried some trimming - but it was then "untrimmed". So here I will try again. Collect (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Trimmed quite a bit bur was puzzled why the Dallas editorial was quoted twice, while all the other newspaper editorial positions were removed other than for the cite. Seems an eensy bit odd to remove what four of the largest papers wrote, and leaving in a single paper -- twice, and at length. I suggest the other papers are sufficiently high in value to restore at least a few words of their editorial opinions, and reduce the Dallas snippet to the same length. Collect (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
After adding snippets, still the Dallas editorial totals more than the mention for the four major newspapers. Hope no one decides to remove them again. Collect (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I have attempted to trim, but the Bi and Moan' was just too much. There is absolutely no reason for a so-called encyclopedia to be quoting the comments of jurors when they are commenting on their own work!!! It is the epitome of a biased source. Why do we even care what the jurors think about their own indictment. Of course, they are going to stand 1000% behind their own work. Does anyone really believe that these jurors are going to run to the Houston Chronicle and tell them, "Well, we didn't really believe that Perry did anything wrong but we decided to indictment him anyway!" No of course they are going to say the self-serving hooey that they say in this article. This section is so crammed full of POV pushing it is hard to read. Also, there are at least three different times the article tells us that the prosecutor was appointed by a Republican judge! The cheerleading for the prosecution in this article is embarrassing for Wikipedia. This whole section can be cut down to a few sentences and if and when there is something that actually comes out of the indictment then it should be beefed up. But right now this is one long "We indicted Perry Cheer" section. It is not an encyclopedia section it is biased and has undue weight. The same editors that jammed the three instances of "the prosecutor was appointed by a Republican judge" are the same editors that removed the comments of Perry's attorney. Also, the same editors that jammed in the biased back-slapping, comments of the jurors were the same editors that removed the comments of Perry's attorney. Now, of course the article goes into great detail about what the left-wing advocacy organization that brought the complaint says on their website, but we are not allowed to quote Perry's attorney because that what Perry's attorney's think about the indictment are not as important as what the jurors think, right? That is POV pushing in its worst form. Of course we should outline what Perry's attorney's are saying because they are providing Perry's defense. Trim the thing down and wait until there is real substance found. Right now there an indictment. This whole section is written as Perry has been proven guilty of something beyond a reasonable doubt. That has not happened. All that has happened is a grand jury in Austin indicted a Republican. There track record on these types of things is not very good. As for the most famous ones, Tom Delay and Kay Bailey Hutchison these prosecutors in the Travis County office are ZERO for TWO (0-2). The section needs to be trimmed down and mumblings of the jurors--who are not supposed to talk to the media (so they have committed felonies themselves) can be repeated in another article that runs for days and days in a back article. But right now this indictment section has taken over the Perry article and it is chocked full of POV. Yes, I said POV. Example (1) three references that the prosecutor was appointed by a Republican judge. Example (2) quotes from the jurors on their own work--the of course they are biased. Example (3) Extensive direct quotes from the left-wing organization that brought the complaint, not from a well-known reliable source like the Washington Post but the left-wing org that brought the complaint. Example (4) No quotes or reasoning from the Perry's legal team (those comments were called "empty" and removed. Example (5) there are direct quotes from the jurors supporting their own work, but there is no mention of the complaints about them personally--one juror is a Travis County Democratic Party committee member who was attending meetings with Democratic State Senator Kirk Watson during the grand jury deliberations. Example (6) there is a quote from the New York Times that bashes the indictment, but they biggest quote from that article bashes Perry needlessly--the indictment section is not about Perry's competence or incompetence as governor--NK (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you all support splitting the article? Let's discuss this for at least 24 hours to allow for full opinions, but what do you guys think about trimming this to 3-4 paragraphs, for proper weight to his overall biography, and starting Indictment of Rick Perry.--v/r - TP 19:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I support this, as I disagree about the deletion of well sourced material, per WP:NOTPAPER. Yes, we should spin off an article with all the content and expand to include additional viewpoints, and add a summary of 3 to 4 paras here per WP:SUMMARY. The spin off article can also include material on how Perry is using the indictment to leverage his position as a possible 2016 candidate, how he is fundraising on it, and other related material. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No. The mentioning of the fact that a Republican judge appointed the prosecutor three times has nothing to do with "well sourced material". It does not matter if it "well sourced". Three times is overkill and it is redundant. One mention is enough. Also, the section is a coatrack. It needs to be fixed. It is a disaster.--NK (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


The Indictment section is a coatrack

This horrible sloppy incoherent mess of a section (it is not a section but a coatrack for Perry's detractors) even quotes Progress Texas (http://progresstexas.org/blog/rick-perrys-inconvenient-history-republicans-charged-drunk-driving) as a reliable source. Now, let's pretend that we all agree that it is biased but it is important because it brings into the article important information that can't be found anywhere else. The information that Progress Texas bring to the article is about how Perry responded to other DUI cases. How is that making the encyclopedia better? It is not. This section is supposed to be about the indictment, not every little boorish topic that someone can find to bash Perry. This section is a coatrack. It is a cheerleading section for the Travis County Democratic Party. What an embarrassment!--NK (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well let's consider that I added that particular sentence and I'm not one of the first people to be accused of a liberal bias here - at least on American politics anyway. It is properly balanced by a counter argument from Perry's office. Besides, coat-rack isn't the right policy. WP:COATRACK is for articles that are 5% biography and 95% character assassination.--v/r - TP 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know your political bias and I don't care. The source is not a good one. As for the coatrack I have stated the "SECTION" is a coatrack. You are technically right, as for the whole article, it is not 95/5 against Perry, but as for the section, I am right because it is 95/5 slanted against him. Quoting Progress Texas is like quoting the Tea Party as an expert about Obama's fiscal policies. It is not a good source.--NK (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, as how Perry responded to other DUIs is not notable. The indictment is not about how Perry ignored other DUIs. The section says "Indictment" not "How Perry responses to other DUIs". The indictment does not mention the other DUIs--only Progress Texas. The fact that only Progress Texas talks about this topic proves that is not notable. No one cares about how Perry responded to other DUIs. It is off topic and it is obscure, otherwise the Austin Am-States or Hous Chron or Dallas MN, etc. would writing article about it. It is a political hit piece by a left-wing organization that other better sources such as the Wash Post the NY Times, etc. don't care writing about. When and if this topic comes up in mainstream reliable sources then it should be included, but not until then.--NK (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
How Perry has responded to other DUIs is being discussed in many many reliable sources. I choose Progress Texas as they are making the accusation, but it's being discussed elsewhere: MSNBC, Liberal America, My SanAntonio, DailyKos. It's central to the indictment because it's a matter of whether Perry actually cares about the DUI or if the veto threat was a farce.--v/r - TP 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it mentioned in the indictment? No. If it is mentioned in other places then use those sources. But at any rate in does not belong in the main Rick Perry article. It probably belongs in the Indictment article.--NK (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The indictment section is a little lengthy, but if you want to win others to your way of thinking, you may want to consider not referring to their contributions as a "horrible sloppy incoherent mess". Of course, that's up to you.
I don't think that the indictment section is a coatrack, and especially not for Perry detractors. The entire second, and almost all of the fifth and sixth paragraphs are critical of the indictment/supportive of Perry. May I ask what you would consider a balanced presentation based on the available sources.- MrX 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Two or three sentences and the rest goes into a second article that can repeat 20 or 30 times the fact that the prosecutor was appointed by a Republican judge. Two or three sentences that points out the indictment, the point of view of both sides and then the rest can go into a second article focused on the indictment and then that article can quote jurors slapping themselves on the back about right they were and telling newspapers (that they are not supposed to be talking to) how right the prosecutor is and how Perry is guilty--when of course none of the jurors have heard Perry's side of the case yet. That is the way the section needs to be edited. It is only an indictment. There is no conviction so all of these quotes from Progress Texas and the jurors are just speculation about what might be brought up in a courtroom. We don't know what was said in grand jury deliberations and we sure as heck don't know what is going to happen in the regular trial, assuming of course the charges don't get thrown out of court in the meantime. This whole section is written as if the indictments deserve this much weight and importance. They don't. This is an old fashioned case of undue weight. Why are were we quoting the jurors--of course they are going to agreed with what they decided. They opinion was filled with bias, but it was dumped into the article--for no logical reason. Also, why are we quoting Progress Texas? They are a biased left-wing organization. It would never fly if I were to go get quotes from leadership of the Texas Tea Party Patriots, saying how horrible the indictment was. But yet right in this article we get direct quotes from Progress Texas and links to their biased unreliable website. They don't fact check. They are an unreliable source and yet we have editors that want to keep that unreliable source in the article.--NK (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
We're not stupid, we all know what an indictment is. And it's not a minor life event like going to the dentist. A indictment is a criminal complaint from a jury - it is a very serious matter for capital cases. It is a significant event in any person's life no matter if they are Joe from Boise or the Governor of Texas. The summary here change as the trial actually happens and with all of the fallout from it. In the meantime, appropriate weight for this is going to be similar to the weight given his 2012 presidential campaign. 3-4 paragraphs. Of those 3-4 paragraphs, 1 should cover the charge, 1 should cover Texas democrats claims, and two paragraphs should cover criticism. That reflects the sources. Biased sources are not disallowed. Progress Texas is a very valid source for the opinion of democrats in Texas.--v/r - TP 22:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No. You stated earlier that there is other less biased sources that express the point of view of the Texas Democrats and you specifically pointed to MSNBC (Rachel Maddow), DailyKOS, An editorial from the SanAntonio paper, and some obscure website called Liberal America. If we are going to keep the information--in the break off article--then we will need to use a better source such as Maddow, DailyKOS or the SA editorial. The DUI stuff is not central to the indictment.--NK (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be misinterpreting WP:NPOV, thinking that biased sources are not allowed (is there any source that is not biased one way or another?), and also misinterpreting WP:BLP thinking that criticism is not allowed. Both are wrong. NPOV states that we are to represent all significant viewpoints, albeit without bias in the way we present these viewpoints. BLP states that we have to be cautious and ensure that all material is well sourced to reliable, published sources, and that includes criticism as well. Of course, part of NPOV is undue weight, which is basically a matter of emphasis and quantity of text, easily spotted and corrected, and not as some think, removal of material when material for the opposing viewpoint is available for counterbalance. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel - you and NK seem to be at odds at the moment and I don't think I'll have any better luck communicating the point to him. Let's see when Collect comes by next if he can get the point across to NK. Otherwise we'll be going in circles all day.--v/r - TP 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, I don't disagree with any of your comments. I agree that there are no neutral sources. However, what I am objecting to is that quoting Progress Texas not the right source for the material that TP wants to keep in the article. He has provided better more widely known sources that can provide the said point of view. Maddow is not an unbiased source by any stretch of the imagination. However using her as a source for the same material (i.e., Perry treated DUIs differently based upon what political party was involved) is a better choice than Progress Texas because Maddow is reporting on the allegations from outside of the Texas is not a primary source. I would argue that Progress Texas is a primary source and we are discouraged from using primary sources (unless there is no other available source). In this situation we have more than just one secondary source. We have Maddow and DailyKOS. Of course, neither of the sources are unbiased (once again who is totally unbiased), but they are not part of the action--if you will. Progress Texas is an extension of the Texas Democratic Party and they are a well-known antagonist to Perry every day in Texas. Maddow is not an everyday player in Texas and Maddow should be the source (or KOS) for this information if needs to be in the main Perry article. Also, this information does not belong in the main Perry article. I do not agree that the indictment should be treated to the same level as Perry's 2012 campaign. That would be like in the Obama article treating John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama to the same level as Obama's U.S. Senate election campaign. They do not rise to the same level. I'm not saying the information should not be covered. It should be covered in a separate article. The reader can go to that article if the reader wants to go over all of DUIs in Texas for the last 14 years. Also, if a reader wants to read Progress Texas' take on the indictment then there can be a link to their position over there. I am being serious when I say that in that article editors can go into as much detail as they want to on these issues over there. But in the main Perry article we need to trim the indictment section down. And maybe one or two sentences is too short. But 3 or 4 paragraphs is too long. But treating it like his Presidential campaign is still undue weight.--NK (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
John Boenher's civil suit is nothing compared to an indictment. For one, you don't need a jury to file a civil suit. For two, an indictment is a criminal case and Perry had to be processed and photographed. Three, Obama isn't likely to ever see a courtroom while Perry most assured will. Jailtime isn't an option for Boenher's suit, while Perry's indictment couple land him up to 99 years (very unlikely, but I am demonstrating differences here).--v/r - TP 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

NK likely should recognize that WP:CONSENSUS basically stipulates that no one will ever be absolutely satisfied in a dispute - the best result is a compromise everyone can live with (which is not the same as only acceptable to a numerical majority - it should be a compromise aimed at almost everyone. That said, I doubt that the "well he didn't seek other resignations" is a particularly strong claim for anyone to insist on, especially since in at least one of those cases the person did resign. That is really in the class of "partisan argumentation based on whatever factoids any party can come up with" rather than clearly being "on point" here. Can we get a consensus to stop all the bickering and allow the removal of the fluff about "other DUI cases" in order to settle this section? On a scale of 1 to 10, I suggest it may hit a 2 maximum in relevance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would argue to take one issue at the time. First the issue of a propose split above, which may result in resolving this dispute altogether. If no consensus emerges, an RFC on the split may be the path forward. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it's closer to a 6 in relevance. It's being used to claim that the call for a resignation was simple politically motivated so Perry could shoe in his own pick for DA - by demonstrating he doesn't really care about public officials with a DUI.--v/r - TP 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, the other inebriates did not threaten police officers with losing their jobs, invoke the name of a sheriff to quash the arrest, or try to kick doors down <g>. There is some possibility that the case at hand was indeed more egregious than most DUIs as evinced by the jail sentence, which is rare for such acts as a first conviction, and thus a clearer call for a resignation could be made. Collect (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
All very valid points. A little bit undue to go into that much detail in this article, but valid points nonetheless. The split would be able to cover that in a paragraph. @NazariyKaminski: Your "No" above, is that opposition to the split or opposition to something Cwobeel said?--v/r - TP 00:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
My "No" above created unnecessary confusion. I support the split. I think the split would give both sides the opportunity to expand on the parts of the indictment that they find more important.--NK (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I don't think you recall correctly. In one of the other DUI cases, the Kaufman County DA got drunk and drove the wrong way down a street, hitting a car. It was his second DUI ([13]). Arguably his case was more egregious than Lehmberg's, in that a) he actually hit someone and b) it was a repeat offense. In the second DUI case, the Swisher County DA was in fact jailed for a first offense (so it's apparently at least as egregious as Lehmberg's by your jail-time metric). (Perry did not get involved in these other cases).

Of course, that's neither here nor there. I'd suggest we start by using better sources. We shouldn't be using partisan sources (e.g. Huffington Post, Progress Texas, Rachel Maddow, etc) except in very limited circumstances. To summarize the question of selective intervention in DUI cases, it's better to use a more reliable source like the Dallas Morning News: "Travis DA's drunken-driving arrest riled Perry; others' didn't". Like most partisan disputes, the key to appropriate coverage is to find and use good sources. MastCell Talk 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. We need to stick to the best most reliable sources available. Yes, Cwobeel and I agree that no source is perfectly unbiased, but that is not the issue. The issue is to attempt to stick to the best reliable sources that we can find. I wanted to place in the article a note about how the former TX Rep Prty spokesman claims the jurors broke state law when they spoke to the Hous paper. However Cwobeel disagreed and MastCell supported him. I backed down on the inclusion because it was the only source for the charge--except for some other biased conservative sources that merely parroted what the Rep Prty spokesman stated. If the DUIs information is so very important in its inclusion then I would think that some reliable sources (that we can all agree on) can be found to support its inclusion. Reliable sources such as papers from Hous, Dallas, Austin, SanA, or from newspapers that cover national politics such as NYT, LAT, WashPost, etc. But if the only source we have is a partisan extension of the Texas Democratic Party then I don't believe that it deserve inclusion. If it is so "notable" that only the TX Dem Prty is the only source discussing it then is it really notable information? No, it is not notable information. I also don't believe the DUIs comparisons are fit for inclusion because all we have, at the point in time, is Progress Texas (an extension of TX Dem Prty) and a series of left-wing websites that are merely parroting the Progress Texas charges, e.g., Rachel Maddow, Liberal America, DailyKOS, etc. These other websites are at least secondary sources, instead of primary sources (which makes them more acceptable than Progress Texas), but at any rate they are clearly not good sources and they aren't reliable sources.--NK (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree with me, but I'm not sure you've read or understood my point. There are independent, reliable sources which discuss Perry's approach to other DUI cases. I cited one, from the Dallas Morning News, and indicated that we should use such sources rather than partisan ones. Your post seems to assume that there are no good sources, only partisan ones. You say: "If the DUIs information is so very important in its inclusion then I would think that some reliable sources... can be found to support its inclusion." I found such sources, and cited one in my post, which you agreed with. Right? MastCell Talk 15:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
In the first case, you should note that the local Republicans had actually asked for that person to resign. Perry did not "pile on." Harrison was defeated in 2010 less than a year later - by a Republican. Local Democrats did not ask Lehmberg to resign. The Swisher DA's acts in targeting blacks led to Perry pardoning 46 people. That DA's term was nearly over at the time, his "jail term" was two days, and having a special election for less than two months of a term or appointing someone for two months would have been less of a gesture than the pardon of 46 people. It is interesting that you find "two days" to be "nearly as egregious" as 45 days. Sorry guy, parroting partisan sources without looking at the actual cases does not impress me. Ought Perry ask for everyone's resignation? Maybe. Bit a two day sentence != a forty-five day sentence as far as most people are concerned. And where no jail sentence is given, it is possible that the Harrison case was also not as "egregious" as the Lehmberg case. YMMV. Collect (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not important to me to argue about the relative severity of the DUI cases, so I'm not going to. I'll only reiterate that I am citing a news piece from the Dallas Morning News, not "parroting partisan sources", and ask that you be a little more scrupulous in assessing sources cited by others (and, ideally, bring some good sources to the table yourself). MastCell Talk 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter what we think of this. We just meed to report what sources say. As for partisan/non-partisan sources, that is a red herring; all sources have a bias and that does not mean we can't quote them, in particular when we are describing editorials. Why is a NYT editorial better than another? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy allows us, indeed directs us, to weigh sources. In such an event, the use of the most partisan sources is likely not as good as the use of the least partisan one - thus we do not use rhetoric from campaign pamphlets with the same value as opinion from mainstream less-politicized sources. Editorial opinions of the newspapers with the largest circulation in the US would ordinarily be given far more weight than the editorial opinions of much smaller newspapers. This is common sense - just as we assign greater weight to scholarly journals which have been widely cited by others than we do to smaller journals which are not cited by others. In each case, the fundamental and absolutely non-negotiable obligation of all editors is to seek a "neutral point of view" and where a very partisan source is used, it behooves us to use balancing opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Balancing opinions, absolutely. But why a long quote from Alan Dershowitz, and not others? That is my point. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Other professors' opinions:

  • "Judges are very mindful that when a grand jury of 12 citizens has looked at evidence and returned an indictment, that judgment should not be set aside lightly," [14]
  • “Conservatives might be willing to say he’s a victim of partisan politics, but that doesn’t mean he’s a much better candidate than they already thought,” Scala said. “That was the problem before his indictment and it’s the problem after his indictment.” [15]
  • “He’s thrilled to have all this attention.” [16]

So, what about some balance? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Only the first is remotely on point as "balance" alas. The Koppel article gives "usual rule of thumb" and cites Gerald Reamey from St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio who is an eensy bot less notable than Dershowitz, IMHO. Though [17] he "taught McCrum criminal law and procedure." Do you regard him as a specifically a notable person for such a vanilla claim? Saying that indictments "should not be set aside lightly" is pure vanilla. Collect (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dershowitz is a towering figure among living attorneys. The other guys are ants on an elephant's rear end. Yes, the weight that we put on some sources and not other sources does matter. Dershowitz is not only a towering he is also a well-known liberal Democrat. The fact that he believes the indictment is inappropriate and it is merely attempting to accomplish in a courtroom what should be decided at the ballot box is significant. Also, some of the quotes of the other midget professors are not even about the indictment. This section is entitled "Indictment" not "Perry's political chances". Dershowitz's comment is pointed directly the indictment, the topic of the section we are discussing.--NK (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion, the indictment is political, right? And a result of these politics, Perry is leveraging it to its advantage. Now, how that is not relevant to a section covering the indictment? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What my opinion is or isn't is not relevant to this conversation. Don't ask the question again. Don't start an edit war. I know you have MastCell here watching and waiting, but you need to stick to the relevant topics of discussion. What I believe or don't believe is not relevant. Stick to the topic. Wikipedia is very, very clear that these talk board are to be used to discuss how to improve the articles, not debates between editors on their political beliefs. Yes, MastCell is here to slam the hammer on those who disagree and I know that you want me to engage you in a political discussion, but it is not relevant and it is not appropriate. It MastCell was not so deeply involved in putting forward his argument to removed the NY Times support of Perry, as good admin, he would have told you that your question about my political beliefs are not notable, irrelevant, off-topic, and a misuse of this talk page.--NK (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
My goodnesss. The WP:BATTLE is strong with this one. MastCell Talk 22:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Split complete

I've gone ahead and done the split because I've read mostly supportive opinions of the idea. The new article is Indictment of Rick Perry. I copied the section from this article in it's entirety over there. I also trimmed almost all opinion/commentary out of this article. I'm not perfect so if anyone disagrees with what I chose to put in the Indictment article and what I choose to leave here, feel free to balance it as necessary.--v/r - TP 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work, and thanks for the effort. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I condensed the content, reorganized a couple of things, and reworded a couple of phrases. I also fixed the heading formatting four minutes later. - MrX 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hat off-topic comments about other editors. Take comments about others to your user talk pages or follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, restrict your comments here to the editorial content of the article. Comment on content, not contributors. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see that MrX has been editing the new indictment section, but he has not engaged in conversation about those edits on this talk page. He needs to engage in talk on this page and he needs to fix his mistakes. He put in too many equal signs (=) when he made his hasty, undiscussed edits. He needs to fix that mistake very soon. I don't see a consensus for his edits and he is not attempting to get a consensus either. He is just editing with Cwobeel backing up his changes. I also don't see Cwobeel making any comments on this talk page attempting to support those edits either.--NK (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There are no policies that say you have to discuss before making a chance. In fact WP:BEBOLD says the opposite. Only when something is disputed do we then need to go to discussion. If you have a specific concern, please raise it.--v/r - TP 18:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right there are no policies, but MrX and Cwobeel tag team edit war against folks that attempt to disagree with them. They run to the admin with 3RR complaints and they say that so and so (NK) is engaging in an edit war because he is not talking on the talk page. Since I have been down this road with this tag team in the past--twice--I am going to document each and every time they tag team, from the beginning, and I am going to document, from the beginning when they do not engage at attempts of gaining consensus on the talk page. It may not help, but it depends on the admin. MastCell has been watching this discussion and he is the admin that gave me the lecture on my talk page, but he just can't seem to give that lecture to either Cwobeel or MrX.--NK (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(shrug) I have no idea, I don't follow political articles so this is my first experience editing with either of them. But I don't see anything inherently wrong here. We have a good editing environment going on for a political article right now and I don't see any egregious neutrality violations so let's not stir the pot.--v/r - TP 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I am going to continue to document that lack of discussion on the talk page and I am going to document times the edit in tandem.--NK (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In a section on the indictment, clearly it is the editorials dealing with the indictment which are pertinent. Other editorials belong in other sections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of editorials

Let me see if I can encapsulate a concern I have about the rush to highlight newspaper editorial opinion about Perry's indictment. The New York Times has published at least 10 editorial/opinion pieces dealing with Perry in the last month alone. Of these, virtually all were critical of Perry—except for the one questioning his indictment. If the editorial opinion of the New York Times is notable, then why do we cite it only when it defends Perry? Isn't this misleading, or undue weight, since the Times editorials are overwhelmingly critical of Perry? We don't cite these editorials—only the one outlier which is, on balance, supportive. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to cite editorials from prominent newspapers, but I think the way we're doing it is questionable. Some of it is, obviously, recentism since the indictment is in the news right now, but it does raise a serious issue of undue weight in my mind since we seem to be citing these newspapers' editorials only insofar as they benefit Perry, and not in a way that reflects these papers' overall editorial viewpoint. MastCell Talk 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The story has evolved quite a bit since the initial responses to the indictment, with more nuanced views of it in editorials and overall coverage. There is also substantial coverage on how Perry is using the indictment as a leverage for fundraising, and prop his now obvious run for 2016. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Editorials from the largest newspapers in the US are certainly "notable opinions" and are given very little space in the article (just over 1% of the entire article AFAICT). Collect (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What about the Boston Globe editorial? [18] As you can see, it is more nuanced, but we are not including it. Why? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually the USA Today editorial is quite nuanced. The Boston Globe has far lower circulation than any of the other newspapers cited, AFAICT. The Boston Globe has a daily circulation of about 225K, which puts it a ways down the circulation list. [19] Of the top 25 dailies, it ranked 24 in 2013. The Dallas paoer is at 11. Collect (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
So, what we have here is the proposition put forward that only negative comments from the NY Times are allowed in a Wikipedia article about Rick Perry. That's absurd. If the Times makes a comment, either bashing Perry or supportive of Perry, we should consider using it. Now, it may not fit in the article for other reasons, but to simply create the false rule that "since the NY Times bashes Perry constantly, then we should never repeat the supportive comments of Perry in Wikipedia because that would be misrepresentation." What hogwash! Not only is the NY Times opinion of the indictment notable (which is the standard we face in Wikipedia--not MastCell's inventive new rule) but the NY Times opinion of the indictment is mentioned over and over again by other media sources in their articles about the indictment. Politico, not a conservative source of news, mentions the Times condemnation of the indictment here: Politico. The Blaze, yes a conservative source of news, mentions the Times bashing of the indictment here: The Blaze. Business Insider, I don't know there tilt but they are all over the Internet, mentions the Times slap down of the indictment here: Business Insider. Mediate, a somewhat liberal source of news, points out that Times defended Perry against the indictment while also slamming Perry here: Mediate. Washington Times-conservative source. National Review-conservative source. National Journal-liberal source. You get the point. The NY Times support of Perry in the face of the indictment is notable. Now why would be leave it out again? I don't see the argument to leave it out. I only see that the Times is one of the most influential newspapers in the country that has a liberal tilt in its editorials and they supported Perry here and that support has been noted by tons of commentaries. To leave it would be a total misrepresentation of the depth of the criticism of the indictment.--NK (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The issue is balancing the article with the sum of the sources. Not picking a single source and determining we haven't balanced our article based on that source alone. That's why we can have biased sources and still have a balanced article. The NYTs is considered a left-leaning paper, at least in it's political opinion columnists - which is okay. And we can use the NYTs. But saying that this article should reflect the NYTs is inappropriate. Not only that, MastCell, but you're taking it's use in this article completely out of context. In context, the article describes how Perry, a Republican, is receiving support even from left-leaning newspapers. That isn't to say we're covering Perry's biography with the only positive page out of the NYTs. It's saying we're discussing Perry's bi-partisan support and quoting the top 10 American papers. In this context, we're using the NYTs as a primary source about itself, ie. "The NYTs is critical of the indictment". That is entirely different from the other 9 articles where we would use the NYTs as a third party source about Perry. It's definitely inappropriate for you to misstate the context we are using it in.--v/r - TP 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I agree with TP's comments. They are consistent with the comments I made above. But I also would point cold, hard facts that directly support TP's comments. MastCell is focusing on the one little, tiny, picayune quote of the NY Times in this Perry article, the one that supports Perry, but he conveniently ignores all of the other times the Perry article quotes and uses the NY Times to be critical of Perry. It counted seventeen (17) different times the Perry article quotes or references the NY Times. One of course is the Times damaging indictment of the indictment, but the other 16 are usually bashing Perry relentlessly. So I don't see the "misrepresentation" that MastCell see. The only misrepresentation that I see is the attempt to remove the article of the Times' backhanded support of Perry. I see the misrepresentation of the clear brightline rule in Wikipedia that notability is the standard about including an item, removing the bright line "notability" standard with the newly formulated MastCell standard, which I don't entirely understand, but it is not based upon notability, which is a clear bright line rule, but on something much, provincial and murky, and indecipherable. I don't understand it. But at any rate there are 16 other references to the NY Times in the whole article, such as Paul Krugman's claim in 2011 that the Texas Miracle was false and that was about to crater into a horrible mess. Of course, Krugman's prediction was hogwash and the Texas economy has not cratered yet, but it is quoted in the article along with the 15 other NY Times article bashing Perry on regulation, religion, gun control, etc. You can read all of these Perry bashing articles at footnotes: 3, 22, 52, 62, 64, 65, 66, 79, 97, 99, 107, 121, 123, 131, 133, 147, and 155. The argument that we are misrepresenting the NY Times position on Perry is hogwash.--NK (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but unless we can all be succinct in our comments this is going nowhere. I cannot be expected to read wall-to-wall text. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need parenthetical quotes from newspapers (third paragraph), now that we have spun off much of this content?- MrX 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Nah.--v/r - TP 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's that complex. Either the opinion of the Times editorial board is notable for this article, or it's not. In the last year or so, the Times has published editorials critical of Perry on voting rights, tax policy, prison safety, and prisoner exchanges. None of those editorials are cited in this article. Instead, we cite only the relatively supportive editorial on Perry's indictment. Why is that? Certainly we're not accurately reflecting the weight of Times editorial opinion; instead we're highlighting only the outlier. MastCell Talk 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are battling me on this point? Why do feel the need to battle over your position, MastCell? Your point is not a good one. It is as simple as that. We have not quoted the NY Times editorial page but we have covered 16 different articles that are all critical of Perry, so your point is empty. Why is your need to continue to battle this point so strong?--NK (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point, Mastcell. I have no problem citing NYT editorial in support of Perry, if we include other editorials as described. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@NazariyKaminski: I'm not battling you on this point. I'm trying to ignore you, because your posts consist of substance-free personal attacks (I see that an admin has removed your most recent iteration). I'm responding to TParis. MastCell Talk 00:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

One person's opinion

I object to this edit by Atxav8r

Following the indictment, Havard Criminal Law professor Alan Dershowitz publicly stated that "The two statutes under which Gov. Perry was indicted are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union — you know, abuse of authority. The idea of indicting him because he threatened to veto spending unless a district attorney who was caught drinking and driving resigned, that's not anything for a criminal indictment. That's a political issue." [1] Prof. Dershowitz further stated, "it's so important to put a stop to it now, to say the criminal law is reserved for real crimes, not for political differences where a party in power or out of power gets revenge against the other party. That's just not the way to use the criminal justice [system]." [1]

References

  1. ^ a b Wanda Carruthers (August 18, 2014). "Dershowitz: Perry Indictment 'What Happens in Totalitarian Societies'". Newsmax. Retrieved August 23, 2014.

In my view, this gives undue prominence to the opinion of a single person, albeit a law professor. Especially troubling is that it's sourced to Newsmax.- MrX 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- Dershowitz is one of the most prominent folks in the legal business and who is not merely "albeit a law professor" thus his standing here is pretty important. It would be akin to calling Obama "albeit a politician" or the like :). In fact [20] the claim is also sourceable to The New York Times which is pretty generally accepted as a reliable secondary source. Collect (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
His opinion doesn't inform our readers any more than the rather overweight content already present criticizing the indictment. The indictment section is starting to look quite bloated with opinion quotes. I'm not sure why we need Dershowitz' comments, especially since he seems to resort to a cold war version of Godwinizing rather than simply stating that he considers politicians to be above the law. - MrX 21:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The indictment section itself is already bloated and WP:UNDUE weight. I think we either need to cut out this professor or condense some of the major news publications criticizing this. Perhaps condensing both. This whole section is starting to grow. This is a major part of Perry's life, but not so much that it overtakes the article.--v/r - TP 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, newspaper editorials are not generally written by legal scholars -- removal of Dershowitz would likely run afoul of the requirements of NPOV where his scholarly legal opinion is what must be given weight. We should also give other scholarly legal opinion due weight, and that area is not the same as weight given political editorial opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not "scholarly legal opinion". "Scholarly legal opinion" is not published in Newsmax, but rather in scholarly legal journals. Dershowitz's view may be notable, given his prominence and given our apparent commitment to quote at length every published criticism of the indictment—but let's not get carried away with ourselves. MastCell Talk 00:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Try reading what I write and not something you imagine I write. Dershowitz is a "legal scholar". Newspaper editors are not "legal scholars". Is that hard to fathom? Legal opinions from "legal scholars" are not the same as opinions from "newspaper editorial writers". In fact, Dershowitz' opinion is also noted in the New York Times, just in case you have an anti-Newsmax animus. Does the fact the opinion is also noted by the New York Times better? And one should note that the USA Today editorial is not unbalanced in any way, nor are the others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
MastCell nails it. What this really is, is inflammatory commentary by a retired professor whom NYT notes Perry parroted. It doesn't belong in this article, and it sure as hell doesn't belong in Texans for Public Justice.- MrX 01:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what is so inflammatory about it. Given the criticism of the indictment by such a large range of people I would say that if anything the balance is slightly NPOV against Perry at this time. A quick check shows Dershowitz's defense of Perry receiving quite a bit of press. There are quite a few sources outside of Newsmax that could be used. Given Dershowitz's standing, his opinion is quite notable. Arzel (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
To semi-quote Mr.X, both Collect and Arzel "nail it". Further, I feel Mr.X's personal bias is made quite clear in his comments here. Not only does he repeatedly attempt to minimize the prominence and standing of Prof. Dershowitz, a scholar whose legal opinion is surely more relevant than that of any newspaper's editorial board concerning criminal law, Mr.X injects his own "inflammatory commentary" with phrases like "it sure as hell doesn't belong". Indeed, I cannot help but note the irony in someone who is ostensibly concerned about "inflammatory commentary" while engaging in that very thing himself. It appears to me that the more pushback Mr.X receives about his own viewpoint, the more angry he gets. Does anyone else see this? That said, I would like to thank both Collect and Arzel for their balanced and thoughtful responses. Peace. Atxav8r (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course I have a bias; we all do. It's not that hard to figure out where on the ideological spectrum each of us are. Also, I'm not angry in the slightest. Sorry for the blunt language in the last sentence of my previous post. It just seemed as if you were trying to shoe horn the same content into multiple articles.
I would like to see all, or almost all, of the quotes removed. If Dershowitz is cited in other publications (I have not checked Collect's recent ABA source yet), then I would rather include it in place of the editorial quotes. We should not quote him out of context, but we should keep it short and informative. Ideally, we can simply summarize his comments. My issues is not so much with what he said, but with the amount of space that the article gives to quotes and criticisms.- MrX 13:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ABA Journal. Should be quite sufficient. Collect (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Prof. Dershowitz is a world-reknowned and widely recognized legal scholar whose legal opinions are regularly sought after and cited by major media sources. He is a publicly and LEGALLY recognized expert on matters of the law, particularly criminal law. His comments/opinion regarding the Perry indictment bear substantial weight and should not be removed because someone doesn't want it here. There are some who, for political reasons of their own, do NOT want Prof. Dershowtiz' legal opinion of the Perry indictment to be included on Perry's wiki page. Furthermore, it is worth noting in the editing history of this section that SOME editors would rather have the opinion of a lessor-known law prof. than those of Prof. Dershowtiz. Any further editing of Prof. Dershowtiz's opinion will constitute an edit war and will be escalated accordingly. Atxav8r (talk) 07:28, 01 September 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps his commentary should go in his bio, or possibly Indictment of Rick Perry. I thought we were moving toward a more concise, balanced version by including only summary level information. I strongly oppose having any third party commentary in the Indictment section of this article. Removing such commentary would reduce the third paragraph to a nice, concise summary. - MrX 20:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The excessive detail in the indictment section, and in particular in the Dershowitz coverage, is overly WEIGHTy. Mr X is correct. The indictment article is the place for this stuff. Writegeist (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr.X is not correct, and Prof. Dershowtiz's professional and scholarly legal opinion is not "overly weighty". In fact, a neutral point of view would include Prof. Dershowtiz's opinion to offset the appearance that Perry is guilty of what he is accused of in the politically-inspired indictment against him. Indeed, this is Prof. Dershowtiz' main point...that the indictment is a political indictment that is "reminiscent of totalitarian societies" and not one grounded in law. A neutral point of view would also point out how Texans for Political Justice and the Travis County DA's office has conspired for many years to bring indictments against Republican officer holders they don't like and seek to destroy, such as former Rep. Tom Delay who was exonerated by the courts. In point of fact, liberals don't care if Perry is found guilty or not, it is the APPEARANCE of malfeasance with which they seek to taint Perry's record (and to derail any possible Presidential campaign of his). Since Dershowtiz is a leading public expert on legal matters, his opinion is necessary to offset the appearance that this indictment is both warranted and apolitical. The fact that some want to expunge Prof. Dershowtiz's opinion is ample proof of the political agenda behind their desire to edit it out. Furthermore, Prof. Dershowitz's professional opinion is surely more relevant that those found in newspaper editorials, a reason why liberal editors are ok with having the NYTs opinion cited, for example (see article edit history) but not Prof. Dershowitz's. Lastly, Mr.X says he would like any third party commentary removed. Well, what a shocker, considering that 99% of it holds a decidely unfavorable view of the indictment. Atxav8r (talk) 09:45, 01 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:BATTLEsome comments are tedious and create a hostile editing environment. You would do well to stop making assumptions about other users' motives ("The fact that some want to expunge Prof. Dershowtiz's opinion is ample proof of the political agenda behind their desire to edit it out" etc.). And you don't own this article ("Any further editing of Prof. Dershowtiz's opinion will constitute an edit war and will be escalated accordingly"). Also please bear in mind that this is not a forum. ("In point of fact, liberals don't care if Perry is found guilty or not, it is the APPEARANCE of malfeasance with which they seek to taint Perry's record (and to derail any possible Presidential campaign of his.") Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Handling of 2014 illegal immigration surge

Why is there no information on Perry's handling of the illegal immigration surge of 2014? The immigration crisis was a widely reported and publicized event, and Perry was widely praised for his handling of the crisis. This clearly was a major event of Perry's tenure as governor, so why is there absolutely no mention of this in his article? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perry to announce June 4, 11:30am

FYI: He'll be announcing his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential election formally today - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/rick-perry-2016-presidential-announcement/index.html -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Oops" Moment

There is a short mention of his gaffe during a 2012 debate, but I feel it should be a little bit longer. Him saying he would close 3 government departments and then not being able to name them all, ending with him saying "oops", was a huge moment in the 2012 primaries and probably the moment of his that got the most media coverage. Most articles that I see that discuss his chances in 2016 are talking about how he needs to redeem himself from the "oops" moment. I know a few media figures have suggested his adoption of wearing glasses is an attempt by Perry to not look as dumb in the wake of the gaffe.

I haven't edited political wiki's before and I know his announcement of running for 2016 is drawing more attention, so I didn't want to get carried away and do something that may seem politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by November49 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry's Birthplace

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry Was Born In Haskell, Texas, He Grew Up In Paint Creek, So Please Go Back And Change This. Keri Nowling 192.69.180.133 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP has a point as there seems to be some muddying of the waters. [21], [22]. Perhaps changing the birthplace to Haskell County, Texas would be a good solution? --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Indictment section is pretty long

Given that there's a Wikipedia article titled "Indictment of Rick Perry", we're supposed to summarize it here, per WP:Summary style. But that section of this article seems very long for a summary. I suggest it should be less than half its current length.

Moreover, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported a few weeks ago: "Aside from misspeaking, however, another trouble facing Texas’ longest running governor hasn’t surfaced in a while on the national scene: his indictment."[23] I therefore think the matter takes up inordinate space in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate lead content

I object to the addition of redundant content in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Either we should follow a chronological flow or a significance flow, not both. It's poor writing.- MrX 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's poor writing for the lead paragraph to give a broader overview, and then supply more detail in the rest of the lead? See how it's done in the Hillary Clinton lead. Her candidacy is briefly mentioned in the lead paragraph, and then later details of the announcement date are given at the end of the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do think it's poor writing. Leads don't have leads. The Hillary Clinton article is not a template for other articles. Also, WP:BRD.- MrX 01:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You are not entitled to override policy and guidelines, and to do so exclusively at articles of Republicans. DO you really want me to cite chapter and verse about how a lead paragraph is supposed to provide a broad overview, with more detail in the rest of the lead? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary here at this article: "Per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, and in conformity with Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders...." That's no coincidence. Those articles are simply complying with very clear policy and guidelines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, this edit of yours was not simply a revert. It deleted information that has long been in this BLP about how he launched his campaign with a web site and press conference in Addison, Texas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And now I see that you have completely scrubbed his presidential candidacy from the lead paragraph. I sincerely believe that this violates standard procedure at presidential candidates' BLPs, not to mention WP:OPENPARAGRAPH which you have consistently disregarded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have made a compromise edit to include the new information in the established chronological order. I don't see how WP:OPENPARAGRAPH supports repeating information in the lead, as well as in the body of an article. Also, the MOS is a guideline, and a loose one at that. It's not a policy.- MrX 01:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph is a guideline that says:

I strongly disagree with removing the primary source of the subject's current notability from the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Perry is known for being a governor. He is a pre-primary candidate for president, but that is simply not a significant role (if indeed a role at all). I strongly believe that the current lead structure makes the most sense and is consistent with how we usually write biographies. I welcome the opinions of other editors, or you can start an RfC if you feel strongly about it. My only interest here is good writing. - MrX 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons noticeboard

I have started a BLPN thread here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraph

I object to having a one-sentence paragraph in the lead.[24]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether his presidential candidacy should be mentioned in the lead paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The lead should have one mention only, but first paragraph mention is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to mention in the first paragraph of the lead that Perry is a presidential candidate, regardless of whether further information about it (such as the date and/or location of his presidential announcement) is mentioned toward the end of chronological material later in the lead?05:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Survey

James Richard "Rick" Perry (born March 4, 1950) is an American politician who served as the 47th Governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015. He also ran for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 primaries.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose mentioning it twice. There is no need for that whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but per Cwobeel, don't mention it twice. Why can't we just move any mention of his current candidacy to the top of the lead? I know it stinks of WP:RECENTISM, but I think it's pretty likely that most readers coming to this page will be interested in the candidacy. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that we mention the candidacy first, no? NickCT (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - yes, he's one of many candidates but he was also a candidate last time and had little impact beyond lulzy Daily Show clips. He is primarily known for his governorship (and being an idiot, but we cannot mention that in intro paragraph). Unless he becomes the GOP nomination, it's fine where it is now. Since we don't have other candidates like that, it would seem a bit promotional to put his in the lead paragraph. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not only fine but preferred in the last paragraph of the lead, being the most recent major change to his biography. We're not here to advertise candidacies, but to provide full biographies of notable individuals. Perry's legacy is as an elected Governor, not as a candidate for a few months in the current election cycle. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support But I also agree duplication should be avoided if possible. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As his candidacy is his most current reason for notability. Tucsontammy (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a presidential candidate fails to become a frontrunner or nominee, their candidacy borders on historical insignificance in most cases. Placing it in the lead sentence is undue focus on recent events, per WP:RECENTISM. Not to mention that duplicating information in a lead violates the spirit of summary style, if not the exact word. ~ RobTalk 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Anythingyouwant. His argument makes sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mention it once, and at the end of the lead. Perry (and Sanders and Clinton, etc.) aren't notable for running for president, they're notable for their gubernatorial, senatorial, etc. careers. It belongs in the lead, but not right up front. We're not going to start off McCain's article with "John McCain is a former presidential candidate, and a Senator from Arizona". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, running for president is a big deal and full time enterprise. If and when a candidacy ends we will need to update just as when an political position or occupation changes. OrganicEarth (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support see comments below In the first sentence Jadeslair (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support A full, accurate description of who is and what he is doing must include the fact that he is running for president right now--it takes up a majority of his time. It is ludicrous not to have it as the last sentence of the lead paragraph and remove the last sentence of the summary.ML (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One mention is enough, anything more is WP:UNDUE. His notability stems from his tenure in Texas politics and is known primarily for being governor there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I absolutely see no point in mentioning twice at all - One mention is fine and doesn't need repeating twice. –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose History and government teachers well pay attention to the next 50 years to his 2012 campaign and perhaps run video clips. It was hilarious. He has not recovered this year he's a minor figure in his 2016 campaign is Little League. Rjensen (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - summoned by bot - as usual I agree with Winkelvi - one mention is enough, anything more is WP:UNDUE as not the primary reason for notability. To include it also smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Flat Out (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One mention is enough. Anything more would fall under WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The candidacy is notable. He isn't a perennial candidate or vanity candidate. The sources are there, how would its inclusion be giving it WP:UNDUE? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support His candidacy for President is notable and should remain in the lead paragraph. Fraulein451 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lede, once only. Ambivalent about whether it belongs at the end of the second-clause-of-the-first sentence (or second sentence proper as User:ONUnicorn suggests above), or whether it belongs as the final sentence of the lede (aka as the most recent thing he has done). Definitely belongs in the lede though; his presidential candidacy in 2012 was close to, but not enough to, outstrip his reputation as a governor. At the risk of indulging in a bit of WP:CRYSTAL here on usertalk, I can say that running again probably cements his historical reputation as first and foremost a two-time-loser potus candidate, who (secondarily) was also the reasonably-well-respected TX governor in his earlier life. Perry's presidential runs are direct extensions of his governorship, both in donors and in overall style; Perry's strengths & weaknesses as governor, are reflected quite well, in his national-repub-primary-electorate performance. We will have to write that early-historical-career-summary later, of course, a few years from now. In the present, the #1 most important fact about Perry is his governorship... but the #2 second-most-important fact, outstripping all specific actions as governor whatsoever, is his 2012-and-2016 runs for the presidency. Governorship must be the first thing we mention, but potus-runs belong in the lede (where exactly in the lede is not crucial). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC Discussion

@KoshVorlon: It's not mentioned twice now, but it is mentioned twice in the edit that Anythingyouwant is proposing here.- MrX 17:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with something in the lead paragraph like ONUnicorn wrote, e.g. "He ran for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 primaries, and is running again in the 2016 primaries." I disagree that parity with other current candidate BLPs is irrelevant, whereas parity with BLPs of people who haven't been candidates in many years is relevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The only issue that I have is repeating content in the lead. In your edit yesterday, the lead included these two sentences:
  1. "Perry has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election."
  2. "Perry launched his 2016 U.S. presidential campaign on June 4, 2015 with a new web site and a press conference in Addison in Dallas County, Texas."
While the second sentence introduces new, albeit trivial, content, the bulk of each sentece is duplicative. As a solution, I propose that we simply choose one, or chose an alternative such as the one proposed by ONUnicorn. But let's not repeat the same material in the lead.- MrX 18:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I have no objection to inserting into the lead paragraph this: "He ran for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 primaries, and is running again in the 2016 primaries." This does not put his current candidacy in the past tense. And then the end of the lead can mention the setting of his announcement. The latter part of the lead is largely chronological, so leaving out the last chronological item is poor writing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's that last part that I object to. Mentioning where he launched his campaign in the lead is simply too much detail. The date, if important, can easy be juxtaposed with the announcement material in the first paragraph, for our readers' benefit.- MrX
It's important for the chronological part of the lead to conclude by saying something about his presidential candidacy beyond the bare statement in the first paragraph. Otherwise the chronology is incomplete. If you'd like to suggest something besides the date and location of his announcement, please feel free to suggest. The announcement setting is at the end of the lead of these Democratic candidates:
  • Hillary Clinton, last paragraph of lead: "announcing her second run for the presidency in April 2015."
  • Bernie Sanders, last paragraph of lead: "His campaign was officially launched on May 26 in Burlington."
  • Martin O'Malley, last paragraph of lead: "O'Malley publicly announced his candidacy in the 2016 presidential election on May 30, 2015, in Baltimore, Maryland...."
  • Jim Webb, last sentence of lead: "On July 2, 2015, he announced that he would be joining the race...."
  • Lincoln Chafee, end of lead: "Chafee formally announced the launch of his campaign on June 3, 2015...."

These BLPs seem more relevant than the current BLPs of people who haven't run for president in many years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there's a pretty clear consensus so far, and discussion has petered out, I will tentatively make some changes to the article. They can always be undone if the RFC shifts dramatically. Moreover, I think the changes will address some of the concerns expressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I would vigorously object to that. One editor doesn't think there is duplicate content in your proposed edit, and two editors do not agree with your proposed wording. That is far from consensus. The RfC should be allowed to run at least a few more days and it should be closed by an experienced, uninvolved editor or admin. You also attempted to do this at Jeb Bush and were advised then that it's wrong.- MrX 03:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't even read what I inserted, or given any reason why you don't support it. No one objects to it but you. It's obvious what the consensus is, and it is preposterous to omit his candidacy from the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I did read it. You added duplicate content (2016 candidacy) in the first and fifth paragraphs of the lead. As far as I can tell, three out of five editors do not support repeating this content in the lead. Note that KoshVorlan did not think that it was repeated, presumably because he was looking at the status quo version. Please let an admin close the RfC after an appropriate amount of time.- MrX 04:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that User:Cwobeel has just commented, you have one voice of support for your notion that this article cannot do what virtually every other presidential candidate BLP does. You are the only editor who has deliberately removed presidential candidacy from the lead paragraph, and not even Cwobeel has thus far supported doing that. Your most recent removal from the lead paragragh was neither preceded nor followed by any acknowledgment that the presidential material in the last paragraph was not redundant: it mentioned the time of the announcement, the place of the announcement, and the music that accompanied the announcement. I do not understand how you can raise these silly objections at HUckabee, Jindal, and Perry while ignoring the exact same structure at all of the Democratic BLPs as I explicitly described above (without the slightest reply from you). It really is very poor editing on your part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I have no objection to moving the candidacy material from the fifth to the first paragraph (move, not copy). If you're concerned about the Democrat BLPs, then you can fix them. I have no intentions of making the lead of every 2016 presidential candidate look like every other. Characterizing this as "very poor editing" on my part is way out of line.- MrX 04:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If you have no objection to moving the candidacy material from the fifth to the first paragraph, then why have you not done so? You are the only one who has repeatedly removed it from the lead paragraph. And why have you not acknowledged that the rest of the lead after the first paragraph is chronological? What kind of chronological lead omits the last item? And why do you simply delete reliable sources (NY Daily News and Tenessean) without saying one word about why you think they are insignificant?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
An RFC for this? Seriously? What a waste of time.... - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: I haven't moved the candidacy material to the first paragraph because there is an ongoing RfC. Also, when I did exactly that in the three paragraph lead at Bobby Jindal, you undid me. Based on your actions there, here, and at the two paragraph lead on Mike Huckabee, it seems evident that you are trying to force the same type of edit across multiple articles and would simply continue to revert my attempts to craft a compromise.- MrX 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The Jindal situation was and remains very different from this one. You did not completely remove Jindal's presidential candidacy from the Jindal lead paragraph, as you have repeatedly done here. And I never completely removed it there either. I am tired of trying to discuss this with you MrX. If you refuse to put Perry's candidacy back in the lead paragraph in any way, shape, or form then don't, and we'll just have to await the outcome of the RFC. I only object to unnecessary detail in the lead paragraph, and I have never objected to a simple statement of his candidacy in the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Carrite, I agree that we are not here to advertise candidacies. If we were, then Perry's would not be the one that I want to advertise. However, WP:OPENPARAGRAPH is very clear that the lead paragraph should include "notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played". Being a presidential candidate is this person's main job, and it has been extremely well-publicized for many months. If someone would like to change Wikipedia guidelines about this, then maybe I'd have a different view about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ill-considered micromanagement by the Manual of Style. The fact that we are having this unproductive discussion about what seems on the face of it a perfectly good lead goes to show why about 68.75% of the vaunted Manual of Style should be folded in half and shoved in the WP:PAPERSHREDDER. Carrite (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
In defense of this particular part of the MOS, it would at least take us Wikipedians out of the business of deciding (before any votes are cast) who the real candidates are. I assume, User:Carrite, that you think some of the candidates should be identified as such in their BLP opening paragraphs. Is that assumption correct?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the fact should be mentioned in the lead of each and in the first paragraph of none, speaking in broad generalities. Carrite (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to exclude presidential candidacy from lead paragraphs regardless of policies, guidelines, and circumstances, then I guess that raises the question about what does belong in a lead paragraph. The usual stuff minus anything that might be helpful to the BLP subject?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I find the mention of his candidacy in the lead to be excessive. Should just mention in the first sentence that he was governor of Texas and is a candidate for the 2016 nomination. When he announced is better placed later in the article. TFD (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TFD. It's enough to mention he is a candidate for the nomination in the first sentence and announcement of the candidacy elsewhere in the article. These candidates are certainly known for running for president. It is running for the nomination that has raised all their profiles. Bernie Sanders is a prime example. He was not well-known outside New England until he announced his run. He is now a household word because he's running for the nomination. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
For this specific article I agree with Mr, as far as the wording for the lead and I think that it is good as it currently stands. The lead as a whole seems excessive, I would have removed the 2012 campaign as long as it remains in the body of the article, other that that I think it currently conforms to WP:MOSBIO. The announcement certainly should not be mentioned twice in the lead and not be included in the lead paragraph because he is primarily known as Governor. I am here because of a request on this talk page as a nuetral party commenting. Thinking about all the candidates I would also say my statement for this applies to all parties that are running to reach a site wide NPOV. There may be an exception to this I suppose, maybe someone is only notable for running for president but in that case I don't think they would have an article. 72.185.223.102 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

McCain and recentism

Per the !vote of User:Muboshgu, no one is suggesting to say in the McCain lead that he is a 2016 candidate for president, because he's not; it is appropriate to say in the McCain lead that he was a losing candidate for president in 2008 since he was the nominee, though not in 2000 when he didn't win the nomination. McCain's current occupation and primary notability are not as a presidential candidate, as they are for Perry and have been for months.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, McCain is NOT running for president so it isn't appropriate for the lede sentence of his bio. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: Do you see how some people may apply WP:RECENTISM based on the statement you just made? He's notable for this right now, but should he not be elected president, history suggests it is highly likely he will not remain notable for this. We're writing for history, not for right now. ~ RobTalk 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
User:BU Rob13, WP:Recentism is not a guideline or policy like WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. But suppose it were. WP:Recentism has a whole section titled "Recentism as a positive" and no one has explained why it's inapplicable here. We are also not talking here about a news spike, since this has been going on for many months. Additionally, per that essay, "What might seem at the time to be an excessive amount of information on recent topics actually serves the purpose of drawing in new readers—and among them, potential new Wikipedians." One might also ask whether it's really recentism if the sole debate is where in the article information should go, not whether it should be included. Assuming it really is Recentism, I am happy to follow the advice of WP:Recentism: "After 'recentist' articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:Recentism has nothing to do with it. It's not like an incident like the Brian Williams bit with the Navy Seals. This about making a run for the presidency of the United States. That's a long haul effort and right now Rick Perry and others are in the race. It's not only notable, but it reflects their current status as legitimately as their political offices do. For now Perry is a former Governor and always will be. But he's now also a presidential candidate. These campaigns have infrastructure as firmly and as well organized and as serious as the infrastructure in their political offices. This is not a fly by night event. It belongs in the lede sentence and to argue otherwise makes no sense whatsoever. Not one person against it has brought forth any WP policy against it. WP:Recentism is not an argument against putting the status in the lede sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The lead section according to Opening paragraph, it "summarizes the most important points of the article" Running for president is one of the most important things a person would do during their life. The article should e written in present Tense, since that is the case I would think that his current affairs would be more important than his past. I know we are not a news agency, I don't believe that applies here. The lead sentence should say What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?, The subject was notable as governor but according to recent news he is now notable as a candidate for president. The reader should not be Confused by the lead, as it stands it says what he did do which leads to what is he doing now? Well he is running for president. The Lead should creating interest in reading more of the article. Since most of the whole lead section is less likely to get the reader engaged than a person currently running for president I must conclude that is has to be included in the lead sentence. I propose the lead say "James Richard "Rick" Perry (born March 4, 1950) is an American politician of the Republican Party who served as the 47th Governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015. He was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election."
WP:Recentism has nothing to do with this topic, history will show he was a candidate. See Category:United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008 or how about Category:United_States_presidential_candidates,_1904 , Francis Cockrell was a candidate in 1904 and it is included in his article. Jadeslair (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

More discussion

User:Rjensen, let's stipulate that Perry is in the "little league" this year, and that his campaign is hilarious. Still, the issue is not how big a candidate he is relative t the other candidates, but rather how significant his candidacy is in his own life, right? It's his present occupation, and a full-time job. Merely because he's presumably doing the job badly doesn't mean it warrants less coverage in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that a job??? it's a toy to play with Because as gov he could raise money & can now spend the money. Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that the kind of well-sourced statement that we could put in his BLP? And even if it's true, his primary notability in the media for many months has been with regard to this plaything of his.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
His role as governor for so long is **** -- and info will keep coming out about it. His 2012 run is terrific comedy & that's how the RS have played it. But this year he has not beefed up his career highlights. Rjensen (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's unusual to not put a person's current occupation/endeavor/whatever in the lead paragraph, especially when it's garnering such immense attention in reliable media sources over an extended period. Now, if Wikipedia editors would like to take Perry's article to WP:AfD because they don't like him, then what seems to be happening here is just a miniature version of the same kind of thing. Take a look at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Border Security

I'm trying to find information on Governor Perry's handling of Border Security, but couldn't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 725edwards (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to boldly add the section, provided that your addition follows our Golden rule. In summary, it must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. ~ RobTalk 01:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
User:BU_Rob13, that is the wrong golden rule. WP:42 is only for dedicated articles; we already have a dedicated article on Perry, so the applicable wiki-rule is WP:NOTEWORTHY. There are plenty of stories about Perry, in the news right now, and how he sent national guard troops (and dept of fish&wildlife agents and such) to the border, in 2014/2015. Cf one of the third-party opposition candidates to Perry, who made deploying natGuard one of her platform planks in 2010, Kathie Glass.[25]
    I think what User:725edwards might be referring to, is the dearth of sources talking about Perry-the-governor and his positions on border security *prior* to the 2014 midterms (aka prior to Perry's presidential runs in 2012 and 2016). Perry is noteworthy for his statement in his 2012 run that children of illegal immigrants ought to qualify for in-state tuition, and anybody that disagreed 'had no heart' or words to that effect. But an overview of Perry's stances (and actions) with regard to border-security and immigration legal&illegal, from the time he became LtGuv in ~1998 through the start of his potus runs in July 2011, is relatively lacking. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to WP:V, which is packaged within 42. NOTEWORTHY is not something I would quote at someone relatively inexperienced before they were reverted. For concerns about whether the information is necessary, we can follow WP:BRD. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry Was Born In Haskell, Texas, He Was Raised In Paint Creek, Texas, Please Go Back And Fix That. Keri Nicole Nowling, Formerly Of Austin, Texas.192.69.180.133 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Top pic survey

Rick Perry #1
Rick Perry #2
Rick Perry #3
Images to choose from

Perry image #1

Perry image #2

Perry image #3

Former Tex. Gov. Rick Perry

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry Was Born On March 4,1950,in Haskell, Texas, Not Paint Creek, Texas, He Grew Up In Paint Creek, But He Was Born In Haskell, So Please Go Back And Fix It.69.174.160.120 (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[26] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[27] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[28] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[29] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[30]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[31] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[32] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[33] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[34] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[35] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

This page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Did poorly both times"

This last sentence of the header: "Perry ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2012 and 2016, but did poorly each time and soon dropped out." While it is certainly true that Perry did poorly in both of his campaigns and dropped out, he was also at one time in the 2012 primary a top contender and led polls consistently for about a month. I feel like this should deserve some mention or at least a re-wording of the sentence. If one were to read the sentence as it currently stands they might be led to believe that both of Perry's campaigns were like his last one in which he failed to gain any traction at all. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cartoon Rick Perry Image

I'd suggest that the caricature of Rick Perry be removed from the article. While it is certainly amusing it doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. -Vcelloho (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Salary Edit

Regarding this edit adding Perry's salary, I don't see any mention of a salary in Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy, or Nancy Pelosi so the argument that it's "[r]elevant to public service position" seems to fall flat on it's face. Does anyone have anything else to say on the subject? Not only that, but the source used is a primary source and there isn't a proposed RS tying his salary to his nomination.--v/r - TP 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Already Confirmed as Energy Sec?

According to NPR the Senate has already confirmed Perry as Energy Sec -> [36]</ref> --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Official portrait

Perry already has an official DoE portrait. Not sure why that atrocious cut-out of his CPAC appearance is still on this article. Frevangelion (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

add Michael Bleyzer (SigmaBleyzer) & Alex Cranberg (Aspect Energy) and Third Amigo in Ukraine fossil fuels ?

Regarding Naftogaz, Bleyzer’s investment firm SigmaBleyzer and Cranberg’s Aspect Energy versus UkrGasVydobuvannya, Ministry of Energy and Coal Mining (Ukraine), Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (Ukraine), etc

Other coverage:

X1\ (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Perry/Archive_4&oldid=1257151089"