Talk:Rick Perry/Archive 1

In 2011, Rick Perry supported a controversial budget that would result in the loss of approximately a third of Texas school teacher jobs. ^[1] He also rejected the use of a Rainy Day Fund that could have helped prevent the cuts to the education system. ^[2][3] T1d31k1w (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article gives the impression that Rick Perry came from humble backgrounds, that couldn't be further from the truth.99.169.66.28 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a regional thing, but I don't usually visualize ranchers who serve as county commissioners and school board members as being underprivileged or mired in poverty. But if you have some good sources you feel would provide a broader and more accurate picture of his background, feel free to present them. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Rick Perry's HPV mandate was at the request of a Merck executive who had been Rick Perry's chief of staff http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html. Rick Perry also received campaign cash from Merck.

Also, he did not "allow" a bill overriding his HPV executive order to pass. The legislature had the votes to override any veto and had made it known to Perry that if he made further attempts to mandate the HPV vaccine, that they would enforce their override.

Also, the article should note that the vaccine mandated vaccination against an STD, it is not a cancer vaccination. The vaccine doesn't stop all occurrences of HPV and is extremely ineffective against cervical cancer whose cause cannot be soley sourced to HPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpaguy (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He has also alienated many conservative voters in his own party for his support of the Texas Hate Crimes law and for his appointment of Democrats and liberal Republicans to high level positions within the state government. Among the appointments that conservatives criticize are Perry's first Secretary of State Henry Cuellar, now a Democratic congressman, and former State Supreme Court Justice Xavier Rodriguez, a moderate with a judicial philosophy modelled after David Souter. Perry also drew sharp criticism from the right for his successful campaign to oust conservative Supreme Court Justice Steven Wayne Smith in the 2004 Republican Primary. Smith drew Perry's ire two years earlier by defeating Rodriguez on a conservative platform.

Can we please have some sources for these criticisms? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:43, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

The reference supplied by anonymous Wiki contributor 98.244.108.99 does not use the words "virtually all". That article by Rick Casey is more of a "rant" by a political commentator. In my earlier change, I used a quote actually from the Casey commentary, "an analysis disputed by the scientific establishment".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Senate Bill 8 was signed into law by Rick Perry in July of 2011. This bill openly attacks educators across the State of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.213.44 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Add 2011 Texas wildfires and Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas to Rick_Perry#Response_to_2011_drought_and_wildfires. 99.181.145.99 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Teen sexuality before marriage is the problem. If we can nip that in the bud and talk to them about how damaging it is to their heart, that is really what is going to make a difference."

• Rick Perry Asked Why More Kids Are Getting Pregnant in Texas .--91.39.111.173 (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This article contains a number of errors and is heavily slanted in favor of the GOP and Perry. For one thing, the article states that Perry has "worked to reduce property taxes." Anyone who actually lives in Texas can tell you that this is laughable: property taxes in Texas have, in fact, been skyrocketing for years now. Also, the article states that Perry "worked to reform Texas health care and make it more accessible, increasing health funding by $6 billion." There's a reason this statement doesn't have a reference; it is totally inaccurate. Perry has in fact gutted all social services, including health care and Texas consistently ranks 49th or 50th in all categories of social services, health care and education.

I agree, it seems pretty biased.--Evan7257 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out the line about Perry signing death penalty orders. The Governor in Texas does not have that power, trial judges sign execution warrants.

I cannot attest to the accuracy or inaccuracy of this article, but as a undecided voter trying to learn about the issues, I fear this article is heavily weighted against Gov. Perry. I would hope that in this forum the information would be less partisan and more factual. I do not think it is at all.

So what you're saying is "I can't tell if the article is right or wrong, but it's wrong" That doesn't make much sense. Do you have any specifics on what in the article is not well supported or appears POV? Mr Christopher 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher, a cursory read shows the obvious, that the article has a subtle slant that tends to extoll Rick's virtues, rather than simply report the facts. The following snippets demonstrate what the previous man was trying to say:

• • achieving fame as one of A&M's white-jumpsuited, all male yell leader squad

• • (His wife) has spearheaded a number of health-related initiatives

• • Perry worked to reform Texas health care and make it more accessible

• • creating new scholarship programs to help needy children in Texas

• • Perry's lieutenant governor and governor campaigns focused on a tough stance on crime (by the way, the article fails to mention the specific positions he took)

• • Perry, a proponent of fiscal conservatism, has often campaigned on tax reform and job growth. Perry resisted new income and sales taxes, protected the state's "Rainy Day fund", balanced the state budget, and worked to reduce property taxes that exploded with inflation in property values in the late 1990s. He has been credited with attracting thousands of jobs to Texas in recent years by cutting payroll and property taxes. (What unbiased source has credited him personally with attracting jobs to Texas? And where is the balanced mention of the huge surge in property taxes that has actually happened...despite his "work"?)

Et cetera, et cetera So much of it reads like campaign literature, doesn't it?

As a current student of Texas government, I came to this article hoping for some unbiased information, just as the person who Mr. Christopher rebutted did. The article's pervasive bias was obvious, and when I turned to the talk page to mention this fact, I find that Mr. Christopher, a Wikipedia member, chose to criticize the man for not citing the obvious rather than working toward correcting the problem he mentioned.

Mr. Christopher, I have taken a few minutes to cite the obvious, and though I've failed to mention many other aspects of this article that are out of balance, or that are an unsatisfactory match to the facts, they nonetheless exist. Please forgive me a thousand times for not mentioning every single one.

Perhaps when I am finished obtaining a college degree, I'll come back here, to alter this article's bias so that it's completely against Rick. Mr. Christopher can then compare the two versions to understand the root problem. Until then, I have lots of other writing to do.

This will be the last time I consult Wikipedia on political matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.78.22 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The statement in the Second paragraph under "Fiscal Issues" is erroneous. "Critics contended that Perry inflated these numbers; the actual tax savings, they said, would average only $150 per family." The statement cites to a website that itself cites to a "Fact Check" by "The LONE STAR PROJECT" which used an article in the Austin American-Statesman, Friday, May 26, 2006, as its source. The direct link to The Lone Star Project's report http://www.lonestarproject.net/archive/perryfactcheck.html contains a copy of the article, which reads "The owner of an average-value home will save about $1,350 in school property taxes over the next three years, former Comptroller John Sharp said... Sharp said the owner of an average home, which he described as appraised at about $118,000, would save about $150 in property taxes in the first year and about $600 per year over the next two years....Perry says in television commercials that the average homeowner will save $2,000 over the first three years". Thus, although Perry's statement was based on the first three years, and predicted savings of $2,000 over that time, the statement erroneously uses the figure ($150) that the source (Sharp) gave FOR THE FIRST YEAR ONLY, which the more accurate figure being $1,350. The ultimate source contradicts the statement on the wiki page. Therefore, the statement needs to be edited to reflect that value, $1,350.Gibb25 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Gibb25

First-timer here. Looks like reference #14 should be dated August 5, not August 8. I don't know how to change it, maybe someone can make the update. Thanks, Mb92 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Mb92

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the section on intelligent design includes "A spokeswoman for Perry called intelligent design a "valid scientific theory", an analysis that political commentator Rick Casey describes as "disputed by the scientific establishment"."

My viewpoint is that firstly, if you're going to quote someone for this (X says "..."), at least cite someone who's an expert on it - Rick Casey does not have any particular insight into the science. And secondly, the way this is presented tells the reader nothing in a he-says-she-says sort of way (I am reminded of a comedian who said that if a politician stated that the earth was flat, the headline next day would be "Viewpoints differ on the shape of the Earth.") As there's already an effective article on the subject, my view would be that the best route would be to cite that instead. (ex: ... "an analysis disputed by the scientific establishment.")

Thoughts? 68.42.243.198 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Then again, I tend to only believe independently verifiable theories backed up by some sort of evidence, which in the eyes of these people would maybe make me not neutral. Pär Larsson (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As you so astutely pointed out, Rick Casey is not particularly qualified to speak on the issue. Since at the moment he is the only source cited, we can either attribute his comments to him, or omit them as being undue weight. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the statement is false is original research or synthesis, depending on how it's presented. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The Huffington Post wrote:

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

Wikipedia says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, I'm restoring this properly sourced passage.

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

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

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

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

Response to William S. Saturn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will address your points--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add

• The Perry Trail collected coverage at The Texas Observer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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