![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Perry has backed states' rights on several occasions, including the ability of states to decide their own policy on the environment and on drugs rather than have it decided for them by the federal government.
Took out the part saying, "have it decided for them by the federal government." The framing of this sentence seems to imply that it is always bad for the federal government to "decide" these policies. It is arguable that the federal government actually "decides" what environmental policy should be. Numerous state agencies and local stakeholders are involved in most federal decisions on environmental regulations and policies. -- Weatheru2 04:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what to disambiguate Victoria to, though I guess it's either Victoria, Texas or Victoria County, Texas. Can someone who knows more about this fix it up? Vadmium 08:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Error: Perry is not the longest serving current Governor in the US; that honor goes to Terry Branstad of Iowa who served 16 years in his first term (1983-1999) and is now serving again as Governor since January 2011. Perry may have the record for longest continuous service as a sitting Governor. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.62.218.217 (
talk)
14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Their need to be mention of the fact that he called a special session of the legislature to push through the controversial redistricting plan that gave Republican's an advantage over democrats in Texas' US House districts. I'n not sure where to put this though. -- Cab88 18:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph since it is uncited and seems to violate OR and doesn't seem NPOV (only 48%, Despite polling at only 33%, etc).
-- PTR 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about adding this on here but mind telling me when the next State Governor electing will take place. I may be interested in running for it, but I'm not sure how to do that. Plz forgive my limited knowledge.-- Zhang Liao 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am obviously just scratching the surface on this issue, all his oppoents have commented on Perry's views but I'm strapped for time to include them at the moment. Hopefully others can add to it Mr Christopher 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your bias shows when you have a section on Perry's views on non-Christians, but have no similar sections in his detractor's pages, i.e. Carole Keeton Strayhorn's page doesn't have a section called "Strayhorn's Hypocrisy With Her Religion", or "Bell's Inconsistency with His Religious Views". Perry was totally correct when he stated that his faith claims Jesus as the only way to God. It's the others, who call themselves Christians that are inconsistent or hypocritical with their beliefs. You're just proving that you agree with the others and disagree with Perry.
Sorry for the emotional response last time. But I waited over a month for a response and no one responded so I removed the entire section. Again, if people find it offensive that one believes only his/her religion saves, then their criticism should be placed in a page titled "Criticisms of Religion" or "Criticisms of Organized Religion". I hope that we don't start to actually criticize people for believing in their religion. -Brad Kgj08 ( talk) 23:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether Perry's views are "outrageous"--it's up to the reader to decide that. So what if this belief is orthodox Christianity? Even most Christian elected politicians know not to express hatred toward non-Christians, just as most Jewish elected politicians know not to express hatred toward non-Jews, and most atheist elected politicians know not to express hatred toward non-atheists. Hell, most non-farmer politicians know not to express hatred of farmers.
But this man is an elected official, employed by the citizens of Texas, and he thinks most of them will be tortured for all time by the creator. The people who pay his salary, taxpayers, deserve to know that he thinks they deserve torture forever. If Richard Dawkins were an elected official (he's not) and if he believed that all Jews, Christians, Muslims or believers in any god get tortured for all eternity, the taxpayers who pay his salary would have a right to know he hates the people who pay his salary. A lot of people won't vote for people who hate them, who wish their moms and dads and children will be tortured forever. If Perry hates most of the taxpayers who pay his salary, those taxpayers have a right to know he wants their kids tortured forever. 71.235.76.64 ( talk) 04:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Much of this sub-section reflects a basic misunderstanding of the Christian view of non-Christians. Through prayer we plead with God to extend Grace to them. Through evangelism, we attempt to influence non-Christians to consider that they will eventually stand before a thrice holy Judge whose eyes are too pure to even look on sin. I am accountable to be a "worthy watchman" and inform the non-Christian of the judgment that will take place in each of our futures.
It is "the truth in love" to inform a non-believer that he needs a Savior who is willing to accept the punishment for their sins. Almighty God has complete sovereignty to decide who is and isn't allowed into His heaven. I believe that a valid reading of the Bible is that non-Christians will be cast into eternal, conscious, miserable outer darkness. God is not trying to win a popularity contest by sugar coating what He has decided will happen.
An alternative, but speculative interpretation is that non-believers will experience the full misery of “dog eat dog”, “might makes right”, “law of the jungle”, “survival of the fittest” karma. I have deep, deep doubts that there will be any playing poker and drinking beer with your friends. According to Jesus' words in Luke 16, a person in Abraham's bosum will not be allowed to bring a cooling drop of water to a person in Hades.
My experience is that skeptics have faith in annihilation, which I feel is wishful thinking. I personally hate what Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Stalin, etc. did, but I do hope that somehow God has pity and mercy on their souls, and removes them from the horrors of infinite outer darkness. If God were interested in my preferences, I would plead that He extend forgiveness to them as He has promised to do for me, through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross as atonement for believers in God’s Son.
It would be a “putting words in his mouth” to indicate that Gov. Perry agrees with some, any, most, or all of the above. I believe it is 90%+ consistent with orthodox Christianity. Lynn ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I see where this article has been added to that cat, yet there are no details in the article about his position on the subject. I belive he has gone on record stating intelligent d4esign is in fact a valid scientific theory. I know the Statesman wrote quite a bit on the topic but I cannot find anything online there, the Dallas Morning news covered it here. I'll see about including it in the article. Mr Christopher 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the edit, Perry is the 47th Governor ( Bill Clements isn't counted 'twice'). GoodDay 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why was this omitted? I could have sworn that it was present at an earlier point in time. I would think that it would belong under the "Perry-isms" section. 68.203.115.157 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And you would think that someone would mention the Texas secession movement he started since he said "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that." (ref: http://notexas.com)
I believe there should be some mention in the section on the "Death Penalty" of his refusal to grant a stay of execution for Kelsey Patterson, a man who had a history of mental illness. Even the Parole Board recommended that Patterson's sentence be commuted to life. Governor Perry ignored their opinion. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/patterson910.htm
interesting developments in this case that perry wishes would go away. he's refusing to release the letter sent by an attorney with the initial report that the arson evidence to convict/execute willingham was flawed. perry will not release that letter http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9B92QUO0.html
better details can be found here http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6662113.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
perry aids pressured the texas forensics panel (before replacing them all two days before the panel was to hear testimony from beyler) and even complained about the cost of the beyler report that thoroughly mangled the arson "evidence" used to convict/execute willingham.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-arson-williinghamoct12,0,7089579.story?page=2
perry mocked the beyler report in public and called him a "so-called expert" which suggests he's desperate since beyler is anationally recognized expert on arson. I sense perry is trying to push this one under the rug until after the election. trouble for perry is most newspapers in texas are not ignoring his role or what he's doing. how to incorporate this in the article while doing so in npv is the question. perry is clearly an evil man but we can't write that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I split this piece off as a sub section of the death penalty section. I did so because this specific case has been covered extensively by all the major news outlets nation wide. it is bigger than just his views on the death penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This CNN video found here puts it in perspective: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9415/cnns-anderson-cooper-texas-governor-rick-perry-covering-up-innocent-mans-execution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
rick perry speaking about willingham in a video seen here http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9472/todd-willinghams-mother-responds-to-rick-perry-dr-craig-beyler-calls-on-new-appointees-to-resign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The current article reads that Rick Perry 'is a tool and the current Governor of Texas'. 76.191.206.26 ( talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
From CBS's Face the Nation:
HARRY SMITH: What do you make of this spreading and very public disaffection with not only the government, but especially the Obama administration, the Tea parties this week? You even have the governor of Texas even using the word secession? Should Texas be allowed to secede?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, I don’t think that really warrants a serious response. I don’t think most Texans were all that enthused by the governor’s suggestion.
JCDenton2052 ( talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Can the long and unorganized list of responses to Perry's secession comments be summarized in more encyclopedic form? Currently it reads like an attempted hit job on the poor guy. By all means send the Mafia after him if you don't like him, but Wikipedia should not be trying to break into that line of work. The same complaint applies here as applies to lists of trivia, which should be organized into a paragraph or two of prose instead of a laundry list. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in the details of the two parentheticals. Who said rates will be set locally? Is the "equity stake" something inherently tied to eminent domain? What is an equity stake? I think both require citations. -- Jesdisciple ( talk) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
if you go to googlenews and search "governor of death" and Rick Perry comes up in all the results. Coincidence or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Did Perry grow up in Paint Creek or Paint Rock? My understanding was that he was from Paint Rock (Concho County). However, I didn't want to change without someone knowledgable's verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.179.74 ( talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is obviously slanted in favor of a left-wing democrat bias against Governor Perry. The intentional smoke screen submitted by liberals criticizing the article by claiming it favors the governor is an old technique they have always used to cover up their nefarious schemes to promote their agenda by smearing a good man by making him appear to be a vilian which this article patently does. There is nothing in this article that recognizes any of the good that the governor has done. The article is definitely anti-christian by making evangelical Christians look like extremists. If that is the case so were the founding fathers. This is an article that belongs in Texas Monthly Magazine, a magazine by liberal yankees for liberal yankees, not in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.184.191 ( talk) 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, This article appears to have some significant problems. For instance, under the state sovereignty discussion, it includes a link to the main article of Texas Secessionist Movement-- which is completely unrelated to the discussion of sovereignty. This insinuates that all state sovereignty advocacy is secessionist rhetoric-- which is plainly false. I don't think it is beyond the scope of the article to include a discussion on his statements on sovereignty, however it creates an insinuation that isn't there to include "Texas Secessionist Movement" as the "main article". 76.203.228.38 ( talk) 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to stop in the middle of 2010. Given that he is clearly nosing around a presidential run, I would hope to find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.79.130 ( talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to use the partial quote ("I'm going to think about it. I think about a lot of things." is the actual quote) as the best way to describe Perry's current Presidential race considerations? It seems kind of lazy (using a soundbite in the opening paragraph of a biography page.)
Why not state something like, "In May 2011, Perry has publicly suggested that he's considering a Presidential run in 2012." Then you could use the full quote in the appropriate section below, hopefully with a bit more information as well? Just wondering 123.225.172.246 ( talk) 09:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and gentle "correction of the error of my ways" towards this on-again, off-again wiki'an. I have lots to learn and appreciate constructive criticism. Lynn ( talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In 2011, Rick Perry supported a controversial budget that would result in the loss of approximately a third of Texas school teacher jobs. [1] He also rejected the use of a Rainy Day Fund that could have helped prevent the cuts to the education system. [2] [3] T1d31k1w ( talk) 01:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite episode}}
: Missing or empty |series=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
This article gives the impression that Rick Perry came from humble backgrounds, that couldn't be further from the truth. 99.169.66.28 ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Pär Larsson ( talk) 21:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Rick Perry's HPV mandate was at the request of a Merck executive who had been Rick Perry's chief of staff http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html. Rick Perry also received campaign cash from Merck.
Also, he did not "allow" a bill overriding his HPV executive order to pass. The legislature had the votes to override any veto and had made it known to Perry that if he made further attempts to mandate the HPV vaccine, that they would enforce their override.
Also, the article should note that the vaccine mandated vaccination against an STD, it is not a cancer vaccination. The vaccine doesn't stop all occurrences of HPV and is extremely ineffective against cervical cancer whose cause cannot be soley sourced to HPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpaguy ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we please have some sources for these criticisms? Thanks, - Willmcw 01:43, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
The reference supplied by anonymous Wiki contributor 98.244.108.99 does not use the words "virtually all". That article by Rick Casey is more of a "rant" by a political commentator. In my earlier change, I used a quote actually from the Casey commentary, "an analysis disputed by the scientific establishment".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Senate Bill 8 was signed into law by Rick Perry in July of 2011. This bill openly attacks educators across the State of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.213.44 ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Add 2011 Texas wildfires and Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas to Rick_Perry#Response_to_2011_drought_and_wildfires. 99.181.145.99 ( talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"Teen sexuality before marriage is the problem. If we can nip that in the bud and talk to them about how damaging it is to their heart, that is really what is going to make a difference."
This article contains a number of errors and is heavily slanted in favor of the GOP and Perry. For one thing, the article states that Perry has "worked to reduce property taxes." Anyone who actually lives in Texas can tell you that this is laughable: property taxes in Texas have, in fact, been skyrocketing for years now. Also, the article states that Perry "worked to reform Texas health care and make it more accessible, increasing health funding by $6 billion." There's a reason this statement doesn't have a reference; it is totally inaccurate. Perry has in fact gutted all social services, including health care and Texas consistently ranks 49th or 50th in all categories of social services, health care and education.
I agree, it seems pretty biased.-- Evan7257 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I took out the line about Perry signing death penalty orders. The Governor in Texas does not have that power, trial judges sign execution warrants.
I cannot attest to the accuracy or inaccuracy of this article, but as a undecided voter trying to learn about the issues, I fear this article is heavily weighted against Gov. Perry. I would hope that in this forum the information would be less partisan and more factual. I do not think it is at all.
The statement in the Second paragraph under "Fiscal Issues" is erroneous. "Critics contended that Perry inflated these numbers; the actual tax savings, they said, would average only $150 per family." The statement cites to a website that itself cites to a "Fact Check" by "The LONE STAR PROJECT" which used an article in the Austin American-Statesman, Friday, May 26, 2006, as its source. The direct link to The Lone Star Project's report http://www.lonestarproject.net/archive/perryfactcheck.html contains a copy of the article, which reads "The owner of an average-value home will save about $1,350 in school property taxes over the next three years, former Comptroller John Sharp said... Sharp said the owner of an average home, which he described as appraised at about $118,000, would save about $150 in property taxes in the first year and about $600 per year over the next two years....Perry says in television commercials that the average homeowner will save $2,000 over the first three years". Thus, although Perry's statement was based on the first three years, and predicted savings of $2,000 over that time, the statement erroneously uses the figure ($150) that the source (Sharp) gave FOR THE FIRST YEAR ONLY, which the more accurate figure being $1,350. The ultimate source contradicts the statement on the wiki page. Therefore, the statement needs to be edited to reflect that value, $1,350. Gibb25 ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Gibb25
First-timer here. Looks like reference #14 should be dated August 5, not August 8. I don't know how to change it, maybe someone can make the update. Thanks, Mb92 ( talk) 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Mb92
Right now, the section on intelligent design includes "A spokeswoman for Perry called intelligent design a "valid scientific theory", an analysis that political commentator Rick Casey describes as "disputed by the scientific establishment"."
My viewpoint is that firstly, if you're going to quote someone for this (X says "..."), at least cite someone who's an expert on it - Rick Casey does not have any particular insight into the science. And secondly, the way this is presented tells the reader nothing in a he-says-she-says sort of way (I am reminded of a comedian who said that if a politician stated that the earth was flat, the headline next day would be "Viewpoints differ on the shape of the Earth.") As there's already an effective article on the subject, my view would be that the best route would be to cite that instead. (ex: ... "an analysis disputed by the scientific establishment.")
Thoughts? 68.42.243.198 ( talk) 03:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
When I saw the Huffington Post article on Rick Perry's college transcript, I knew it would have made it into this article. A few points:
First, the editor who added the college transcript info to this article plagiarized the Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post wrote:
Wikipedia says:
Second, The Huffington Post is blatantly biased. The article is titled, "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds." In fact, by my quick count he got 20 B's, 27 C's, and 9 D's. That's twice as many B's than D's. An honest title for the Huffington Post article would be "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Bs And Cs." This Huffington Post bias has made its way into Wikipedia because even though both HuffPost and Wikipedia say "He rarely earned grades above C", the truth is that a third of his grades were B's. In fact, B's were his second most common grade. The Huffington Post may not require a neutral point of view, but Wikipedia does.
My third point, and this isn't really a Wikipedia thing, but I feel it needs to be said: It is illegal for universities to release college transcripts without the student's permission. It doesn't matter whether it's a Democratic or Republican politician, or an ordinary person like you or me, publicly releasing college transcripts is a violation of personal privacy and a crime. This should offend anyone who cares about civil liberties (even if Rick Perry himself doesn't care about civil liberties).
-- JHP ( talk) 09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Again - how is this stuff notable? It happened how many years ago? Is the same information really important in your views of Bush, Clinton, Bush 2 or <insert your favourite political candidate>? I think not. It's food for tabloids and simple-minded people. It stinks of pettiness and an insistence on finding tiny faults at all cost. If you don't like Rick Perry 2012 there's plenty actually good reasons not to like him. Pär Larsson ( talk) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is worth mentioning, but on tonight's Colbert Report they mentioned how the Colbert Super Pack endorses him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.50.105 ( talk) 06:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In the Education section, it says that Rick Perry is an "Aggie." Can someone rephrase it so that the meaning is more clear? Thanks. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
User Malonius thought the excessively long section was itself an anti-death penalty POV. I'm inclined to agree, in part at least. The section I put back in is lifted straight from the top of the Cameron Todd Willingham page - if it's good enough to be a summary over there it should be good enough for over here. I even tried to shorten it some. I personally am not anti-death penalty but this particular case is disturbing and anyone who comes to wikipedia looking for information on Rick Perry should be informed that the potential 2012 US Presidential candidate oversaw the execution of a very likely innocent man. By all means let's kill people, but let's make sure they're ummmm, I don't know, ...guilty? Also added a short Perry-specific thing from the other article that I thought was telling of Mr. Perry's opinion on the mess. Pär Larsson ( talk) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been watching this article, but someone should explain why the governor's mansion fire has anything in particular to do with Perry. I mean, he wasn't there ... I didn't see anything about his stuff being burnt up ... searching, I found a quick mention (not in a proper source though) of a funny story where he proposed to put solar panels on the roof and mocked the opposition from the historical society by pointing out that there were air conditioners up there already. [3] It's already covered in the Texas Governor's Mansion article (which includes a claim that an anarchist tossed the molly, which if true might not have had anything at all to do with Perry specifically) Unless there's some burning reason why this is relevant to Perry this should lose its section heading and be condensed, if not eliminated from the article. Wnt ( talk) 06:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This article includes that Perry was named as one of the most effective legislators in 1989 by the Dallas Morning News. This doesn't appear to have ever had a citation, and an archive search of the Dallas Morning News for "Perry" and "effective" in 1989 returns nothing of note. [4] Unless anyone can find a citation, I'm going to remove this dubious claim for now. Seleucus ( talk) 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We can most certainly "describe each of his policies" in this article. Gun control is a major political issue, and the gun ownership section does not currently go into "minute detail" by any stretch of the imagination.
As for press releases, they are used as sources all throughout this article and all throughout Wikipedia; the sources in question qualify as reliable sources, and aside from that there is no reason to question the accuracy or neutrality of the statements they're supporting in the article anyway. ROG5728 ( talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that Malosinus added a NPOV tag to the Willingham section, stating that "There is a dispute on the discussion page."
Honestly, I cannot see any recent dispute or discussion on this page. There are three old sections, none of which seem to contain any disputes. Does anyone actually have any issues with the section? I must confess that I'm a bit confused about what the issue is. Seleucus ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"Texas now has the highest proportion of minimum wage jobs in the nation."
First, the source cited says that it has the highest number (not proportion) of minimum wage jobs, and is "tied" with Mississipi for highest percentage. Second, the point seems to be to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between Rick Perry and minimum wage numbers. If we're going to try to blame him for low wages (even ignoring cost-of-living differences) I think we need a source on the difference in minimum wage jobs before and after his time in office. Third, the sentence seems really out of place considering the preceding and following sentences, unless we just want it at the top of a section to influence voters. Fourth, how is this more relevant to his fiscal policy than current unemployment or number of jobs added recently? Beardc ( talk) 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
As I discussed in one of the threads above, I added key information about what Perry knew before the execution, citing The Economist. This material was promptly removed by Bdell555, who contended it was "1) redundant, 2) based on the prior New Yorker story as opposed to independent and 3) too definitive: 'NO evidence')".
1. No, it's not redundant. I see nothing else in our presentation of the case that refers to pro-Willingham communications to Perry before the execution, which is an important fact for readers who want to assess the criticism that Perry should have at least delayed the execution.
2. I didn't cite the New Yorker story, but what of it? Is there any good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the statement -- namely, that at least one arson expert disputed the conviction before Willingham was executed? If that fact happens to be in the New Yorker story (which I haven't read), why does that disqualify it from inclusion in the article?
3. The passage I added simply reported what the arson expert had stated. The verbatim passage from the cited source is: "Shortly before he was executed, an arson expert from Austin faxed a report to the governor, Rick Perry, arguing that the 1991 investigation was based on bad science and that there was no proof of arson." My addition didn't assert that there was no proof; it simply reported that one expert had expressed that opinion. If you think the statement is too definitive, take it up with the person who made it. Wikipedia reports facts, including facts about opinions.
Accordingly, I'm restoring this properly sourced passage.
Furthermore, in rereading the text of this section, I see that the wording somewhat blurs the distinction between what's undisputed fact and what's disputed. It's clear that Willingham's children died in a fire, but whether the fire was arson is disputed. Willingham was convicted of murder, on a theory of arson, and those facts are undisputed, but we shouldn't put "the fire was arson" and "three kids died in the fire" in the same category. Rewording to draw these distinctions makes the text flow a little less smoothly but that's the price of accuracy. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to mention that Hispanics have twice the drop out rate. This isn't an article on the racial achievement gap. Perry's record speaks for itself. There is no evidence that race plays any part in SAT scores, but the article assumes there is such evidence. Across all indicators Texas's education system is failing. Who is editing this section? They need to be reported. 99.169.66.28 ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
And why is this even in the fiscal issues section? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the education section? Beardc ( talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is really disorganized; there are far too many headings and most of them could be condensed into more general sections. I'll give it a go, but someone with more knowledge of Perry's career might want to take over. - Fearfulsymmetry 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is way to much info up here. It practically reads like a news feed. Most of the stuff is duplicate info anyway.
Thoughts about what should remain?
HypatiaX ( talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Governor section, there are two one-line subsections (the Bilderberg group & H1N1) which in my opinion should be removed. They don't add anything to the article. Thoughts? Griffinofwales ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The mention of Bilderberg is probably the most important. In fact, the article should mention that he visited the secretive Bilderberg meetings in June of 2007, in Istanbul, Turkey. These meetings have proven to be accurate gages for the up and coming prime ministers and presidential hopefulls for the past 50 years. As early as June 2007, journalists Jim Tucker and Alex Jones were already calling his bid for president in 2012.-- 75.175.80.220 ( talk) 12:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have important verifiable information to add on Rick Perry's political background. I have provided source citations as requested and believe I am being blocked by one individual whose selfish motivations are to cover up important events in the career of this individual--events which your readers should know about if you want to print the truth-- ie. Perry was invited to the secret Bildenberg meeting in Turkey in 2007 and I have the Dallas Times News article re his invitation and visit.
If censorship and covering up the truth is your policy just tell me and I will know what I am dealing with. I am assuming you have one crank crazed censor on the loose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. Limited sourcing?? I cited a news story in the Dallas Morning News. I cited the date, article name, and page number. It was a news story about the governor being invited to the secret international Bildenberg meeting in Turkey and attending. Wikipedia has a lengthy article on Bildenberg so you guys understand that this group exists and have an idea of what they do. This is news. I guess you can subjectively say it's not important if you want to deprive your readers of information that I believe most people would believe is very relevant and important. Do I have to cite every paper in Texas? This guy was invited to a meeting of the secret Bildenberg group and he attended. He had to fly all the way to Turkey and he stayed for a week. To not include that in his bio is censorship. You included information on his trip to Asia in the current bio. Why was that news and this isn't?? I believe the objections to the inclusion of the Bildenberg trip are sprinkled with horse manure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
What you guys need to do is to google "Rick Perry" and "Bildenberg". There are pages and pages of stories on his trip there--even videos so how can anyone with eyes, ears, and a computer say there is limited sourcing for this story or that is not relevant?? Maybe Wikipedia--then they are the only ones. ( Sheilakissane ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
O.K. I guess you can say everything has unlimited sourcing if you don't like the truth and don't want to include it. Is there such a thing as UNlimited sourcing? I was not accusing you--just making the point that I already included sourcing and some yo-yo arbitrarily deleted my insertion anyway--obiously without bothering to check my sourcing. Now I am going through all this to try to get it put back in?? But--bottom line--what do I have to do to get a determination on this?-- I have legitimate background info on Perry that really should be included in his bio. How do I get it done?? Also not sure about how wikipedia works. Can one or two guys with a bias censor everyone with legitimate information?? ( Sheilakissane ( talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
I agree with the golden boy part but still believe the Bildenberg trip has more relevance than a vacation in Asia. Why don't you guys take that out?? The relevance of the Bildenberg trip is it violates the Logan Act. See Alex Jones source on the top but count at least 4 or 5 sources below it. Are you doubting that the trip took place?? I don't see your point in not including the trip to Turkey 3 years ago to attend a secret meeting of the international whos who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Glenn Beck, "Ellis County Observer", politico.com,video recording from channel 8 News in Austin,zerohedge.com, "Huffington Post", etc. Must be a couple of hundred pages on Rick Perry's secret trip to Turkey three years ago. Sorry. I still don't get it.( Sheilakissane ( talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
Forgot this--your concern that the news of Perry's trip is an accusation. Yea. So what? It is true, relevant, and it is an accusation. Don't you guys print accusations?? If I read your piece on Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler I guess there won't be any accusations. I still don't get it.( Sheilakissane ( talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
Now I will address your points--
I never mentioned Illuminati. I said it was a conference of international whos whos. (Please re read my posts)
Wikipedia article--"Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence.[1] About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names" Meetings are closed to the public but they are not secret???? Article in the Dallas Morning News about Perry's trip in 2007 was entitled "Perry attends secret meeting in Turkey."
Wikipedia article further goes on to say that the annual Bilderberg meeting are designed to "to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues." Again Wikipedia article on the Logan Act--"The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority" So you think the Logan Act issue is laughable?? Why??? Going to Turkey to "foster cooperation on political..and defense issues" with heads of other foreign governments in attendance couldn't possibly constitute "conducting foreign relations"??? I guess we'll never know if US political figures attending this meeting are violating the Logan Act or not since the meetings are secret.
So I guess everybody who corresponds on this blog who doesn't use spell check lacks any credibility despite what they actually have to say.
Ok. Maybe now I get it. You guys just do not want to include it no matter what and every set of objections to its inclusions will be followed by another set of objections. No I am not a conspiracy theorist my breathing is fine thank you and you are so pompous and--at the same time--so full of it. How's your breathing???( Sheilakissane ( talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC))
Some grades are mentioned as well as calling him a prankster.
This is just sour grapes. Look at JFK and Obama's biography? There is no mention of grades or being pranksters.
Is this an encyclopedia or a smear. Granted, Perry is a goofy candidate but this website should not be an anti-Perry smear piece.
The JFK's bio does not mention that he and RFY fought over Marilyn Monroe. Obama's does not mention that he went to a Muslim prayer school (which would lead the reader to think he was a Muslim even though going to a Muslim school as a kid doesn't make you a Muslim). Same thing with Perry. Having little details to "prove" that he is an idiot. He is a goofy candidate but idiots don't become governor without having some kind of political saavy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBMacdonald ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I got the point when I read the article on Perry. Guy's from Texas and he's a dumbass--just like George Bush. That was the point. It's valid. I say point well taken and since when aren't a guy's grades relevant?? What kinds of jobs have you applied for. This guy wants to be president. People have a right to know. ( Sheilakissane ( talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
As of now, between this heading and the other heading, I'm counting 5 people against inclusion and 2 people for inclusion. If no one objects by tonight, I'll remove it, but for now I'm generally seeing that this is not notable and, like Morphh said, WP:RECENTISM. Kessy628 ( talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please add
to the External links as we need local coverage and this seems extensive. 99.50.188.77 ( talk) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Perry has backed states' rights on several occasions, including the ability of states to decide their own policy on the environment and on drugs rather than have it decided for them by the federal government.
Took out the part saying, "have it decided for them by the federal government." The framing of this sentence seems to imply that it is always bad for the federal government to "decide" these policies. It is arguable that the federal government actually "decides" what environmental policy should be. Numerous state agencies and local stakeholders are involved in most federal decisions on environmental regulations and policies. -- Weatheru2 04:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what to disambiguate Victoria to, though I guess it's either Victoria, Texas or Victoria County, Texas. Can someone who knows more about this fix it up? Vadmium 08:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Error: Perry is not the longest serving current Governor in the US; that honor goes to Terry Branstad of Iowa who served 16 years in his first term (1983-1999) and is now serving again as Governor since January 2011. Perry may have the record for longest continuous service as a sitting Governor. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.62.218.217 (
talk)
14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Their need to be mention of the fact that he called a special session of the legislature to push through the controversial redistricting plan that gave Republican's an advantage over democrats in Texas' US House districts. I'n not sure where to put this though. -- Cab88 18:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph since it is uncited and seems to violate OR and doesn't seem NPOV (only 48%, Despite polling at only 33%, etc).
-- PTR 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about adding this on here but mind telling me when the next State Governor electing will take place. I may be interested in running for it, but I'm not sure how to do that. Plz forgive my limited knowledge.-- Zhang Liao 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am obviously just scratching the surface on this issue, all his oppoents have commented on Perry's views but I'm strapped for time to include them at the moment. Hopefully others can add to it Mr Christopher 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your bias shows when you have a section on Perry's views on non-Christians, but have no similar sections in his detractor's pages, i.e. Carole Keeton Strayhorn's page doesn't have a section called "Strayhorn's Hypocrisy With Her Religion", or "Bell's Inconsistency with His Religious Views". Perry was totally correct when he stated that his faith claims Jesus as the only way to God. It's the others, who call themselves Christians that are inconsistent or hypocritical with their beliefs. You're just proving that you agree with the others and disagree with Perry.
Sorry for the emotional response last time. But I waited over a month for a response and no one responded so I removed the entire section. Again, if people find it offensive that one believes only his/her religion saves, then their criticism should be placed in a page titled "Criticisms of Religion" or "Criticisms of Organized Religion". I hope that we don't start to actually criticize people for believing in their religion. -Brad Kgj08 ( talk) 23:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether Perry's views are "outrageous"--it's up to the reader to decide that. So what if this belief is orthodox Christianity? Even most Christian elected politicians know not to express hatred toward non-Christians, just as most Jewish elected politicians know not to express hatred toward non-Jews, and most atheist elected politicians know not to express hatred toward non-atheists. Hell, most non-farmer politicians know not to express hatred of farmers.
But this man is an elected official, employed by the citizens of Texas, and he thinks most of them will be tortured for all time by the creator. The people who pay his salary, taxpayers, deserve to know that he thinks they deserve torture forever. If Richard Dawkins were an elected official (he's not) and if he believed that all Jews, Christians, Muslims or believers in any god get tortured for all eternity, the taxpayers who pay his salary would have a right to know he hates the people who pay his salary. A lot of people won't vote for people who hate them, who wish their moms and dads and children will be tortured forever. If Perry hates most of the taxpayers who pay his salary, those taxpayers have a right to know he wants their kids tortured forever. 71.235.76.64 ( talk) 04:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Much of this sub-section reflects a basic misunderstanding of the Christian view of non-Christians. Through prayer we plead with God to extend Grace to them. Through evangelism, we attempt to influence non-Christians to consider that they will eventually stand before a thrice holy Judge whose eyes are too pure to even look on sin. I am accountable to be a "worthy watchman" and inform the non-Christian of the judgment that will take place in each of our futures.
It is "the truth in love" to inform a non-believer that he needs a Savior who is willing to accept the punishment for their sins. Almighty God has complete sovereignty to decide who is and isn't allowed into His heaven. I believe that a valid reading of the Bible is that non-Christians will be cast into eternal, conscious, miserable outer darkness. God is not trying to win a popularity contest by sugar coating what He has decided will happen.
An alternative, but speculative interpretation is that non-believers will experience the full misery of “dog eat dog”, “might makes right”, “law of the jungle”, “survival of the fittest” karma. I have deep, deep doubts that there will be any playing poker and drinking beer with your friends. According to Jesus' words in Luke 16, a person in Abraham's bosum will not be allowed to bring a cooling drop of water to a person in Hades.
My experience is that skeptics have faith in annihilation, which I feel is wishful thinking. I personally hate what Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Stalin, etc. did, but I do hope that somehow God has pity and mercy on their souls, and removes them from the horrors of infinite outer darkness. If God were interested in my preferences, I would plead that He extend forgiveness to them as He has promised to do for me, through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross as atonement for believers in God’s Son.
It would be a “putting words in his mouth” to indicate that Gov. Perry agrees with some, any, most, or all of the above. I believe it is 90%+ consistent with orthodox Christianity. Lynn ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I see where this article has been added to that cat, yet there are no details in the article about his position on the subject. I belive he has gone on record stating intelligent d4esign is in fact a valid scientific theory. I know the Statesman wrote quite a bit on the topic but I cannot find anything online there, the Dallas Morning news covered it here. I'll see about including it in the article. Mr Christopher 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the edit, Perry is the 47th Governor ( Bill Clements isn't counted 'twice'). GoodDay 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why was this omitted? I could have sworn that it was present at an earlier point in time. I would think that it would belong under the "Perry-isms" section. 68.203.115.157 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And you would think that someone would mention the Texas secession movement he started since he said "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that." (ref: http://notexas.com)
I believe there should be some mention in the section on the "Death Penalty" of his refusal to grant a stay of execution for Kelsey Patterson, a man who had a history of mental illness. Even the Parole Board recommended that Patterson's sentence be commuted to life. Governor Perry ignored their opinion. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/patterson910.htm
interesting developments in this case that perry wishes would go away. he's refusing to release the letter sent by an attorney with the initial report that the arson evidence to convict/execute willingham was flawed. perry will not release that letter http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9B92QUO0.html
better details can be found here http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6662113.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
perry aids pressured the texas forensics panel (before replacing them all two days before the panel was to hear testimony from beyler) and even complained about the cost of the beyler report that thoroughly mangled the arson "evidence" used to convict/execute willingham.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-arson-williinghamoct12,0,7089579.story?page=2
perry mocked the beyler report in public and called him a "so-called expert" which suggests he's desperate since beyler is anationally recognized expert on arson. I sense perry is trying to push this one under the rug until after the election. trouble for perry is most newspapers in texas are not ignoring his role or what he's doing. how to incorporate this in the article while doing so in npv is the question. perry is clearly an evil man but we can't write that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I split this piece off as a sub section of the death penalty section. I did so because this specific case has been covered extensively by all the major news outlets nation wide. it is bigger than just his views on the death penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This CNN video found here puts it in perspective: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9415/cnns-anderson-cooper-texas-governor-rick-perry-covering-up-innocent-mans-execution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
rick perry speaking about willingham in a video seen here http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9472/todd-willinghams-mother-responds-to-rick-perry-dr-craig-beyler-calls-on-new-appointees-to-resign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The current article reads that Rick Perry 'is a tool and the current Governor of Texas'. 76.191.206.26 ( talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
From CBS's Face the Nation:
HARRY SMITH: What do you make of this spreading and very public disaffection with not only the government, but especially the Obama administration, the Tea parties this week? You even have the governor of Texas even using the word secession? Should Texas be allowed to secede?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, I don’t think that really warrants a serious response. I don’t think most Texans were all that enthused by the governor’s suggestion.
JCDenton2052 ( talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Can the long and unorganized list of responses to Perry's secession comments be summarized in more encyclopedic form? Currently it reads like an attempted hit job on the poor guy. By all means send the Mafia after him if you don't like him, but Wikipedia should not be trying to break into that line of work. The same complaint applies here as applies to lists of trivia, which should be organized into a paragraph or two of prose instead of a laundry list. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in the details of the two parentheticals. Who said rates will be set locally? Is the "equity stake" something inherently tied to eminent domain? What is an equity stake? I think both require citations. -- Jesdisciple ( talk) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
if you go to googlenews and search "governor of death" and Rick Perry comes up in all the results. Coincidence or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Did Perry grow up in Paint Creek or Paint Rock? My understanding was that he was from Paint Rock (Concho County). However, I didn't want to change without someone knowledgable's verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.179.74 ( talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is obviously slanted in favor of a left-wing democrat bias against Governor Perry. The intentional smoke screen submitted by liberals criticizing the article by claiming it favors the governor is an old technique they have always used to cover up their nefarious schemes to promote their agenda by smearing a good man by making him appear to be a vilian which this article patently does. There is nothing in this article that recognizes any of the good that the governor has done. The article is definitely anti-christian by making evangelical Christians look like extremists. If that is the case so were the founding fathers. This is an article that belongs in Texas Monthly Magazine, a magazine by liberal yankees for liberal yankees, not in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.184.191 ( talk) 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, This article appears to have some significant problems. For instance, under the state sovereignty discussion, it includes a link to the main article of Texas Secessionist Movement-- which is completely unrelated to the discussion of sovereignty. This insinuates that all state sovereignty advocacy is secessionist rhetoric-- which is plainly false. I don't think it is beyond the scope of the article to include a discussion on his statements on sovereignty, however it creates an insinuation that isn't there to include "Texas Secessionist Movement" as the "main article". 76.203.228.38 ( talk) 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to stop in the middle of 2010. Given that he is clearly nosing around a presidential run, I would hope to find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.79.130 ( talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to use the partial quote ("I'm going to think about it. I think about a lot of things." is the actual quote) as the best way to describe Perry's current Presidential race considerations? It seems kind of lazy (using a soundbite in the opening paragraph of a biography page.)
Why not state something like, "In May 2011, Perry has publicly suggested that he's considering a Presidential run in 2012." Then you could use the full quote in the appropriate section below, hopefully with a bit more information as well? Just wondering 123.225.172.246 ( talk) 09:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and gentle "correction of the error of my ways" towards this on-again, off-again wiki'an. I have lots to learn and appreciate constructive criticism. Lynn ( talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In 2011, Rick Perry supported a controversial budget that would result in the loss of approximately a third of Texas school teacher jobs. [1] He also rejected the use of a Rainy Day Fund that could have helped prevent the cuts to the education system. [2] [3] T1d31k1w ( talk) 01:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite episode}}
: Missing or empty |series=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
This article gives the impression that Rick Perry came from humble backgrounds, that couldn't be further from the truth. 99.169.66.28 ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Pär Larsson ( talk) 21:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Rick Perry's HPV mandate was at the request of a Merck executive who had been Rick Perry's chief of staff http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html. Rick Perry also received campaign cash from Merck.
Also, he did not "allow" a bill overriding his HPV executive order to pass. The legislature had the votes to override any veto and had made it known to Perry that if he made further attempts to mandate the HPV vaccine, that they would enforce their override.
Also, the article should note that the vaccine mandated vaccination against an STD, it is not a cancer vaccination. The vaccine doesn't stop all occurrences of HPV and is extremely ineffective against cervical cancer whose cause cannot be soley sourced to HPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpaguy ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we please have some sources for these criticisms? Thanks, - Willmcw 01:43, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
The reference supplied by anonymous Wiki contributor 98.244.108.99 does not use the words "virtually all". That article by Rick Casey is more of a "rant" by a political commentator. In my earlier change, I used a quote actually from the Casey commentary, "an analysis disputed by the scientific establishment".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Senate Bill 8 was signed into law by Rick Perry in July of 2011. This bill openly attacks educators across the State of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.213.44 ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Add 2011 Texas wildfires and Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas to Rick_Perry#Response_to_2011_drought_and_wildfires. 99.181.145.99 ( talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"Teen sexuality before marriage is the problem. If we can nip that in the bud and talk to them about how damaging it is to their heart, that is really what is going to make a difference."
This article contains a number of errors and is heavily slanted in favor of the GOP and Perry. For one thing, the article states that Perry has "worked to reduce property taxes." Anyone who actually lives in Texas can tell you that this is laughable: property taxes in Texas have, in fact, been skyrocketing for years now. Also, the article states that Perry "worked to reform Texas health care and make it more accessible, increasing health funding by $6 billion." There's a reason this statement doesn't have a reference; it is totally inaccurate. Perry has in fact gutted all social services, including health care and Texas consistently ranks 49th or 50th in all categories of social services, health care and education.
I agree, it seems pretty biased.-- Evan7257 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I took out the line about Perry signing death penalty orders. The Governor in Texas does not have that power, trial judges sign execution warrants.
I cannot attest to the accuracy or inaccuracy of this article, but as a undecided voter trying to learn about the issues, I fear this article is heavily weighted against Gov. Perry. I would hope that in this forum the information would be less partisan and more factual. I do not think it is at all.
The statement in the Second paragraph under "Fiscal Issues" is erroneous. "Critics contended that Perry inflated these numbers; the actual tax savings, they said, would average only $150 per family." The statement cites to a website that itself cites to a "Fact Check" by "The LONE STAR PROJECT" which used an article in the Austin American-Statesman, Friday, May 26, 2006, as its source. The direct link to The Lone Star Project's report http://www.lonestarproject.net/archive/perryfactcheck.html contains a copy of the article, which reads "The owner of an average-value home will save about $1,350 in school property taxes over the next three years, former Comptroller John Sharp said... Sharp said the owner of an average home, which he described as appraised at about $118,000, would save about $150 in property taxes in the first year and about $600 per year over the next two years....Perry says in television commercials that the average homeowner will save $2,000 over the first three years". Thus, although Perry's statement was based on the first three years, and predicted savings of $2,000 over that time, the statement erroneously uses the figure ($150) that the source (Sharp) gave FOR THE FIRST YEAR ONLY, which the more accurate figure being $1,350. The ultimate source contradicts the statement on the wiki page. Therefore, the statement needs to be edited to reflect that value, $1,350. Gibb25 ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Gibb25
First-timer here. Looks like reference #14 should be dated August 5, not August 8. I don't know how to change it, maybe someone can make the update. Thanks, Mb92 ( talk) 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Mb92
Right now, the section on intelligent design includes "A spokeswoman for Perry called intelligent design a "valid scientific theory", an analysis that political commentator Rick Casey describes as "disputed by the scientific establishment"."
My viewpoint is that firstly, if you're going to quote someone for this (X says "..."), at least cite someone who's an expert on it - Rick Casey does not have any particular insight into the science. And secondly, the way this is presented tells the reader nothing in a he-says-she-says sort of way (I am reminded of a comedian who said that if a politician stated that the earth was flat, the headline next day would be "Viewpoints differ on the shape of the Earth.") As there's already an effective article on the subject, my view would be that the best route would be to cite that instead. (ex: ... "an analysis disputed by the scientific establishment.")
Thoughts? 68.42.243.198 ( talk) 03:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
When I saw the Huffington Post article on Rick Perry's college transcript, I knew it would have made it into this article. A few points:
First, the editor who added the college transcript info to this article plagiarized the Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post wrote:
Wikipedia says:
Second, The Huffington Post is blatantly biased. The article is titled, "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds." In fact, by my quick count he got 20 B's, 27 C's, and 9 D's. That's twice as many B's than D's. An honest title for the Huffington Post article would be "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Bs And Cs." This Huffington Post bias has made its way into Wikipedia because even though both HuffPost and Wikipedia say "He rarely earned grades above C", the truth is that a third of his grades were B's. In fact, B's were his second most common grade. The Huffington Post may not require a neutral point of view, but Wikipedia does.
My third point, and this isn't really a Wikipedia thing, but I feel it needs to be said: It is illegal for universities to release college transcripts without the student's permission. It doesn't matter whether it's a Democratic or Republican politician, or an ordinary person like you or me, publicly releasing college transcripts is a violation of personal privacy and a crime. This should offend anyone who cares about civil liberties (even if Rick Perry himself doesn't care about civil liberties).
-- JHP ( talk) 09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Again - how is this stuff notable? It happened how many years ago? Is the same information really important in your views of Bush, Clinton, Bush 2 or <insert your favourite political candidate>? I think not. It's food for tabloids and simple-minded people. It stinks of pettiness and an insistence on finding tiny faults at all cost. If you don't like Rick Perry 2012 there's plenty actually good reasons not to like him. Pär Larsson ( talk) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is worth mentioning, but on tonight's Colbert Report they mentioned how the Colbert Super Pack endorses him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.50.105 ( talk) 06:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In the Education section, it says that Rick Perry is an "Aggie." Can someone rephrase it so that the meaning is more clear? Thanks. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
User Malonius thought the excessively long section was itself an anti-death penalty POV. I'm inclined to agree, in part at least. The section I put back in is lifted straight from the top of the Cameron Todd Willingham page - if it's good enough to be a summary over there it should be good enough for over here. I even tried to shorten it some. I personally am not anti-death penalty but this particular case is disturbing and anyone who comes to wikipedia looking for information on Rick Perry should be informed that the potential 2012 US Presidential candidate oversaw the execution of a very likely innocent man. By all means let's kill people, but let's make sure they're ummmm, I don't know, ...guilty? Also added a short Perry-specific thing from the other article that I thought was telling of Mr. Perry's opinion on the mess. Pär Larsson ( talk) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been watching this article, but someone should explain why the governor's mansion fire has anything in particular to do with Perry. I mean, he wasn't there ... I didn't see anything about his stuff being burnt up ... searching, I found a quick mention (not in a proper source though) of a funny story where he proposed to put solar panels on the roof and mocked the opposition from the historical society by pointing out that there were air conditioners up there already. [3] It's already covered in the Texas Governor's Mansion article (which includes a claim that an anarchist tossed the molly, which if true might not have had anything at all to do with Perry specifically) Unless there's some burning reason why this is relevant to Perry this should lose its section heading and be condensed, if not eliminated from the article. Wnt ( talk) 06:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This article includes that Perry was named as one of the most effective legislators in 1989 by the Dallas Morning News. This doesn't appear to have ever had a citation, and an archive search of the Dallas Morning News for "Perry" and "effective" in 1989 returns nothing of note. [4] Unless anyone can find a citation, I'm going to remove this dubious claim for now. Seleucus ( talk) 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We can most certainly "describe each of his policies" in this article. Gun control is a major political issue, and the gun ownership section does not currently go into "minute detail" by any stretch of the imagination.
As for press releases, they are used as sources all throughout this article and all throughout Wikipedia; the sources in question qualify as reliable sources, and aside from that there is no reason to question the accuracy or neutrality of the statements they're supporting in the article anyway. ROG5728 ( talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that Malosinus added a NPOV tag to the Willingham section, stating that "There is a dispute on the discussion page."
Honestly, I cannot see any recent dispute or discussion on this page. There are three old sections, none of which seem to contain any disputes. Does anyone actually have any issues with the section? I must confess that I'm a bit confused about what the issue is. Seleucus ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"Texas now has the highest proportion of minimum wage jobs in the nation."
First, the source cited says that it has the highest number (not proportion) of minimum wage jobs, and is "tied" with Mississipi for highest percentage. Second, the point seems to be to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between Rick Perry and minimum wage numbers. If we're going to try to blame him for low wages (even ignoring cost-of-living differences) I think we need a source on the difference in minimum wage jobs before and after his time in office. Third, the sentence seems really out of place considering the preceding and following sentences, unless we just want it at the top of a section to influence voters. Fourth, how is this more relevant to his fiscal policy than current unemployment or number of jobs added recently? Beardc ( talk) 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
As I discussed in one of the threads above, I added key information about what Perry knew before the execution, citing The Economist. This material was promptly removed by Bdell555, who contended it was "1) redundant, 2) based on the prior New Yorker story as opposed to independent and 3) too definitive: 'NO evidence')".
1. No, it's not redundant. I see nothing else in our presentation of the case that refers to pro-Willingham communications to Perry before the execution, which is an important fact for readers who want to assess the criticism that Perry should have at least delayed the execution.
2. I didn't cite the New Yorker story, but what of it? Is there any good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the statement -- namely, that at least one arson expert disputed the conviction before Willingham was executed? If that fact happens to be in the New Yorker story (which I haven't read), why does that disqualify it from inclusion in the article?
3. The passage I added simply reported what the arson expert had stated. The verbatim passage from the cited source is: "Shortly before he was executed, an arson expert from Austin faxed a report to the governor, Rick Perry, arguing that the 1991 investigation was based on bad science and that there was no proof of arson." My addition didn't assert that there was no proof; it simply reported that one expert had expressed that opinion. If you think the statement is too definitive, take it up with the person who made it. Wikipedia reports facts, including facts about opinions.
Accordingly, I'm restoring this properly sourced passage.
Furthermore, in rereading the text of this section, I see that the wording somewhat blurs the distinction between what's undisputed fact and what's disputed. It's clear that Willingham's children died in a fire, but whether the fire was arson is disputed. Willingham was convicted of murder, on a theory of arson, and those facts are undisputed, but we shouldn't put "the fire was arson" and "three kids died in the fire" in the same category. Rewording to draw these distinctions makes the text flow a little less smoothly but that's the price of accuracy. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to mention that Hispanics have twice the drop out rate. This isn't an article on the racial achievement gap. Perry's record speaks for itself. There is no evidence that race plays any part in SAT scores, but the article assumes there is such evidence. Across all indicators Texas's education system is failing. Who is editing this section? They need to be reported. 99.169.66.28 ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
And why is this even in the fiscal issues section? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the education section? Beardc ( talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is really disorganized; there are far too many headings and most of them could be condensed into more general sections. I'll give it a go, but someone with more knowledge of Perry's career might want to take over. - Fearfulsymmetry 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is way to much info up here. It practically reads like a news feed. Most of the stuff is duplicate info anyway.
Thoughts about what should remain?
HypatiaX ( talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Governor section, there are two one-line subsections (the Bilderberg group & H1N1) which in my opinion should be removed. They don't add anything to the article. Thoughts? Griffinofwales ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The mention of Bilderberg is probably the most important. In fact, the article should mention that he visited the secretive Bilderberg meetings in June of 2007, in Istanbul, Turkey. These meetings have proven to be accurate gages for the up and coming prime ministers and presidential hopefulls for the past 50 years. As early as June 2007, journalists Jim Tucker and Alex Jones were already calling his bid for president in 2012.-- 75.175.80.220 ( talk) 12:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have important verifiable information to add on Rick Perry's political background. I have provided source citations as requested and believe I am being blocked by one individual whose selfish motivations are to cover up important events in the career of this individual--events which your readers should know about if you want to print the truth-- ie. Perry was invited to the secret Bildenberg meeting in Turkey in 2007 and I have the Dallas Times News article re his invitation and visit.
If censorship and covering up the truth is your policy just tell me and I will know what I am dealing with. I am assuming you have one crank crazed censor on the loose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. Limited sourcing?? I cited a news story in the Dallas Morning News. I cited the date, article name, and page number. It was a news story about the governor being invited to the secret international Bildenberg meeting in Turkey and attending. Wikipedia has a lengthy article on Bildenberg so you guys understand that this group exists and have an idea of what they do. This is news. I guess you can subjectively say it's not important if you want to deprive your readers of information that I believe most people would believe is very relevant and important. Do I have to cite every paper in Texas? This guy was invited to a meeting of the secret Bildenberg group and he attended. He had to fly all the way to Turkey and he stayed for a week. To not include that in his bio is censorship. You included information on his trip to Asia in the current bio. Why was that news and this isn't?? I believe the objections to the inclusion of the Bildenberg trip are sprinkled with horse manure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
What you guys need to do is to google "Rick Perry" and "Bildenberg". There are pages and pages of stories on his trip there--even videos so how can anyone with eyes, ears, and a computer say there is limited sourcing for this story or that is not relevant?? Maybe Wikipedia--then they are the only ones. ( Sheilakissane ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
O.K. I guess you can say everything has unlimited sourcing if you don't like the truth and don't want to include it. Is there such a thing as UNlimited sourcing? I was not accusing you--just making the point that I already included sourcing and some yo-yo arbitrarily deleted my insertion anyway--obiously without bothering to check my sourcing. Now I am going through all this to try to get it put back in?? But--bottom line--what do I have to do to get a determination on this?-- I have legitimate background info on Perry that really should be included in his bio. How do I get it done?? Also not sure about how wikipedia works. Can one or two guys with a bias censor everyone with legitimate information?? ( Sheilakissane ( talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
I agree with the golden boy part but still believe the Bildenberg trip has more relevance than a vacation in Asia. Why don't you guys take that out?? The relevance of the Bildenberg trip is it violates the Logan Act. See Alex Jones source on the top but count at least 4 or 5 sources below it. Are you doubting that the trip took place?? I don't see your point in not including the trip to Turkey 3 years ago to attend a secret meeting of the international whos who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Glenn Beck, "Ellis County Observer", politico.com,video recording from channel 8 News in Austin,zerohedge.com, "Huffington Post", etc. Must be a couple of hundred pages on Rick Perry's secret trip to Turkey three years ago. Sorry. I still don't get it.( Sheilakissane ( talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
Forgot this--your concern that the news of Perry's trip is an accusation. Yea. So what? It is true, relevant, and it is an accusation. Don't you guys print accusations?? If I read your piece on Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler I guess there won't be any accusations. I still don't get it.( Sheilakissane ( talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
Now I will address your points--
I never mentioned Illuminati. I said it was a conference of international whos whos. (Please re read my posts)
Wikipedia article--"Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence.[1] About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names" Meetings are closed to the public but they are not secret???? Article in the Dallas Morning News about Perry's trip in 2007 was entitled "Perry attends secret meeting in Turkey."
Wikipedia article further goes on to say that the annual Bilderberg meeting are designed to "to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues." Again Wikipedia article on the Logan Act--"The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority" So you think the Logan Act issue is laughable?? Why??? Going to Turkey to "foster cooperation on political..and defense issues" with heads of other foreign governments in attendance couldn't possibly constitute "conducting foreign relations"??? I guess we'll never know if US political figures attending this meeting are violating the Logan Act or not since the meetings are secret.
So I guess everybody who corresponds on this blog who doesn't use spell check lacks any credibility despite what they actually have to say.
Ok. Maybe now I get it. You guys just do not want to include it no matter what and every set of objections to its inclusions will be followed by another set of objections. No I am not a conspiracy theorist my breathing is fine thank you and you are so pompous and--at the same time--so full of it. How's your breathing???( Sheilakissane ( talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC))
Some grades are mentioned as well as calling him a prankster.
This is just sour grapes. Look at JFK and Obama's biography? There is no mention of grades or being pranksters.
Is this an encyclopedia or a smear. Granted, Perry is a goofy candidate but this website should not be an anti-Perry smear piece.
The JFK's bio does not mention that he and RFY fought over Marilyn Monroe. Obama's does not mention that he went to a Muslim prayer school (which would lead the reader to think he was a Muslim even though going to a Muslim school as a kid doesn't make you a Muslim). Same thing with Perry. Having little details to "prove" that he is an idiot. He is a goofy candidate but idiots don't become governor without having some kind of political saavy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBMacdonald ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I got the point when I read the article on Perry. Guy's from Texas and he's a dumbass--just like George Bush. That was the point. It's valid. I say point well taken and since when aren't a guy's grades relevant?? What kinds of jobs have you applied for. This guy wants to be president. People have a right to know. ( Sheilakissane ( talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
As of now, between this heading and the other heading, I'm counting 5 people against inclusion and 2 people for inclusion. If no one objects by tonight, I'll remove it, but for now I'm generally seeing that this is not notable and, like Morphh said, WP:RECENTISM. Kessy628 ( talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please add
to the External links as we need local coverage and this seems extensive. 99.50.188.77 ( talk) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)