![]() | 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 |
Rick Perry suggested global warming is a hoax ( Global Warming Hoax). [1] from CBS News. 216.250.156.66 ( talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of this article Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012 and suggest you place it on your watch list. Yesterday it got stuffed with a lot of duplication and questionable material for the subject. We don't want it to become a POV fork where people can just dump material to avoid the more stringent BLP requirements and editorial oversight on this article. Morphh (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And the article Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry.. WP:AFD candidate? Morphh (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The Sodomy laws section appears to be bogus. The one citation is to a website which claims to archive AP stories, but a search on the AP Archive shows nothing for the claimed date. I'm removing the line. Mqbs ( talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added civil unions and domestic partnerships to his opposition to same sex marriage. The only opposition that is verifiable is his support for the Texas 2005 Constitutional Amendment. That amendment bans "any legal status". The only current "legal status" recognized in the United States are the three - same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. To just list same-sex marriage would be a moderation of his actual position and a political calculation.
Rsaustin31 (
talk)
18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested in helping me get this up to good article status? I think that if we can fill in the areas where citations are needed, and do a little touch up work, the article could pass. Looking at the guidelines, for instance, I think it meets guidelines 1 (well written), 3 (broad in its coverage), and 6 (images) for sure, and with some work could meet the rest of them. Who's with me? Kessy628 ( talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confident we can pass a B article review from one of the major projects this article belongs to. The reviewer may suggest a couple tweaks that we can easily address. I am pretty sure that any nomination for GA review at this time will be dismissed out of hand due to ongoing structural changes, conversion to summary style and the high level of edits since it is a bio of a newly high profile national candidate.
I suggest that now that the article is semi-protected again, once the conversion to summary style is completed we can request the Guild of Copy Editors to go through it to improve grammar, wording and readability with uninvolved eyes. After that we can post requests on the talk pages of the various projects for a B review. Hope this helps some, Veriss ( talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"Pay increases for Texas's teachers have not kept up with the national average, but the educational indicators do not show any negative impacts from this lower pay. [164]"
Correct (simplify) wikilink Anthropogenic, please. 99.35.12.88 ( talk) 03:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a section titled "Texas political career" is a good way to combine several relatively minor sections (push them to level 3), but I think it now puts the Texas governor section (which has the vast majority of the text) one level deeper than is desirable. I suggest:
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Perry is of primarily British ancestry which dates back to the original 13 colonies. Should that be mentioned anywhere in the article? 71.210.165.105 ( talk) 22:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
When you use the word "entitlement" you are using Republican propaganda. social security is something people pay into, they buy into it. That is not an "entitlement". I strongly feel that title should be changed to "social security" because THAT is what is being discussed. The Republicans try to portray social security as an entitlement, but again, it's something you pay into. Republicans and Tea Party zombies portray social security as some government give away program when in fact you pay to play. ( WP:BLP violation removed.)
Does the article mentioned ( WP:BLP violation removed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 ( talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that Perry is Federalist about entitlements. His statements seem to indicate Social Security "reforms" at the federal level combined with turning over all health programs to the states. Hcobb ( talk) 23:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about using The Huffington Post as a reliable source for a biography of a living person. Particularly of a presidential candidate and especially after their less then stellar objectivity during the 2008 presidential elections. I did some research and found what appeared to be a very reasonable analysis and discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Huffington Post. The consensus appeared to recommend finding alternative sources in most cases. Please read the entire discussion before leaping to conclusions.
This article will have to endure the 2012 election process and many people will use it to make personal electoral decisions. We should demand the highest standards for any citation we permit to be included. I recommend that we need to find alternative sources to any HuffPost, or any other blogging or quasi-news/blogging site, and we should limit their inclusion now before they become established within the article and a precedent is set by default. Veriss ( talk) 03:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent comments as I was hoping that someone would stick up for the The HuffPost. This brings us full-circle though as the question must be asked: how do we know who on HuffPost is a bonafide correspondent and who is merely a blogger? Even the blogs are made to look like the article was published by the most grizzled veteran of the NY Times. It's hard to tell who does hard news and who just does whatever. Veriss ( talk)
Drought, Wildfires Haven't Changed Perry's Climate-Change Views — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.36.44 ( talk) 23:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The G.P.A. was calculated using simple arithmetic in a method acknowledged by the reverting editor Kessy628. This was reverted by myself Quophnix under WP:CALC. As the WP:CALC policy states, "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Kessy628 created consensus in their edit summary by acknowledging, "that is the method of calculating GPA". Therefore, the edit stands under WP:CALC. Quophnix ( talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's get this right:
A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt
So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+2+3+6+8+6+3+2=84 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:
So, 84+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+12 = 312
312/144=2.166666
Let's triple and quadruple check this and make sure it's accurate. It's simple math but there are a lot of numbers to add up. Let's get it right. Quophnix ( talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Revisions needed:
OK, let's get this right:
A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt
- ENGL 103, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
- HIST 105, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- Term sub-total = 15
- A S 101, C, 1hr: 2x1=2
- BIOL 101, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- CHEM 101, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
- EDUC 101, A, 2hrs: 4x2=8
- ENGL 104, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- MATH 102, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
- P E 101,
23 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
- Term sub-total = 42
- A S 102, B, 1hr: 3x1=3
- BIOL 107, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- CHEM 102, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
- HIST 106, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- MATH 103, D, 3 hrs: 1x3=3
- P E 102,
23 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
- Term sub-total = 29
So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+
23+3+6+8+6+3+23 = 15+42+29 =8486 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:
- Fall, 1969: 38
- Spring, 1970: 17
- Summer, 1970: 15
- Fall, 1970: 36
- Spring, 1971: 32
- Fall, 1971: 27
- Spring, 1972: 39
- 1st term Summer, 1972: 12
- 2nd term Summer, 1972:
1218So,
8486+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+1218 =312320
312/144=2.166666320/144=2.222222
Fat&Happy ( talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well done. Very thorough. I agree with Fat&Happy's calculations. Sorry about the confusion. Quophnix ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No response after ten days because the matter was settled. The source you cited in the previous edit is not "direct" in the context of the previous citation. Nothing is more direct than Perry's transcript itself and the GPA as calculated is merely a representation of his transcript in simpler terms under WP:CALC. Furthermore, after all of the math and work put into the topic on this page, a source citing a 2.5 GPA should at least provide (as we do) its method of calculation for comparison. Throwing up a source with a higher GPA just because someone says it's higher doesn't make it accurate...and nothing is more accurate than the actual transcript. Quophnix ( talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm not sure you read the section completely. We dealt with this a month ago. An average, is a simple mathematic calculation that falls within WP:CALC. As far as calculating a "grade point" average, all we have to know is how the school assigned grade points. For this, we refer to the document itself. ENGL 203 is a 3 hour course in which Perry receives a B in Fall of '69. The school assigns Perry 9 grade points for the "B" grade. Therefore, the school assigns 3 grade points per credit hour for a B (3 credit hours x 3 grade points per credit hour = 9 grade points). So, we know how the school assigned grade points. (Read entry dated:19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) You can do this for all the courses on the transcript (not that you even have to since the school provides the grade point values explicitly in the document) to determine how the school assigned grade points and then calculate the average from there. There is no OR involved here at all. You simply take the grade points and average them to calculate the GPA. As for whether the transcript is a RS, it comes from a major news source and is subject to WP:NEWSORG. For the second time, we're not doing fourier transforms. This is very simple math and very clearly falls under WP:CALC. Quophnix ( talk) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel I should summarize our method of calculation for anyone choosing to post further edits in this section, which should justify why the calculation stands under WP:CALC and is not WP:OR. We merely performed an average calculation using the grade points listed on Rick Perry's official college transcript. This was done by dividing the total grade points from the transcript (adjusted for the change from the 3 point to 4 point scale that occurred in June of 1969) by the total hours reported on the transcript. Very simple. Very straightforward. No WP:OR. Quophnix ( talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Removed per BLP policy, it would be inappropriate to readd it without secondary reliable sources. Kevin ( talk) 19:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As I stated in the beginning of the discussion in a response to an attempt to calculate Perry's GPA, I thought it was pushing into the realm of Original Research. I, unfortunately, caved to the consensus and hard work at the time. Later, while validating inline citations, I discovered that a reliable local, unchallenged source that was already cited in that section asserted a GPA of 2.5. I could care less if the article asserts a GPA of 0.2 or 3.9. The facts need to be sourced properly. WP:CALC is not a reliable source, never has been and never trumps a Reliable Source when one is available. Impeach the cited reliable source or find a better source. WP:CALC is out of bounds in this situation. Sometimes a SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) is appropriate, in the case of a BLP though, it is most definitely not. Veriss ( talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That source doesn't seem clear to me if they're talking about his GPA when he made his decision to go another route, or his final GPA. It seems unlikely they're referring to his final GPA from the context, and it is not clearly stated that it was his final GPA.
Here's a source that says his GPA was 2.22, which matches the above calculation and was released after the transcripts were leaked, vs the other article which I believe was before the transcripts were released.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/25/2375100/gov-scott-wants-to-make-us-smart.html
Now it can hardly be considered original research, yet the transcripts seem to clearly support the 2.22 figure that is clearly cited as his final GPA, and dispute the 2.5 GPA as being his final GPA which I don't think is clear from the cited article at all. 205.217.239.59 ( talk) 13:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that is an opinion piece, I didn't notice at first. However, how the 2.5 GPA figure was arrived at is just as questionable, it isn't clear whether it is citing his final GPA, or his GPA when he decided he wouldn't be able to do veterinary medicine, and it doesn't match up with the transcripts that are now publicly available. I can understand why not to give a GPA since his transcripts are available for anyone to see, and some people have a problem with doing the calculation. What I don't understand is why there's a 2.5 GPA in the article that is not supported and conflicts with his transcript. 205.217.239.59 ( talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I did a calculation to see when Perry might have had a 2.5 GPA to make sense out of that number, and the only time he was close to that was after his first semester (though after his 2nd he was higher than that), so that may be what he remembers. I also noticed a problem, or possible problem, with the 2.22 calculation. With that calculation his organic chemistry II class which he failed isn't being counted against his credit hours (likely because he receives no credit for this). It would however most likely be counted against his credit hours attempted which would probably be used to calculate his GPA. If somebody can flush out the answer to this, or already has, please post that policy here. I was getting a GPA of 2.18 if the credit hours attempted are counted. 205.217.239.59 ( talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Um -- "leaked transcript" != strong source for us doing calculations on a putative GPA - Wikipedia requires actual relaible sources for claims in any BLP, and such "calculations" would fall far short of the requirements. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That article says, "And he was exceedingly loyal to the corps, which he credited with giving him the discipline to get an animal sciences degree — his 2.5 grade point average wasn’t high enough to go the veterinary route — and join the Air Force." It's not clear that the GPA was his final GPA. There's nothing to indicate they're talking about his final GPA, and it could have easily come from Perry mentioning his GPA after his first semester. The thing is though, we have no idea where that GPA figure came from. We don't know if it was from Perry, from one of his supporters, made up, but it is clearly refuted by Perry's transcripts. I agree that calculating the actual GPA is a bit dicey, but quoting this one article as if it is a factual, researched figure is deceptive. This article was written before Perry's transcripts were released (and may have been the reason why they were released), and clearly Perry's documents weren't available to the reporter at that time. I think it's best to leave it off, and let people figure it out for themselves.
205.217.239.59 ( talk) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
1st sorry, thx for break, discovered the discussion page
1st you have a really tight site, good flow, wish you could help clean up the Paul site,
The small stuff:revision 450139281 was not replaced, just a former chairman in '11 - states he was Chairman during event - little space difference & lessens Chairmans Stature to know about the event - this is noteworthy - not WP:UNDUE - as it was better now and yes there is a longer article -
Bigger and more impactful 450097610, per WEIGHT, you did not allow a small reference to ===Crony Capitalism=== with the charges brought up in the debate yesterday, WAPO today, Palin the issue to the public IS Crony Capitalism,this is not WP:UNDUE
Industrial Policy can be placed under economny and Crony Capitalism can be rewritten but not made smaller, each example, within reason, but ones that make major papers could be woven together- WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negatives
N419BH use of WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism, to 450079681 - was excessive, my edits were to misleading text, were good, only wish I recorded the changes in the discussion page and not next to the edit (thought that was small space) - but thx for ban and day off
Note: Above submitted by User:Snettie, note by: Veriss ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
the Letter is more important to his position as Agriculture Commissioner then space like ... "2,546,287 votes (62 percent) to Democrat Marvin Gregory's 1,479,692 (36 percent). Libertarian Clyde L. Garland received the remaining 85,836 votes (2 percent).[31] Gregory, a chicken farmer from Sulphur Springs, Texas, " this is WP:UNDUE - Rick Perry himself said on the radio that he wished the the voters would read the letter in the context of his job as Agriculture Commissioner. Well you have a detailed (if boring) description description of the duties of the Agriculture job, and could have the Perry letter giving voice to the Rural development and hospitals. seems very to have a copy of the letter. It would be a good idea to have links for the Perry site to the Paul site referring to each letter. This would really bring Wiki into the debates. Paul then Perry referring to letters, then links to the letters. One taking jab about health care, the other about disloyalty to Reagan, ===let the letters link=== then when one goes to wiki they would get primary resources, like history research, primary research is king. (it makes me happy when you said it Collect so I have to return it... CheersSnettie 02:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism. WP:RS reliable sources WP:UNDUE Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negative
Note: Above submitted by User:Snettie, note by: Veriss ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If articles in mainstream press carry stories related to rumors of ( BLP violation removed), would it be okay to add it to the article? 216.15.127.217 ( talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand why this question was edited to be nearly incomprehensible though I think it was an over reaction by a reasonable editor operating in good faith and performing due diligence. This is a talk page though and legitimate issues of policy should be openly discussed in my opinion. The question is reasonable and probably fueled by the unrestrained blogosphere and quasi-news media sites. Please see the section immediately above for a very clear and concise answer to your specific question. Veriss ( talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please add this wikilink to Perry opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions ... 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems like that’s a pretty big issue with him religiously. Maybe deserves it’s own section? Now that News.Google has turned to crap, having to dig deep in regular google to find reliable sources. For starters, following pretty good sources get into it;
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Political organizations might have an implicit bias in attributing positions to those whom it opposes. I suggest scrubbing them off any possible list. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Reading them all leaves one with nothing directly connecting Perry with the view - but a lot os attempts at mud-slinging guilt-by-association ("he sat in the same room as Hitler, so therefore he must approve of Hitler") reasoning. Such is not approved by [[W{:BLP]] that I can find. And some of the comments verge on the ludicrous. Collect ( talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Is a 4.7K section on labor stats sourced to the BLS a relevant section to the biography? It seems to me that the only articles it would fit in are ones about Texas proper. The use here appears to be "campaign material" and is not properly in this BLP at all. Wikipedia is not the place for people to campaign for or against any candidates in their biographies. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
For context, I was the person who wrote most of the section being debated here. At that time(I added it about a month ago, I don't remember), the topic was being highly discussed in the media, and Perry's supporters/detractors were adding many claims into the article when I wrote the section. My intention was to have a statistics-based section that would impartially cover the state of the Texas economy without getting into cause/effect, arguments and nuances on each side. I definitely think that it should be included, though I would not object to making the section more concise. Seleucus ( talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Perry has noted that, "Since I’ve become governor, Texas has created more than 1 million jobs, while the rest of the country has lost 2.5 million jobs." Critics point out that job growth has not kept up with working-age population growth. The net result has been higher unemployment.
As of August 2011, Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate.[52][53] In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 9.1% in August 2011.[54][55][56] 25 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and 25 states (including the District of Columbia) have a higher unemployment rate, meaning that Texas has median unemployment among U.S. states.[57][58] Between June 2009 and August 2011, 237,000 jobs were created in Texas.[59][60] ...
Several of the business leaders who moved to Texas have ascribed their decision partly to business-friendly policies (including the lack of income tax, low regulation, anti-union laws, and financial incentives), and partly to the convenient Texas geography in the middle of the country with transportation hubs, a large bilingual population, mild winters and abundant space.[68] ...
Paul Krugman, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, attributed Texas' job growth to soaring energy prices, a growing population, and a gentler housing crisis, due to stricter regulation of mortgage lending, and that such factors are not reproducible on the national scale as a means to create jobs.[51]
As of August 2011 [Replace with Sept #s if possible), Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate.[References] In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 9.1% in August 2011.[References] 25 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and 25 states (including the District of Columbia) have a higher unemployment rate, meaning that Texas has median unemployment among U.S. states.[References] Between June 2009 and August 2011, 237,000 jobs were created in Texas.[References] Since Perry's inauguration as governor, X net jobs were created [find exact number, source]. According to a March 28, 2011 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9.54% of hourly-paid workers in Texas are paid at or below minimum wage. In comparison, the national percentage is 6.0%. Among the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, Texas has the highest percentage of workers paid at or below minimum wage; the state with the second-highest percentage is Mississippi, with 9.50%. [References]
It definitely reads like SYNTH, and possibly OR. Information in a BLP must be reliably sourced and the source must present the information as relevant to to subject of the article. If the source isn't presenting the info as relevant to Perry, then it's the editor who's making the point, not the source. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"Perry is currently serving as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association; he previously served as its Chairman in 2008".
Due to his run for President, he has stepped down from this position. Scott Walker is the current Chairman of the RGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.26.194 ( talk) 00:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that Perry is not accusing the Big O of not being a neutral broker. He is accusing him of being a neutral broker between Israel and terrorists such as Mahmoud Abbas and the new government of Egypt. Hcobb ( talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I put in Perry's exact words, but he is AGAINST being a neutral broker. Hcobb ( talk) 23:42, 23 September 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 |
Rick Perry suggested global warming is a hoax ( Global Warming Hoax). [1] from CBS News. 216.250.156.66 ( talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of this article Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012 and suggest you place it on your watch list. Yesterday it got stuffed with a lot of duplication and questionable material for the subject. We don't want it to become a POV fork where people can just dump material to avoid the more stringent BLP requirements and editorial oversight on this article. Morphh (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And the article Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry.. WP:AFD candidate? Morphh (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The Sodomy laws section appears to be bogus. The one citation is to a website which claims to archive AP stories, but a search on the AP Archive shows nothing for the claimed date. I'm removing the line. Mqbs ( talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added civil unions and domestic partnerships to his opposition to same sex marriage. The only opposition that is verifiable is his support for the Texas 2005 Constitutional Amendment. That amendment bans "any legal status". The only current "legal status" recognized in the United States are the three - same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. To just list same-sex marriage would be a moderation of his actual position and a political calculation.
Rsaustin31 (
talk)
18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested in helping me get this up to good article status? I think that if we can fill in the areas where citations are needed, and do a little touch up work, the article could pass. Looking at the guidelines, for instance, I think it meets guidelines 1 (well written), 3 (broad in its coverage), and 6 (images) for sure, and with some work could meet the rest of them. Who's with me? Kessy628 ( talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confident we can pass a B article review from one of the major projects this article belongs to. The reviewer may suggest a couple tweaks that we can easily address. I am pretty sure that any nomination for GA review at this time will be dismissed out of hand due to ongoing structural changes, conversion to summary style and the high level of edits since it is a bio of a newly high profile national candidate.
I suggest that now that the article is semi-protected again, once the conversion to summary style is completed we can request the Guild of Copy Editors to go through it to improve grammar, wording and readability with uninvolved eyes. After that we can post requests on the talk pages of the various projects for a B review. Hope this helps some, Veriss ( talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"Pay increases for Texas's teachers have not kept up with the national average, but the educational indicators do not show any negative impacts from this lower pay. [164]"
Correct (simplify) wikilink Anthropogenic, please. 99.35.12.88 ( talk) 03:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a section titled "Texas political career" is a good way to combine several relatively minor sections (push them to level 3), but I think it now puts the Texas governor section (which has the vast majority of the text) one level deeper than is desirable. I suggest:
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Perry is of primarily British ancestry which dates back to the original 13 colonies. Should that be mentioned anywhere in the article? 71.210.165.105 ( talk) 22:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
When you use the word "entitlement" you are using Republican propaganda. social security is something people pay into, they buy into it. That is not an "entitlement". I strongly feel that title should be changed to "social security" because THAT is what is being discussed. The Republicans try to portray social security as an entitlement, but again, it's something you pay into. Republicans and Tea Party zombies portray social security as some government give away program when in fact you pay to play. ( WP:BLP violation removed.)
Does the article mentioned ( WP:BLP violation removed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 ( talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that Perry is Federalist about entitlements. His statements seem to indicate Social Security "reforms" at the federal level combined with turning over all health programs to the states. Hcobb ( talk) 23:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about using The Huffington Post as a reliable source for a biography of a living person. Particularly of a presidential candidate and especially after their less then stellar objectivity during the 2008 presidential elections. I did some research and found what appeared to be a very reasonable analysis and discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Huffington Post. The consensus appeared to recommend finding alternative sources in most cases. Please read the entire discussion before leaping to conclusions.
This article will have to endure the 2012 election process and many people will use it to make personal electoral decisions. We should demand the highest standards for any citation we permit to be included. I recommend that we need to find alternative sources to any HuffPost, or any other blogging or quasi-news/blogging site, and we should limit their inclusion now before they become established within the article and a precedent is set by default. Veriss ( talk) 03:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent comments as I was hoping that someone would stick up for the The HuffPost. This brings us full-circle though as the question must be asked: how do we know who on HuffPost is a bonafide correspondent and who is merely a blogger? Even the blogs are made to look like the article was published by the most grizzled veteran of the NY Times. It's hard to tell who does hard news and who just does whatever. Veriss ( talk)
Drought, Wildfires Haven't Changed Perry's Climate-Change Views — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.36.44 ( talk) 23:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The G.P.A. was calculated using simple arithmetic in a method acknowledged by the reverting editor Kessy628. This was reverted by myself Quophnix under WP:CALC. As the WP:CALC policy states, "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Kessy628 created consensus in their edit summary by acknowledging, "that is the method of calculating GPA". Therefore, the edit stands under WP:CALC. Quophnix ( talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's get this right:
A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt
So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+2+3+6+8+6+3+2=84 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:
So, 84+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+12 = 312
312/144=2.166666
Let's triple and quadruple check this and make sure it's accurate. It's simple math but there are a lot of numbers to add up. Let's get it right. Quophnix ( talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Revisions needed:
OK, let's get this right:
A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt
- ENGL 103, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
- HIST 105, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- Term sub-total = 15
- A S 101, C, 1hr: 2x1=2
- BIOL 101, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- CHEM 101, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
- EDUC 101, A, 2hrs: 4x2=8
- ENGL 104, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- MATH 102, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
- P E 101,
23 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
- Term sub-total = 42
- A S 102, B, 1hr: 3x1=3
- BIOL 107, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- CHEM 102, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
- HIST 106, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
- MATH 103, D, 3 hrs: 1x3=3
- P E 102,
23 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
- Term sub-total = 29
So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+
23+3+6+8+6+3+23 = 15+42+29 =8486 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:
- Fall, 1969: 38
- Spring, 1970: 17
- Summer, 1970: 15
- Fall, 1970: 36
- Spring, 1971: 32
- Fall, 1971: 27
- Spring, 1972: 39
- 1st term Summer, 1972: 12
- 2nd term Summer, 1972:
1218So,
8486+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+1218 =312320
312/144=2.166666320/144=2.222222
Fat&Happy ( talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well done. Very thorough. I agree with Fat&Happy's calculations. Sorry about the confusion. Quophnix ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No response after ten days because the matter was settled. The source you cited in the previous edit is not "direct" in the context of the previous citation. Nothing is more direct than Perry's transcript itself and the GPA as calculated is merely a representation of his transcript in simpler terms under WP:CALC. Furthermore, after all of the math and work put into the topic on this page, a source citing a 2.5 GPA should at least provide (as we do) its method of calculation for comparison. Throwing up a source with a higher GPA just because someone says it's higher doesn't make it accurate...and nothing is more accurate than the actual transcript. Quophnix ( talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm not sure you read the section completely. We dealt with this a month ago. An average, is a simple mathematic calculation that falls within WP:CALC. As far as calculating a "grade point" average, all we have to know is how the school assigned grade points. For this, we refer to the document itself. ENGL 203 is a 3 hour course in which Perry receives a B in Fall of '69. The school assigns Perry 9 grade points for the "B" grade. Therefore, the school assigns 3 grade points per credit hour for a B (3 credit hours x 3 grade points per credit hour = 9 grade points). So, we know how the school assigned grade points. (Read entry dated:19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) You can do this for all the courses on the transcript (not that you even have to since the school provides the grade point values explicitly in the document) to determine how the school assigned grade points and then calculate the average from there. There is no OR involved here at all. You simply take the grade points and average them to calculate the GPA. As for whether the transcript is a RS, it comes from a major news source and is subject to WP:NEWSORG. For the second time, we're not doing fourier transforms. This is very simple math and very clearly falls under WP:CALC. Quophnix ( talk) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel I should summarize our method of calculation for anyone choosing to post further edits in this section, which should justify why the calculation stands under WP:CALC and is not WP:OR. We merely performed an average calculation using the grade points listed on Rick Perry's official college transcript. This was done by dividing the total grade points from the transcript (adjusted for the change from the 3 point to 4 point scale that occurred in June of 1969) by the total hours reported on the transcript. Very simple. Very straightforward. No WP:OR. Quophnix ( talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Removed per BLP policy, it would be inappropriate to readd it without secondary reliable sources. Kevin ( talk) 19:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As I stated in the beginning of the discussion in a response to an attempt to calculate Perry's GPA, I thought it was pushing into the realm of Original Research. I, unfortunately, caved to the consensus and hard work at the time. Later, while validating inline citations, I discovered that a reliable local, unchallenged source that was already cited in that section asserted a GPA of 2.5. I could care less if the article asserts a GPA of 0.2 or 3.9. The facts need to be sourced properly. WP:CALC is not a reliable source, never has been and never trumps a Reliable Source when one is available. Impeach the cited reliable source or find a better source. WP:CALC is out of bounds in this situation. Sometimes a SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) is appropriate, in the case of a BLP though, it is most definitely not. Veriss ( talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That source doesn't seem clear to me if they're talking about his GPA when he made his decision to go another route, or his final GPA. It seems unlikely they're referring to his final GPA from the context, and it is not clearly stated that it was his final GPA.
Here's a source that says his GPA was 2.22, which matches the above calculation and was released after the transcripts were leaked, vs the other article which I believe was before the transcripts were released.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/25/2375100/gov-scott-wants-to-make-us-smart.html
Now it can hardly be considered original research, yet the transcripts seem to clearly support the 2.22 figure that is clearly cited as his final GPA, and dispute the 2.5 GPA as being his final GPA which I don't think is clear from the cited article at all. 205.217.239.59 ( talk) 13:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that is an opinion piece, I didn't notice at first. However, how the 2.5 GPA figure was arrived at is just as questionable, it isn't clear whether it is citing his final GPA, or his GPA when he decided he wouldn't be able to do veterinary medicine, and it doesn't match up with the transcripts that are now publicly available. I can understand why not to give a GPA since his transcripts are available for anyone to see, and some people have a problem with doing the calculation. What I don't understand is why there's a 2.5 GPA in the article that is not supported and conflicts with his transcript. 205.217.239.59 ( talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I did a calculation to see when Perry might have had a 2.5 GPA to make sense out of that number, and the only time he was close to that was after his first semester (though after his 2nd he was higher than that), so that may be what he remembers. I also noticed a problem, or possible problem, with the 2.22 calculation. With that calculation his organic chemistry II class which he failed isn't being counted against his credit hours (likely because he receives no credit for this). It would however most likely be counted against his credit hours attempted which would probably be used to calculate his GPA. If somebody can flush out the answer to this, or already has, please post that policy here. I was getting a GPA of 2.18 if the credit hours attempted are counted. 205.217.239.59 ( talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Um -- "leaked transcript" != strong source for us doing calculations on a putative GPA - Wikipedia requires actual relaible sources for claims in any BLP, and such "calculations" would fall far short of the requirements. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That article says, "And he was exceedingly loyal to the corps, which he credited with giving him the discipline to get an animal sciences degree — his 2.5 grade point average wasn’t high enough to go the veterinary route — and join the Air Force." It's not clear that the GPA was his final GPA. There's nothing to indicate they're talking about his final GPA, and it could have easily come from Perry mentioning his GPA after his first semester. The thing is though, we have no idea where that GPA figure came from. We don't know if it was from Perry, from one of his supporters, made up, but it is clearly refuted by Perry's transcripts. I agree that calculating the actual GPA is a bit dicey, but quoting this one article as if it is a factual, researched figure is deceptive. This article was written before Perry's transcripts were released (and may have been the reason why they were released), and clearly Perry's documents weren't available to the reporter at that time. I think it's best to leave it off, and let people figure it out for themselves.
205.217.239.59 ( talk) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
1st sorry, thx for break, discovered the discussion page
1st you have a really tight site, good flow, wish you could help clean up the Paul site,
The small stuff:revision 450139281 was not replaced, just a former chairman in '11 - states he was Chairman during event - little space difference & lessens Chairmans Stature to know about the event - this is noteworthy - not WP:UNDUE - as it was better now and yes there is a longer article -
Bigger and more impactful 450097610, per WEIGHT, you did not allow a small reference to ===Crony Capitalism=== with the charges brought up in the debate yesterday, WAPO today, Palin the issue to the public IS Crony Capitalism,this is not WP:UNDUE
Industrial Policy can be placed under economny and Crony Capitalism can be rewritten but not made smaller, each example, within reason, but ones that make major papers could be woven together- WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negatives
N419BH use of WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism, to 450079681 - was excessive, my edits were to misleading text, were good, only wish I recorded the changes in the discussion page and not next to the edit (thought that was small space) - but thx for ban and day off
Note: Above submitted by User:Snettie, note by: Veriss ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
the Letter is more important to his position as Agriculture Commissioner then space like ... "2,546,287 votes (62 percent) to Democrat Marvin Gregory's 1,479,692 (36 percent). Libertarian Clyde L. Garland received the remaining 85,836 votes (2 percent).[31] Gregory, a chicken farmer from Sulphur Springs, Texas, " this is WP:UNDUE - Rick Perry himself said on the radio that he wished the the voters would read the letter in the context of his job as Agriculture Commissioner. Well you have a detailed (if boring) description description of the duties of the Agriculture job, and could have the Perry letter giving voice to the Rural development and hospitals. seems very to have a copy of the letter. It would be a good idea to have links for the Perry site to the Paul site referring to each letter. This would really bring Wiki into the debates. Paul then Perry referring to letters, then links to the letters. One taking jab about health care, the other about disloyalty to Reagan, ===let the letters link=== then when one goes to wiki they would get primary resources, like history research, primary research is king. (it makes me happy when you said it Collect so I have to return it... CheersSnettie 02:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism. WP:RS reliable sources WP:UNDUE Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negative
Note: Above submitted by User:Snettie, note by: Veriss ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If articles in mainstream press carry stories related to rumors of ( BLP violation removed), would it be okay to add it to the article? 216.15.127.217 ( talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand why this question was edited to be nearly incomprehensible though I think it was an over reaction by a reasonable editor operating in good faith and performing due diligence. This is a talk page though and legitimate issues of policy should be openly discussed in my opinion. The question is reasonable and probably fueled by the unrestrained blogosphere and quasi-news media sites. Please see the section immediately above for a very clear and concise answer to your specific question. Veriss ( talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please add this wikilink to Perry opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions ... 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems like that’s a pretty big issue with him religiously. Maybe deserves it’s own section? Now that News.Google has turned to crap, having to dig deep in regular google to find reliable sources. For starters, following pretty good sources get into it;
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Political organizations might have an implicit bias in attributing positions to those whom it opposes. I suggest scrubbing them off any possible list. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Reading them all leaves one with nothing directly connecting Perry with the view - but a lot os attempts at mud-slinging guilt-by-association ("he sat in the same room as Hitler, so therefore he must approve of Hitler") reasoning. Such is not approved by [[W{:BLP]] that I can find. And some of the comments verge on the ludicrous. Collect ( talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Is a 4.7K section on labor stats sourced to the BLS a relevant section to the biography? It seems to me that the only articles it would fit in are ones about Texas proper. The use here appears to be "campaign material" and is not properly in this BLP at all. Wikipedia is not the place for people to campaign for or against any candidates in their biographies. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
For context, I was the person who wrote most of the section being debated here. At that time(I added it about a month ago, I don't remember), the topic was being highly discussed in the media, and Perry's supporters/detractors were adding many claims into the article when I wrote the section. My intention was to have a statistics-based section that would impartially cover the state of the Texas economy without getting into cause/effect, arguments and nuances on each side. I definitely think that it should be included, though I would not object to making the section more concise. Seleucus ( talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Perry has noted that, "Since I’ve become governor, Texas has created more than 1 million jobs, while the rest of the country has lost 2.5 million jobs." Critics point out that job growth has not kept up with working-age population growth. The net result has been higher unemployment.
As of August 2011, Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate.[52][53] In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 9.1% in August 2011.[54][55][56] 25 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and 25 states (including the District of Columbia) have a higher unemployment rate, meaning that Texas has median unemployment among U.S. states.[57][58] Between June 2009 and August 2011, 237,000 jobs were created in Texas.[59][60] ...
Several of the business leaders who moved to Texas have ascribed their decision partly to business-friendly policies (including the lack of income tax, low regulation, anti-union laws, and financial incentives), and partly to the convenient Texas geography in the middle of the country with transportation hubs, a large bilingual population, mild winters and abundant space.[68] ...
Paul Krugman, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, attributed Texas' job growth to soaring energy prices, a growing population, and a gentler housing crisis, due to stricter regulation of mortgage lending, and that such factors are not reproducible on the national scale as a means to create jobs.[51]
As of August 2011 [Replace with Sept #s if possible), Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate.[References] In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 9.1% in August 2011.[References] 25 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and 25 states (including the District of Columbia) have a higher unemployment rate, meaning that Texas has median unemployment among U.S. states.[References] Between June 2009 and August 2011, 237,000 jobs were created in Texas.[References] Since Perry's inauguration as governor, X net jobs were created [find exact number, source]. According to a March 28, 2011 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9.54% of hourly-paid workers in Texas are paid at or below minimum wage. In comparison, the national percentage is 6.0%. Among the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, Texas has the highest percentage of workers paid at or below minimum wage; the state with the second-highest percentage is Mississippi, with 9.50%. [References]
It definitely reads like SYNTH, and possibly OR. Information in a BLP must be reliably sourced and the source must present the information as relevant to to subject of the article. If the source isn't presenting the info as relevant to Perry, then it's the editor who's making the point, not the source. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"Perry is currently serving as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association; he previously served as its Chairman in 2008".
Due to his run for President, he has stepped down from this position. Scott Walker is the current Chairman of the RGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.26.194 ( talk) 00:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that Perry is not accusing the Big O of not being a neutral broker. He is accusing him of being a neutral broker between Israel and terrorists such as Mahmoud Abbas and the new government of Egypt. Hcobb ( talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I put in Perry's exact words, but he is AGAINST being a neutral broker. Hcobb ( talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)