![]() | 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 |
Per the discussion above about expanding the economy section it's increasingly clear that the section cannot be expanded with out getting bogged down in a quagmire of campaign claims and counterclaims. I propose that the Economy section be placed as is under the Fiscal Policy section, which would then be renamed Economic Policy. Brmull ( talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This new article is a problem. First, where's the discussion here to remove all the material to a new article? Secondly, as it stands it is copyvio because it's lost all its contribution history. See Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Fixing_cut_and_paste_moves - it's got to be fixed by someone if it is agreed that this was a good move. I'm also not sure about the title. Dougweller ( talk) 06:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea attribution would be an issue. I made the null edit as you recommended. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/perry-touts-stem-cell-therapy/ Questions raised over legality of Perry’s stem cell treatments
c.f.:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion
Hcobb ( talk) 20:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is all over the news, but nowhere on this page, because the slightest mention is reverted. Hcobb ( talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debating society. The aim is to write BLPs conservatively (not in the political sense of the word) and to that end WP:BLP has specific rules. One of which is that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and another is that material of minor significance should be given weight only in proportion to its significance. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think the paragraph belongs in the "Presidential Campaign" section. I'm not sure where it should go. If there was a "Controversy" section, I'd say put it there, but there isn't one. -- Adjwilley ( talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a much more in depth discussion about it on that page but the take-away is that dedicated controversy sections are often just potential dumping grounds, adversely affect due weight and are disencouraged. Veriss ( talk) 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic."
Comment: Here's my two cents on the matter. Does this belong in an article about Rick Perry? Yes, it is a big deal. Does this belong in his biography? Not really. I'd personally say lets put this in his presidential campaign article and call it a day. Kessy628 ( talk) 17:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the AP a reliable source anymore? Hcobb ( talk) 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
(An Editor) has been officially warned about that policy and the fact that anyone could likely report the current apparent violation at WP:AN/EW. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
What section does support for the English Civil War go under? Hcobb ( talk) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This article needs improvement. Step back for a moment and think of what a biography is. Then look at the article. There is too much emphasis on the NRA giving him a A or he opposes Obamacare (but he is a state governor, which has no say). Why not include his opinion on Hawaii Five-O or Sudoku? See, let's focus on his biography.
I will let others make suggestions first. This is to show that I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not have a political agenda for or against the man. Only if there are no suggestions will I start adding and deleting. BAMP ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with BAMP. This article needs a lot of work, especially in the "Personal life" section. I understand that Anita Thigpen Perry has a very accomplished career and appears to be a very successful person by her own merits, but her professional life should not be the dominant material for a link to her husband's personal life. It makes it seem as though perhaps he has little to no personal life whatsoever, and makes me wonder if this information was crammed in here to hide that fact and make his article longer; this would be a poor, transparent attempt to make him look better. It would be better not to have the section here at all. I do not know much about Rick Perry. That is why I came to this page in the first place. I was very disappointed. I am sorry BAMP that I cannot give more information to improve this article. It is looking like no one else has information either. You may have to delete it down to a self sustaining size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardGindel ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wpiki with 22 edits seems bent on adding material which in no way has a direct connection to Perry. I suggest that this be dealt with sternly on this talk page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Since we have such an article, can we chop down everything about it to a paragraph or so with the big reference to the article in question? Anything more would be duplication and cherry picking. Hcobb ( talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The WaPo article states: Medical rolls increased by 24 percent since 2003, while Texas’ population was soaring by 20 percent during the decade. Any claim made in this article which implies that grwoth per capita in medical coverage did not occur is a misuse of the WaPo source, as it does not make such a claim. (I find that a 20% increase in population is "soaring" while a 24% increase in doctors is merely an "increase" to be odd. <g>) Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.221.23 ( talk) 06:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The article's reference to a 2.5 GPA seems to be second- or third- hand.
The primary reference on Perry's academic performance seems to be: Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds, by Jason Cherkis at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html First Posted: 8/5/11 12:57 PM ET Updated: 8/5/11 05:18 PM ET, or equivalently http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript CountMacula ( talk) 04:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Rick Perry scrambles to recover from debate 'oops'
And Mark McKinnon, the media consultant to Bush, wrote for the on-line Daily Beast that Perry had officially disqualified himself for the presidency.
"Perry is now a dead man walking," McKinnon wrote. "Once they’re laughing at you, you’re finished. Perry supporters Wednesday night were running out in the dark and pulling out yard signs."
The reaction followed from a moment in the second half of a CNBC-sponsored debate when Perry spoke about slashing federal spending.
"I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the -- what’s the third one there? Let’s see."
After struggling for more than 30 seconds, searching notes, looking to opponents, Perry still could not recover.
"The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with, Education, the...Commerce and, let’s see. I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops," Perry said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Paterno ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In a recent debate, Perry mentioned this mental lapse. It is becoming important for the article. Jack Paterno ( talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Last I heard, it was revealed that Perry was NOT the Gore '88 campaign chair in Texas. The article cited from Politifact has since been updated (see here) and the other one is dubious at best. I didn't want to change it unilaterally without discussion, so I will wait for a couple days to change it. Because honestly, it seems to me that, AT BEST, this sentence "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas" should be changed to something like "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries." Or, possibly "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and served in the Texas campaign in an un-specified capacity". What do you think? Vyselink ( talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed this statement from the bottom of the section on the 2012 Presidential Campaign: "Glebe resident(sic) are fond of their dilapidated tram sheds, and are not happy to see them traduced in this way." Perhaps it could be replaced by a similar statement which includes citations and NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoUnDoLe ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The current wording of the section reads like a campaign commercial for Rick Perry, "bucking the system and killing people." While I'm actually a fan of Rick Perry for President and don't really care one way or another about the death penalty as long as the people being put to death are actually, you know ...•guilty•, this doesn't do wikipedia justice to how disputed this information is, by the vast majority of the scientific community. Pär Larsson ( talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's also important to site sources, which I believe needs to be done for the second paragraph of the death penalty section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MademoiselleBelle ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I actually think it reads negatively for Perry. It makes him seem like the biggest Pro-Death Penalty conservative of all time. It should be written to express his view with facts showing both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.142.228 ( talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The quote in the reference saying Perry has done more than any other governor for the Innocence project goes on to say, "Unless, of course, it involves the death penalty. On the death penalty, Rick Perry has a profound mental block."
I know that there is a separate section on the death penalty, but it is misleading to have half of a quotation in one section. It makes it seem like the quote says that Perry has done more than any other governor for the innocence project, and this is not what the quote says or what it implies. It is therefore taken badly out of context.
Createangelos ( talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, I would like to give an analogy to explain my exact point. Suppose someone said "The head and feet of a hippo weigh less than a gazelle does," and this were quoted in Wikipedia as "a hippo weighs less than a gazelle does."
There may or may not be a hippo weighing less than a gazelle, but my point is that the quotation does not say anything about the relative weight of a hippo versus that of a gazelle, it is a neutral statement on that point, only comparing the weight of the head and feet of a hippo to the weight of a gazelle.
The fact that the article has a separate section about crime and a separate section about the death penalty is fine, but again that does not justify the mis-application of the quotation, any more than putting the quote 'A hippo weighs more than a gazelle' into a magazine about butchery and exotic meats would justify the deletion of part of the quotation. It is not more true, in the context of sale of animal parts, that an entire hippo weighs more than an entire gazelle, than it would be true in any other context. If it is true it is true, if it is not true, it is not. It is just not what the un-excerpted sentence says. Deleting part of a quotation to change the meaning is not unconditionally corrected by using the truncated quotation in a more limited context.
92.26.60.81 ( talk) 11:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
OK I have edited this to include the rest of the Blackburn quotation. I admit that this is not ideal as in essence two sections include a quote about the death penalty, I'm certainly OK if someone has a better solution than just including the full Blackburn quote in the Crime section. But again to stress that the subdivision of material between sections is a more minor issue than a quotation taken out of context in a way that alters its meaning.
A better solution might be to combine the two sections, or else to replace the Blackburn quote with separate quotations that separately deal with punishment of crimes through incarceration and through death.
The layout of the article isn't ideal but questions of layout should take a back seat to questions of how much of a quotation is relevant to the meaning of what is said.
Createangelos ( talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article deliberately misquotes Rick Perry's recent 'Strong' Campaign, only quoting the first part of Rick Perry's sentence, "There's something wrong when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, and your kids can't openly celebrate Christmas."...............just quoting "There's something wrong when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military."
This is not objective, and represents the editor's critical view of Rick Perry which might biase the opinions of others by misquoting.
Minho576 ( talk) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the line about the 'Strong' campaign, it would be nice to mention that "It was widely parodied". Here's a reference. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-strong-ad-spawns-parodies-20111212,0,2863984.story 97.112.203.215 ( talk)
I cannot edit the article. I propose a slight alteration to the introduction to move the present sentence "Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas state history" to run directly on from two other statements about his length of tenure. It would look like this (with the changes highlighted here in bold).
A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full gubernatorial terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010. With a tenure in office to date of 23 years, 199 days, Perry is the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor, the second longest serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa, and is the longest serving governor in Texas state history. Perry served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 (succeeding Sonny Perdue of Georgia) and again in 2011. [1] Due to his long tenure, he is the only governor in modern Texas history to have appointed at least one person to every eligible state office, board, or commission position (as well as to several elected offices to which the governor can appoint someone to fill an unexpired term, such as six of the nine current members of the Texas Supreme Court).
One of you auto-confirmed editors can do it. It might be noted that the statements about his tenure records, and his having made appointments to every possible office, should have cited references. Darcyj ( talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Small suggestion - instead of saying he took office "in December 2000" - why not state that he was sworn into office on December 21, 2000. I mean isn't this supposed to be an online encyclopedia? Isn't specificity and fact the kind of thing people want when they come here? Trevor Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.46.116 ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The linked page off archive.com is not a reliable source for the assertion that he has Choctaw ancestry. Firstly it is anonymous, secondly these pages are not vetted, thirdly they are not independently published, fourthly the writer (unknown) is not a professional in their field. Wjhonson ( talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
So far I can not find any reliable source for his "transcript" other than HuffPo ascribing it to an anonymous source. This is less than required by WP:BLP at this point. The NYT simply calls it a "transcript circulated on the Internet" which means the NYT seems to have doubts as to its provenance. [2] Collect ( talk) 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is quite up to BLP RS standards, but somebody notable will most likely point this out soon. Hcobb ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
His remark about sending U.S. troops back to Iraq ought to be mentioned on here. 70.253.88.172 ( talk) 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there nothing about his strong anti-gay stance in the lede? He's one of the most anti-gay politicians in recent memory. Pass a Method talk 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
the article claims that Rick Perry, in his ad "Strong", says that "children cannot openly celebrate Christmas", however, the actual line he says is that "children cannot openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.". I don't claim this needs to be edited in, but am just pointing out that the selected quote does not capture the entire message that Rick Perry was conveying in his sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.170.82 ( talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone who approved 200+ executions (including the innocent, juveniles and mentally disabled) cannot be considered or described as "pro-life". Therefore, I suggest changing the "pro-life" phrase in the health section to something like "opposed to abortion rights". 38.111.32.82 ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I figure since Perry has ended his presidential campaign that wiki editors that have followed the Perry article can be good neutral voices on the discussion page of the Mitt Romney article, Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time. Any feedback would be appreciated! K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The presentation and interpretation of information in this entry is so politically and philosophically biased that it is something you would expect to read in the /r politics area of reddit. I doubt the 57% of Texans who elected Mr. Perry over his Democrat opponent see him as this article portrays him. For example the budget "deficits" are juxtaposed with corporate tax breaks in a obvious manner such as to create a cause-and-effect relationship. The use of the term "deficit" is in itself a biased term, since Texas, unlike the US government, cannot operate with a deficit. That the press chooses to be inaccurate in its use of this term is no reason why wikipedia should allow political bias to creep into its usage.
Failing a substantial re-write of this entire entry, it should be reduced to a minimum of non-controversial information and eliminating obvious political bias. Carrellk ( talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)carrellk
"“Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena,” Perry said during the call on Tuesday, organized by the Rev. Rick Scarborough...Perry said the separation of religious and civic institutions in the U.S. began with a “narrative” that first took root in the 1960s."
Isn't Perry the longest serving current Governor? Branstad of Iowa, was out of office, from 1999 to 2011. GoodDay ( talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I included the link to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the cite to their website (which, incidentally, I got from another article-- scarcely original research) because (a) it is mentioned in the very section I was editing, and it probably helps explain to readers why it's relevant that the Board issued a recommendation in the cases where Perry granted clemency, and (b) it corrects an NPOV issue, which is that the article refers to criticisms Perry received for not acting, without mentioning the constraints on his action. Please do not revert. I would be happy to discuss the issue further here to try to reach a consensus if you have concerns. DCB4W ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Rick Perry's residence is Barton Creek Estates neighborhood in West Austin and not the Mansion which is under renovation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco2013 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What's the beef against reporting the return of historical diseases to Perry's Texas? Is it the sourcing? Hcobb ( talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Covers the indictment, and is scarcely kind to Perry, but less kind to the indictment. Collect ( talk) 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled by the removal of this information from the lede and also the factual content that was removed from the body of the article in these edits. For example, why remove the penalty for the charges? Several sources have made note of it. What about the facts about the Governor's office defense? A felony indictment is not a small thing, so I see no reason to treat it as a footnote.- Mr X 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
We now have 71 words about the grand jury felony indictment in the body of the article and 154 words of opinions criticizing the indictment. Should 2⁄3+ of this content really consist of various opinions critical of the indictment?- Mr X 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that the HuffPo is considered by some to be a liberal source, but this explanation and commentary is sobering [3], and has material that I have not read before and that is not present in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
At a minimum, we need to add:
I will do some research to find additional sources, if any, on these two subjects. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Partially done. Added info on Rove and the 1990 Texas agricultural commissioner campaign, details on Stubblefield, he presiding judge in the abuse of power case (and Perry's appointee), and Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor behind the indictment, appointed by Stubblefield Judge Bert Richardson of Bexar County, a Republican judge who was assigned to head the grand jury by Stubblefield . -
Cwobeel
(talk)
03:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to get invested into an edit war of a topic I just don't really care about. I don't know why I am here in the first place. However, as a primary source, we cannot include the material without a 3rd party source saying that what he said has any real bearing on his overall biography.--v/r - T P 02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the opening statement on the Indictment section is not accurate, bordering on a completely misrepresentation of the facts. It describes a public corruption case "after the head of that unit, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, refused to resign after having been convicted of drunk driving." But that seems to be incorrect. What I am reading is that the indictment came for abuse of power for threatening to veto a budget to force the resignation of a public official, and for corruption for attempting to bribe a public official to resign and get another gig instead. -
Cwobeel
(talk)
14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The original complaint is on the TPJ web site and it makes no mention of the CPIT investigation.
I think this article in the Texas Observer explains it very well (my highlights):
The Travis County DA is no different, in almost every respect, than the more than 300 local elected prosecutors in Texas. She is locally elected and is a servant of the jurisdiction she represents. The only thing unique about the Travis County DA’s office is that it contains the Public Integrity Unit, which polices corruption in state government. Practically speaking, this anti-corruption unit is one of the few checks on the power and influence Perry has accumulated over 14 years in office.
- Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have placed a {{ POV section}} tag until this is addressed and corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Attempted to correct this myself, please feel free to improve upon it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What I have written is facts reported by reliable sources. This is the first paragraph:
References
Please let me know what is incorrect in that sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have re-read the sentence and it is accurately describing the indictment. Count I: Intent to harm Lehmberg by misuse of government property to deny funding the operation of the DA office; and Count II: coercion and threat to veto legislation to force Lehmberg’s resignation. [6]. If you disagree, please provide arguments to the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@
TParis: The belief was if Perry could, he would appoint a Republican district attorney and hinder the investigation.
Is that not Wikipedia voice used to assert someone's opinion? -
Cwobeel
(talk)
03:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Concerning my revert. I didn't get a chance to explain it in the edit summary, however, I see that 3 out of 7 paragraphs in the indictment section cover the criticism of the indictment. This is pretty consistent with mainstream media where all conservative sources and many liberal sources, including two of the biggest (NYT, LAT), are critical or at least view the indictment in a dim light. Because half of the indictment section is about criticism, it stands to reason, and per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD, and half of the paragraph about the indictment also cover the criticism. I believe the way it currently sits appropriately addresses WP:NPOV. Nuances should be discussed in the indictment section. At least, we might change the lead to say "The indictment has received some support but also wide cross-party criticism".--v/r - T P 02:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As the group that filed the complaint that formed the indictment, can we get someone to mosey on over here and do some work on this article?--v/r - T P 08:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if PJ media [12] is a reliable source, and in any case that opinion is tangential. If that opinion is reported in mainstream sources we can consider it, but until that time this is a minority viewpoint and should not be included per WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
NYPost In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry was charged Friday with abuse of power — essentially, exercising his constitutional right to veto legislation. WSJ: Prosecutorial abuse for partisan purposes is common these days, and the latest display is taking place in the all-too-familiar venue of Austin, Texas.
Of the 7 highest circulation papers in the US, 6 editorially criticized the indictment.
NYDN: but the circumstances of the charges left Democrats and Republicans alike wondering if they are politically motivated.
Make than 7 out of 7.
Chicago Sun-Times (number 8) It turns out it isn’t good and it may well backfire on the Democrats.
8 out of 8
Denver Post has only used AP reports and zero commentary editorially.
Chicago Tribune: Republicans and a whole lot of Democrats have had a common reaction to this news. They're amazed, astonished, aghast ... By any stretch, it's hard to envision how a governor broke the law by exercising his veto power and publicly stating exactly why he was doing so. ... This case is, as Harvard legal scholar (and, if you're wondering, liberal) Alan Dershowitz called it, 'the criminalization of party differences' and 'what happens in totalitarian societies.'
9 out of 9 of the top newspapers in the US are unanimous in criticizing the indictment. Oh -- the Denver Post ran a WaPo column by Catherine Rampell in lieu of its own editorial ... Whether his actions rose to the level of criminality is a matter of debate even among his critics.
Ten out of ten have criticized the indictment or published specific criticism editorially. Sounds like saying "some" is a silly claim to assert - no? Collect ( talk) 13:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you guys think we would need to do to this article to get it up to GA quality? It's got the content and sources. I would think most of the changes are formatting and NPOV. Thoughts?--v/r - T P 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The indictment section has become excessively long and is now longer than the Presidential run section. I think it's time we either start trimming this part of the article or split it into its own article and cut the material in this article by 25%.--v/r - T P 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be misinterpreting WP:NPOV, thinking that biased sources are not allowed (is there any source that is not biased one way or another?), and also misinterpreting WP:BLP thinking that criticism is not allowed. Both are wrong. NPOV states that we are to represent all significant viewpoints, albeit without bias in the way we present these viewpoints. BLP states that we have to be cautious and ensure that all material is well sourced to reliable, published sources, and that includes criticism as well. Of course, part of NPOV is undue weight, which is basically a matter of emphasis and quantity of text, easily spotted and corrected, and not as some think, removal of material when material for the opposing viewpoint is available for counterbalance. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
NK likely should recognize that WP:CONSENSUS basically stipulates that no one will ever be absolutely satisfied in a dispute - the best result is a compromise everyone can live with (which is not the same as only acceptable to a numerical majority - it should be a compromise aimed at almost everyone. That said, I doubt that the "well he didn't seek other resignations" is a particularly strong claim for anyone to insist on, especially since in at least one of those cases the person did resign. That is really in the class of "partisan argumentation based on whatever factoids any party can come up with" rather than clearly being "on point" here. Can we get a consensus to stop all the bickering and allow the removal of the fluff about "other DUI cases" in order to settle this section? On a scale of 1 to 10, I suggest it may hit a 2 maximum in relevance. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, that's neither here nor there. I'd suggest we start by using better sources. We shouldn't be using partisan sources (e.g. Huffington Post, Progress Texas, Rachel Maddow, etc) except in very limited circumstances. To summarize the question of selective intervention in DUI cases, it's better to use a more reliable source like the Dallas Morning News: "Travis DA's drunken-driving arrest riled Perry; others' didn't". Like most partisan disputes, the key to appropriate coverage is to find and use good sources. MastCell Talk 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Other professors' opinions:
So, what about some balance? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the split because I've read mostly supportive opinions of the idea. The new article is Indictment of Rick Perry. I copied the section from this article in it's entirety over there. I also trimmed almost all opinion/commentary out of this article. I'm not perfect so if anyone disagrees with what I chose to put in the Indictment article and what I choose to leave here, feel free to balance it as necessary.--v/r - T P 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hat off-topic comments about other editors. Take comments about others to your user talk pages or follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, restrict your comments here to the editorial content of the article. Comment on content, not contributors. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In a section on the indictment, clearly it is the editorials dealing with the indictment which are pertinent. Other editorials belong in other sections. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me see if I can encapsulate a concern I have about the rush to highlight newspaper editorial opinion about Perry's indictment. The New York Times has published at least 10 editorial/opinion pieces dealing with Perry in the last month alone. Of these, virtually all were critical of Perry—except for the one questioning his indictment. If the editorial opinion of the New York Times is notable, then why do we cite it only when it defends Perry? Isn't this misleading, or undue weight, since the Times editorials are overwhelmingly critical of Perry? We don't cite these editorials—only the one outlier which is, on balance, supportive. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to cite editorials from prominent newspapers, but I think the way we're doing it is questionable. Some of it is, obviously, recentism since the indictment is in the news right now, but it does raise a serious issue of undue weight in my mind since we seem to be citing these newspapers' editorials only insofar as they benefit Perry, and not in a way that reflects these papers' overall editorial viewpoint. MastCell Talk 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about others, but unless we can all be succinct in our comments this is going nowhere. I cannot be expected to read wall-to-wall text. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I object to this edit by Atxav8r
Following the indictment, Havard Criminal Law professor Alan Dershowitz publicly stated that "The two statutes under which Gov. Perry was indicted are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union — you know, abuse of authority. The idea of indicting him because he threatened to veto spending unless a district attorney who was caught drinking and driving resigned, that's not anything for a criminal indictment. That's a political issue." [1] Prof. Dershowitz further stated, "it's so important to put a stop to it now, to say the criminal law is reserved for real crimes, not for political differences where a party in power or out of power gets revenge against the other party. That's just not the way to use the criminal justice [system]." [1]
References
- ^ a b Wanda Carruthers (August 18, 2014). "Dershowitz: Perry Indictment 'What Happens in Totalitarian Societies'". Newsmax. Retrieved August 23, 2014.
In my view, this gives undue prominence to the opinion of a single person, albeit a law professor. Especially troubling is that it's sourced to Newsmax.- Mr X 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
ABA Journal. Should be quite sufficient. Collect ( talk) 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no information on Perry's handling of the illegal immigration surge of 2014? The immigration crisis was a widely reported and publicized event, and Perry was widely praised for his handling of the crisis. This clearly was a major event of Perry's tenure as governor, so why is there absolutely no mention of this in his article? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: He'll be announcing his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential election formally today - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/rick-perry-2016-presidential-announcement/index.html -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a short mention of his gaffe during a 2012 debate, but I feel it should be a little bit longer. Him saying he would close 3 government departments and then not being able to name them all, ending with him saying "oops", was a huge moment in the 2012 primaries and probably the moment of his that got the most media coverage. Most articles that I see that discuss his chances in 2016 are talking about how he needs to redeem himself from the "oops" moment. I know a few media figures have suggested his adoption of wearing glasses is an attempt by Perry to not look as dumb in the wake of the gaffe.
I haven't edited political wiki's before and I know his announcement of running for 2016 is drawing more attention, so I didn't want to get carried away and do something that may seem politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by November49 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry Was Born In Haskell, Texas, He Grew Up In Paint Creek, So Please Go Back And Change This. Keri Nowling 192.69.180.133 ( talk) 13:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Given that there's a Wikipedia article titled " Indictment of Rick Perry", we're supposed to summarize it here, per WP:Summary style. But that section of this article seems very long for a summary. I suggest it should be less than half its current length.
Moreover, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported a few weeks ago: "Aside from misspeaking, however, another trouble facing Texas’ longest running governor hasn’t surfaced in a while on the national scene: his indictment." [23] I therefore think the matter takes up inordinate space in the lead. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I object to the addition of redundant content in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Either we should follow a chronological flow or a significance flow, not both. It's poor writing.- Mr X 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph is a guideline that says:
“ | [T]he opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have…. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable….[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. | ” |
I strongly disagree with removing the primary source of the subject's current notability from the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started a BLPN thread here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I object to having a one-sentence paragraph in the lead. [24] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention in the first paragraph of the lead that Perry is a presidential candidate, regardless of whether further information about it (such as the date and/or location of his presidential announcement) is mentioned toward the end of chronological material later in the lead?05:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
James Richard "Rick" Perry (born March 4, 1950) is an American politician who served as the 47th Governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015. He also ran for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 primaries.
~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@ KoshVorlon: It's not mentioned twice now, but it is mentioned twice in the edit that Anythingyouwant is proposing here.- Mr X 17:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
These BLPs seem more relevant than the current BLPs of people who haven't run for president in many years. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Carrite, I agree that we are not here to advertise candidacies. If we were, then Perry's would not be the one that I want to advertise. However, WP:OPENPARAGRAPH is very clear that the lead paragraph should include "notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played". Being a presidential candidate is this person's main job, and it has been extremely well-publicized for many months. If someone would like to change Wikipedia guidelines about this, then maybe I'd have a different view about it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Per the !vote of User:Muboshgu, no one is suggesting to say in the McCain lead that he is a 2016 candidate for president, because he's not; it is appropriate to say in the McCain lead that he was a losing candidate for president in 2008 since he was the nominee, though not in 2000 when he didn't win the nomination. McCain's current occupation and primary notability are not as a presidential candidate, as they are for Perry and have been for months. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Rjensen, let's stipulate that Perry is in the "little league" this year, and that his campaign is hilarious. Still, the issue is not how big a candidate he is relative t the other candidates, but rather how significant his candidacy is in his own life, right? It's his present occupation, and a full-time job. Merely because he's presumably doing the job badly doesn't mean it warrants less coverage in the lead. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to find information on Governor Perry's handling of Border Security, but couldn't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 725edwards ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry Was Born In Haskell, Texas, He Was Raised In Paint Creek, Texas, Please Go Back And Fix That. Keri Nicole Nowling, Formerly Of Austin, Texas. 192.69.180.133 ( talk) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry Was Born On March 4,1950,in Haskell, Texas, Not Paint Creek, Texas, He Grew Up In Paint Creek, But He Was Born In Haskell, So Please Go Back And Fix It. 69.174.160.120 ( talk) 13:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
The forty candidates are:
Extended content
|
---|
Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
|
My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.
You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.
Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.
As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
Extended content
|
---|
|
This page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence.
Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This last sentence of the header: "Perry ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2012 and 2016, but did poorly each time and soon dropped out." While it is certainly true that Perry did poorly in both of his campaigns and dropped out, he was also at one time in the 2012 primary a top contender and led polls consistently for about a month. I feel like this should deserve some mention or at least a re-wording of the sentence. If one were to read the sentence as it currently stands they might be led to believe that both of Perry's campaigns were like his last one in which he failed to gain any traction at all. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/25/111903.shtmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the caricature of Rick Perry be removed from the article. While it is certainly amusing it doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. - Vcelloho ( talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit adding Perry's salary, I don't see any mention of a salary in Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy, or Nancy Pelosi so the argument that it's "[r]elevant to public service position" seems to fall flat on it's face. Does anyone have anything else to say on the subject? Not only that, but the source used is a primary source and there isn't a proposed RS tying his salary to his nomination.--v/r - T P 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
According to NPR the Senate has already confirmed Perry as Energy Sec -> [36]</ref> -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (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 |
Per the discussion above about expanding the economy section it's increasingly clear that the section cannot be expanded with out getting bogged down in a quagmire of campaign claims and counterclaims. I propose that the Economy section be placed as is under the Fiscal Policy section, which would then be renamed Economic Policy. Brmull ( talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This new article is a problem. First, where's the discussion here to remove all the material to a new article? Secondly, as it stands it is copyvio because it's lost all its contribution history. See Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Fixing_cut_and_paste_moves - it's got to be fixed by someone if it is agreed that this was a good move. I'm also not sure about the title. Dougweller ( talk) 06:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea attribution would be an issue. I made the null edit as you recommended. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/perry-touts-stem-cell-therapy/ Questions raised over legality of Perry’s stem cell treatments
c.f.:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion
Hcobb ( talk) 20:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is all over the news, but nowhere on this page, because the slightest mention is reverted. Hcobb ( talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debating society. The aim is to write BLPs conservatively (not in the political sense of the word) and to that end WP:BLP has specific rules. One of which is that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and another is that material of minor significance should be given weight only in proportion to its significance. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think the paragraph belongs in the "Presidential Campaign" section. I'm not sure where it should go. If there was a "Controversy" section, I'd say put it there, but there isn't one. -- Adjwilley ( talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a much more in depth discussion about it on that page but the take-away is that dedicated controversy sections are often just potential dumping grounds, adversely affect due weight and are disencouraged. Veriss ( talk) 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic."
Comment: Here's my two cents on the matter. Does this belong in an article about Rick Perry? Yes, it is a big deal. Does this belong in his biography? Not really. I'd personally say lets put this in his presidential campaign article and call it a day. Kessy628 ( talk) 17:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the AP a reliable source anymore? Hcobb ( talk) 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
(An Editor) has been officially warned about that policy and the fact that anyone could likely report the current apparent violation at WP:AN/EW. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
What section does support for the English Civil War go under? Hcobb ( talk) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This article needs improvement. Step back for a moment and think of what a biography is. Then look at the article. There is too much emphasis on the NRA giving him a A or he opposes Obamacare (but he is a state governor, which has no say). Why not include his opinion on Hawaii Five-O or Sudoku? See, let's focus on his biography.
I will let others make suggestions first. This is to show that I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not have a political agenda for or against the man. Only if there are no suggestions will I start adding and deleting. BAMP ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with BAMP. This article needs a lot of work, especially in the "Personal life" section. I understand that Anita Thigpen Perry has a very accomplished career and appears to be a very successful person by her own merits, but her professional life should not be the dominant material for a link to her husband's personal life. It makes it seem as though perhaps he has little to no personal life whatsoever, and makes me wonder if this information was crammed in here to hide that fact and make his article longer; this would be a poor, transparent attempt to make him look better. It would be better not to have the section here at all. I do not know much about Rick Perry. That is why I came to this page in the first place. I was very disappointed. I am sorry BAMP that I cannot give more information to improve this article. It is looking like no one else has information either. You may have to delete it down to a self sustaining size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardGindel ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wpiki with 22 edits seems bent on adding material which in no way has a direct connection to Perry. I suggest that this be dealt with sternly on this talk page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Since we have such an article, can we chop down everything about it to a paragraph or so with the big reference to the article in question? Anything more would be duplication and cherry picking. Hcobb ( talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The WaPo article states: Medical rolls increased by 24 percent since 2003, while Texas’ population was soaring by 20 percent during the decade. Any claim made in this article which implies that grwoth per capita in medical coverage did not occur is a misuse of the WaPo source, as it does not make such a claim. (I find that a 20% increase in population is "soaring" while a 24% increase in doctors is merely an "increase" to be odd. <g>) Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.221.23 ( talk) 06:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The article's reference to a 2.5 GPA seems to be second- or third- hand.
The primary reference on Perry's academic performance seems to be: Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds, by Jason Cherkis at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html First Posted: 8/5/11 12:57 PM ET Updated: 8/5/11 05:18 PM ET, or equivalently http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript CountMacula ( talk) 04:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Rick Perry scrambles to recover from debate 'oops'
And Mark McKinnon, the media consultant to Bush, wrote for the on-line Daily Beast that Perry had officially disqualified himself for the presidency.
"Perry is now a dead man walking," McKinnon wrote. "Once they’re laughing at you, you’re finished. Perry supporters Wednesday night were running out in the dark and pulling out yard signs."
The reaction followed from a moment in the second half of a CNBC-sponsored debate when Perry spoke about slashing federal spending.
"I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the -- what’s the third one there? Let’s see."
After struggling for more than 30 seconds, searching notes, looking to opponents, Perry still could not recover.
"The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with, Education, the...Commerce and, let’s see. I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops," Perry said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Paterno ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In a recent debate, Perry mentioned this mental lapse. It is becoming important for the article. Jack Paterno ( talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Last I heard, it was revealed that Perry was NOT the Gore '88 campaign chair in Texas. The article cited from Politifact has since been updated (see here) and the other one is dubious at best. I didn't want to change it unilaterally without discussion, so I will wait for a couple days to change it. Because honestly, it seems to me that, AT BEST, this sentence "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas" should be changed to something like "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries." Or, possibly "Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and served in the Texas campaign in an un-specified capacity". What do you think? Vyselink ( talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed this statement from the bottom of the section on the 2012 Presidential Campaign: "Glebe resident(sic) are fond of their dilapidated tram sheds, and are not happy to see them traduced in this way." Perhaps it could be replaced by a similar statement which includes citations and NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoUnDoLe ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The current wording of the section reads like a campaign commercial for Rick Perry, "bucking the system and killing people." While I'm actually a fan of Rick Perry for President and don't really care one way or another about the death penalty as long as the people being put to death are actually, you know ...•guilty•, this doesn't do wikipedia justice to how disputed this information is, by the vast majority of the scientific community. Pär Larsson ( talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's also important to site sources, which I believe needs to be done for the second paragraph of the death penalty section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MademoiselleBelle ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I actually think it reads negatively for Perry. It makes him seem like the biggest Pro-Death Penalty conservative of all time. It should be written to express his view with facts showing both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.142.228 ( talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The quote in the reference saying Perry has done more than any other governor for the Innocence project goes on to say, "Unless, of course, it involves the death penalty. On the death penalty, Rick Perry has a profound mental block."
I know that there is a separate section on the death penalty, but it is misleading to have half of a quotation in one section. It makes it seem like the quote says that Perry has done more than any other governor for the innocence project, and this is not what the quote says or what it implies. It is therefore taken badly out of context.
Createangelos ( talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, I would like to give an analogy to explain my exact point. Suppose someone said "The head and feet of a hippo weigh less than a gazelle does," and this were quoted in Wikipedia as "a hippo weighs less than a gazelle does."
There may or may not be a hippo weighing less than a gazelle, but my point is that the quotation does not say anything about the relative weight of a hippo versus that of a gazelle, it is a neutral statement on that point, only comparing the weight of the head and feet of a hippo to the weight of a gazelle.
The fact that the article has a separate section about crime and a separate section about the death penalty is fine, but again that does not justify the mis-application of the quotation, any more than putting the quote 'A hippo weighs more than a gazelle' into a magazine about butchery and exotic meats would justify the deletion of part of the quotation. It is not more true, in the context of sale of animal parts, that an entire hippo weighs more than an entire gazelle, than it would be true in any other context. If it is true it is true, if it is not true, it is not. It is just not what the un-excerpted sentence says. Deleting part of a quotation to change the meaning is not unconditionally corrected by using the truncated quotation in a more limited context.
92.26.60.81 ( talk) 11:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
OK I have edited this to include the rest of the Blackburn quotation. I admit that this is not ideal as in essence two sections include a quote about the death penalty, I'm certainly OK if someone has a better solution than just including the full Blackburn quote in the Crime section. But again to stress that the subdivision of material between sections is a more minor issue than a quotation taken out of context in a way that alters its meaning.
A better solution might be to combine the two sections, or else to replace the Blackburn quote with separate quotations that separately deal with punishment of crimes through incarceration and through death.
The layout of the article isn't ideal but questions of layout should take a back seat to questions of how much of a quotation is relevant to the meaning of what is said.
Createangelos ( talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article deliberately misquotes Rick Perry's recent 'Strong' Campaign, only quoting the first part of Rick Perry's sentence, "There's something wrong when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, and your kids can't openly celebrate Christmas."...............just quoting "There's something wrong when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military."
This is not objective, and represents the editor's critical view of Rick Perry which might biase the opinions of others by misquoting.
Minho576 ( talk) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the line about the 'Strong' campaign, it would be nice to mention that "It was widely parodied". Here's a reference. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-strong-ad-spawns-parodies-20111212,0,2863984.story 97.112.203.215 ( talk)
I cannot edit the article. I propose a slight alteration to the introduction to move the present sentence "Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas state history" to run directly on from two other statements about his length of tenure. It would look like this (with the changes highlighted here in bold).
A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full gubernatorial terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010. With a tenure in office to date of 23 years, 199 days, Perry is the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor, the second longest serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa, and is the longest serving governor in Texas state history. Perry served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 (succeeding Sonny Perdue of Georgia) and again in 2011. [1] Due to his long tenure, he is the only governor in modern Texas history to have appointed at least one person to every eligible state office, board, or commission position (as well as to several elected offices to which the governor can appoint someone to fill an unexpired term, such as six of the nine current members of the Texas Supreme Court).
One of you auto-confirmed editors can do it. It might be noted that the statements about his tenure records, and his having made appointments to every possible office, should have cited references. Darcyj ( talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Small suggestion - instead of saying he took office "in December 2000" - why not state that he was sworn into office on December 21, 2000. I mean isn't this supposed to be an online encyclopedia? Isn't specificity and fact the kind of thing people want when they come here? Trevor Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.46.116 ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The linked page off archive.com is not a reliable source for the assertion that he has Choctaw ancestry. Firstly it is anonymous, secondly these pages are not vetted, thirdly they are not independently published, fourthly the writer (unknown) is not a professional in their field. Wjhonson ( talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
So far I can not find any reliable source for his "transcript" other than HuffPo ascribing it to an anonymous source. This is less than required by WP:BLP at this point. The NYT simply calls it a "transcript circulated on the Internet" which means the NYT seems to have doubts as to its provenance. [2] Collect ( talk) 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is quite up to BLP RS standards, but somebody notable will most likely point this out soon. Hcobb ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
His remark about sending U.S. troops back to Iraq ought to be mentioned on here. 70.253.88.172 ( talk) 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there nothing about his strong anti-gay stance in the lede? He's one of the most anti-gay politicians in recent memory. Pass a Method talk 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
the article claims that Rick Perry, in his ad "Strong", says that "children cannot openly celebrate Christmas", however, the actual line he says is that "children cannot openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.". I don't claim this needs to be edited in, but am just pointing out that the selected quote does not capture the entire message that Rick Perry was conveying in his sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.170.82 ( talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone who approved 200+ executions (including the innocent, juveniles and mentally disabled) cannot be considered or described as "pro-life". Therefore, I suggest changing the "pro-life" phrase in the health section to something like "opposed to abortion rights". 38.111.32.82 ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I figure since Perry has ended his presidential campaign that wiki editors that have followed the Perry article can be good neutral voices on the discussion page of the Mitt Romney article, Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time. Any feedback would be appreciated! K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The presentation and interpretation of information in this entry is so politically and philosophically biased that it is something you would expect to read in the /r politics area of reddit. I doubt the 57% of Texans who elected Mr. Perry over his Democrat opponent see him as this article portrays him. For example the budget "deficits" are juxtaposed with corporate tax breaks in a obvious manner such as to create a cause-and-effect relationship. The use of the term "deficit" is in itself a biased term, since Texas, unlike the US government, cannot operate with a deficit. That the press chooses to be inaccurate in its use of this term is no reason why wikipedia should allow political bias to creep into its usage.
Failing a substantial re-write of this entire entry, it should be reduced to a minimum of non-controversial information and eliminating obvious political bias. Carrellk ( talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)carrellk
"“Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena,” Perry said during the call on Tuesday, organized by the Rev. Rick Scarborough...Perry said the separation of religious and civic institutions in the U.S. began with a “narrative” that first took root in the 1960s."
Isn't Perry the longest serving current Governor? Branstad of Iowa, was out of office, from 1999 to 2011. GoodDay ( talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I included the link to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the cite to their website (which, incidentally, I got from another article-- scarcely original research) because (a) it is mentioned in the very section I was editing, and it probably helps explain to readers why it's relevant that the Board issued a recommendation in the cases where Perry granted clemency, and (b) it corrects an NPOV issue, which is that the article refers to criticisms Perry received for not acting, without mentioning the constraints on his action. Please do not revert. I would be happy to discuss the issue further here to try to reach a consensus if you have concerns. DCB4W ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Rick Perry's residence is Barton Creek Estates neighborhood in West Austin and not the Mansion which is under renovation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco2013 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What's the beef against reporting the return of historical diseases to Perry's Texas? Is it the sourcing? Hcobb ( talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Covers the indictment, and is scarcely kind to Perry, but less kind to the indictment. Collect ( talk) 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled by the removal of this information from the lede and also the factual content that was removed from the body of the article in these edits. For example, why remove the penalty for the charges? Several sources have made note of it. What about the facts about the Governor's office defense? A felony indictment is not a small thing, so I see no reason to treat it as a footnote.- Mr X 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
We now have 71 words about the grand jury felony indictment in the body of the article and 154 words of opinions criticizing the indictment. Should 2⁄3+ of this content really consist of various opinions critical of the indictment?- Mr X 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that the HuffPo is considered by some to be a liberal source, but this explanation and commentary is sobering [3], and has material that I have not read before and that is not present in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
At a minimum, we need to add:
I will do some research to find additional sources, if any, on these two subjects. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Partially done. Added info on Rove and the 1990 Texas agricultural commissioner campaign, details on Stubblefield, he presiding judge in the abuse of power case (and Perry's appointee), and Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor behind the indictment, appointed by Stubblefield Judge Bert Richardson of Bexar County, a Republican judge who was assigned to head the grand jury by Stubblefield . -
Cwobeel
(talk)
03:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to get invested into an edit war of a topic I just don't really care about. I don't know why I am here in the first place. However, as a primary source, we cannot include the material without a 3rd party source saying that what he said has any real bearing on his overall biography.--v/r - T P 02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the opening statement on the Indictment section is not accurate, bordering on a completely misrepresentation of the facts. It describes a public corruption case "after the head of that unit, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, refused to resign after having been convicted of drunk driving." But that seems to be incorrect. What I am reading is that the indictment came for abuse of power for threatening to veto a budget to force the resignation of a public official, and for corruption for attempting to bribe a public official to resign and get another gig instead. -
Cwobeel
(talk)
14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The original complaint is on the TPJ web site and it makes no mention of the CPIT investigation.
I think this article in the Texas Observer explains it very well (my highlights):
The Travis County DA is no different, in almost every respect, than the more than 300 local elected prosecutors in Texas. She is locally elected and is a servant of the jurisdiction she represents. The only thing unique about the Travis County DA’s office is that it contains the Public Integrity Unit, which polices corruption in state government. Practically speaking, this anti-corruption unit is one of the few checks on the power and influence Perry has accumulated over 14 years in office.
- Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have placed a {{ POV section}} tag until this is addressed and corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Attempted to correct this myself, please feel free to improve upon it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What I have written is facts reported by reliable sources. This is the first paragraph:
References
Please let me know what is incorrect in that sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have re-read the sentence and it is accurately describing the indictment. Count I: Intent to harm Lehmberg by misuse of government property to deny funding the operation of the DA office; and Count II: coercion and threat to veto legislation to force Lehmberg’s resignation. [6]. If you disagree, please provide arguments to the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@
TParis: The belief was if Perry could, he would appoint a Republican district attorney and hinder the investigation.
Is that not Wikipedia voice used to assert someone's opinion? -
Cwobeel
(talk)
03:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Concerning my revert. I didn't get a chance to explain it in the edit summary, however, I see that 3 out of 7 paragraphs in the indictment section cover the criticism of the indictment. This is pretty consistent with mainstream media where all conservative sources and many liberal sources, including two of the biggest (NYT, LAT), are critical or at least view the indictment in a dim light. Because half of the indictment section is about criticism, it stands to reason, and per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD, and half of the paragraph about the indictment also cover the criticism. I believe the way it currently sits appropriately addresses WP:NPOV. Nuances should be discussed in the indictment section. At least, we might change the lead to say "The indictment has received some support but also wide cross-party criticism".--v/r - T P 02:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As the group that filed the complaint that formed the indictment, can we get someone to mosey on over here and do some work on this article?--v/r - T P 08:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if PJ media [12] is a reliable source, and in any case that opinion is tangential. If that opinion is reported in mainstream sources we can consider it, but until that time this is a minority viewpoint and should not be included per WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
NYPost In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry was charged Friday with abuse of power — essentially, exercising his constitutional right to veto legislation. WSJ: Prosecutorial abuse for partisan purposes is common these days, and the latest display is taking place in the all-too-familiar venue of Austin, Texas.
Of the 7 highest circulation papers in the US, 6 editorially criticized the indictment.
NYDN: but the circumstances of the charges left Democrats and Republicans alike wondering if they are politically motivated.
Make than 7 out of 7.
Chicago Sun-Times (number 8) It turns out it isn’t good and it may well backfire on the Democrats.
8 out of 8
Denver Post has only used AP reports and zero commentary editorially.
Chicago Tribune: Republicans and a whole lot of Democrats have had a common reaction to this news. They're amazed, astonished, aghast ... By any stretch, it's hard to envision how a governor broke the law by exercising his veto power and publicly stating exactly why he was doing so. ... This case is, as Harvard legal scholar (and, if you're wondering, liberal) Alan Dershowitz called it, 'the criminalization of party differences' and 'what happens in totalitarian societies.'
9 out of 9 of the top newspapers in the US are unanimous in criticizing the indictment. Oh -- the Denver Post ran a WaPo column by Catherine Rampell in lieu of its own editorial ... Whether his actions rose to the level of criminality is a matter of debate even among his critics.
Ten out of ten have criticized the indictment or published specific criticism editorially. Sounds like saying "some" is a silly claim to assert - no? Collect ( talk) 13:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you guys think we would need to do to this article to get it up to GA quality? It's got the content and sources. I would think most of the changes are formatting and NPOV. Thoughts?--v/r - T P 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The indictment section has become excessively long and is now longer than the Presidential run section. I think it's time we either start trimming this part of the article or split it into its own article and cut the material in this article by 25%.--v/r - T P 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be misinterpreting WP:NPOV, thinking that biased sources are not allowed (is there any source that is not biased one way or another?), and also misinterpreting WP:BLP thinking that criticism is not allowed. Both are wrong. NPOV states that we are to represent all significant viewpoints, albeit without bias in the way we present these viewpoints. BLP states that we have to be cautious and ensure that all material is well sourced to reliable, published sources, and that includes criticism as well. Of course, part of NPOV is undue weight, which is basically a matter of emphasis and quantity of text, easily spotted and corrected, and not as some think, removal of material when material for the opposing viewpoint is available for counterbalance. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
NK likely should recognize that WP:CONSENSUS basically stipulates that no one will ever be absolutely satisfied in a dispute - the best result is a compromise everyone can live with (which is not the same as only acceptable to a numerical majority - it should be a compromise aimed at almost everyone. That said, I doubt that the "well he didn't seek other resignations" is a particularly strong claim for anyone to insist on, especially since in at least one of those cases the person did resign. That is really in the class of "partisan argumentation based on whatever factoids any party can come up with" rather than clearly being "on point" here. Can we get a consensus to stop all the bickering and allow the removal of the fluff about "other DUI cases" in order to settle this section? On a scale of 1 to 10, I suggest it may hit a 2 maximum in relevance. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, that's neither here nor there. I'd suggest we start by using better sources. We shouldn't be using partisan sources (e.g. Huffington Post, Progress Texas, Rachel Maddow, etc) except in very limited circumstances. To summarize the question of selective intervention in DUI cases, it's better to use a more reliable source like the Dallas Morning News: "Travis DA's drunken-driving arrest riled Perry; others' didn't". Like most partisan disputes, the key to appropriate coverage is to find and use good sources. MastCell Talk 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Other professors' opinions:
So, what about some balance? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the split because I've read mostly supportive opinions of the idea. The new article is Indictment of Rick Perry. I copied the section from this article in it's entirety over there. I also trimmed almost all opinion/commentary out of this article. I'm not perfect so if anyone disagrees with what I chose to put in the Indictment article and what I choose to leave here, feel free to balance it as necessary.--v/r - T P 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hat off-topic comments about other editors. Take comments about others to your user talk pages or follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, restrict your comments here to the editorial content of the article. Comment on content, not contributors. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In a section on the indictment, clearly it is the editorials dealing with the indictment which are pertinent. Other editorials belong in other sections. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me see if I can encapsulate a concern I have about the rush to highlight newspaper editorial opinion about Perry's indictment. The New York Times has published at least 10 editorial/opinion pieces dealing with Perry in the last month alone. Of these, virtually all were critical of Perry—except for the one questioning his indictment. If the editorial opinion of the New York Times is notable, then why do we cite it only when it defends Perry? Isn't this misleading, or undue weight, since the Times editorials are overwhelmingly critical of Perry? We don't cite these editorials—only the one outlier which is, on balance, supportive. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to cite editorials from prominent newspapers, but I think the way we're doing it is questionable. Some of it is, obviously, recentism since the indictment is in the news right now, but it does raise a serious issue of undue weight in my mind since we seem to be citing these newspapers' editorials only insofar as they benefit Perry, and not in a way that reflects these papers' overall editorial viewpoint. MastCell Talk 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about others, but unless we can all be succinct in our comments this is going nowhere. I cannot be expected to read wall-to-wall text. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I object to this edit by Atxav8r
Following the indictment, Havard Criminal Law professor Alan Dershowitz publicly stated that "The two statutes under which Gov. Perry was indicted are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union — you know, abuse of authority. The idea of indicting him because he threatened to veto spending unless a district attorney who was caught drinking and driving resigned, that's not anything for a criminal indictment. That's a political issue." [1] Prof. Dershowitz further stated, "it's so important to put a stop to it now, to say the criminal law is reserved for real crimes, not for political differences where a party in power or out of power gets revenge against the other party. That's just not the way to use the criminal justice [system]." [1]
References
- ^ a b Wanda Carruthers (August 18, 2014). "Dershowitz: Perry Indictment 'What Happens in Totalitarian Societies'". Newsmax. Retrieved August 23, 2014.
In my view, this gives undue prominence to the opinion of a single person, albeit a law professor. Especially troubling is that it's sourced to Newsmax.- Mr X 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
ABA Journal. Should be quite sufficient. Collect ( talk) 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no information on Perry's handling of the illegal immigration surge of 2014? The immigration crisis was a widely reported and publicized event, and Perry was widely praised for his handling of the crisis. This clearly was a major event of Perry's tenure as governor, so why is there absolutely no mention of this in his article? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: He'll be announcing his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential election formally today - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/rick-perry-2016-presidential-announcement/index.html -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a short mention of his gaffe during a 2012 debate, but I feel it should be a little bit longer. Him saying he would close 3 government departments and then not being able to name them all, ending with him saying "oops", was a huge moment in the 2012 primaries and probably the moment of his that got the most media coverage. Most articles that I see that discuss his chances in 2016 are talking about how he needs to redeem himself from the "oops" moment. I know a few media figures have suggested his adoption of wearing glasses is an attempt by Perry to not look as dumb in the wake of the gaffe.
I haven't edited political wiki's before and I know his announcement of running for 2016 is drawing more attention, so I didn't want to get carried away and do something that may seem politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by November49 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry Was Born In Haskell, Texas, He Grew Up In Paint Creek, So Please Go Back And Change This. Keri Nowling 192.69.180.133 ( talk) 13:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Given that there's a Wikipedia article titled " Indictment of Rick Perry", we're supposed to summarize it here, per WP:Summary style. But that section of this article seems very long for a summary. I suggest it should be less than half its current length.
Moreover, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported a few weeks ago: "Aside from misspeaking, however, another trouble facing Texas’ longest running governor hasn’t surfaced in a while on the national scene: his indictment." [23] I therefore think the matter takes up inordinate space in the lead. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I object to the addition of redundant content in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Either we should follow a chronological flow or a significance flow, not both. It's poor writing.- Mr X 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph is a guideline that says:
“ | [T]he opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have…. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable….[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. | ” |
I strongly disagree with removing the primary source of the subject's current notability from the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started a BLPN thread here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I object to having a one-sentence paragraph in the lead. [24] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention in the first paragraph of the lead that Perry is a presidential candidate, regardless of whether further information about it (such as the date and/or location of his presidential announcement) is mentioned toward the end of chronological material later in the lead?05:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
James Richard "Rick" Perry (born March 4, 1950) is an American politician who served as the 47th Governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015. He also ran for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 primaries.
~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@ KoshVorlon: It's not mentioned twice now, but it is mentioned twice in the edit that Anythingyouwant is proposing here.- Mr X 17:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
These BLPs seem more relevant than the current BLPs of people who haven't run for president in many years. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Carrite, I agree that we are not here to advertise candidacies. If we were, then Perry's would not be the one that I want to advertise. However, WP:OPENPARAGRAPH is very clear that the lead paragraph should include "notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played". Being a presidential candidate is this person's main job, and it has been extremely well-publicized for many months. If someone would like to change Wikipedia guidelines about this, then maybe I'd have a different view about it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Per the !vote of User:Muboshgu, no one is suggesting to say in the McCain lead that he is a 2016 candidate for president, because he's not; it is appropriate to say in the McCain lead that he was a losing candidate for president in 2008 since he was the nominee, though not in 2000 when he didn't win the nomination. McCain's current occupation and primary notability are not as a presidential candidate, as they are for Perry and have been for months. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Rjensen, let's stipulate that Perry is in the "little league" this year, and that his campaign is hilarious. Still, the issue is not how big a candidate he is relative t the other candidates, but rather how significant his candidacy is in his own life, right? It's his present occupation, and a full-time job. Merely because he's presumably doing the job badly doesn't mean it warrants less coverage in the lead. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to find information on Governor Perry's handling of Border Security, but couldn't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 725edwards ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry Was Born In Haskell, Texas, He Was Raised In Paint Creek, Texas, Please Go Back And Fix That. Keri Nicole Nowling, Formerly Of Austin, Texas. 192.69.180.133 ( talk) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry Was Born On March 4,1950,in Haskell, Texas, Not Paint Creek, Texas, He Grew Up In Paint Creek, But He Was Born In Haskell, So Please Go Back And Fix It. 69.174.160.120 ( talk) 13:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
The forty candidates are:
Extended content
|
---|
Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
|
My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.
You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.
Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.
As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
Extended content
|
---|
|
This page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence.
Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This last sentence of the header: "Perry ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2012 and 2016, but did poorly each time and soon dropped out." While it is certainly true that Perry did poorly in both of his campaigns and dropped out, he was also at one time in the 2012 primary a top contender and led polls consistently for about a month. I feel like this should deserve some mention or at least a re-wording of the sentence. If one were to read the sentence as it currently stands they might be led to believe that both of Perry's campaigns were like his last one in which he failed to gain any traction at all. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Rick Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/25/111903.shtmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the caricature of Rick Perry be removed from the article. While it is certainly amusing it doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. - Vcelloho ( talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit adding Perry's salary, I don't see any mention of a salary in Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy, or Nancy Pelosi so the argument that it's "[r]elevant to public service position" seems to fall flat on it's face. Does anyone have anything else to say on the subject? Not only that, but the source used is a primary source and there isn't a proposed RS tying his salary to his nomination.--v/r - T P 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
According to NPR the Senate has already confirmed Perry as Energy Sec -> [36]</ref> -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)