Talk:Rick Perry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why exactly was this comment removed by editors?

Rick Perry suggested global warming is a hoax (Global Warming Hoax). from CBS News. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Perry didn't say global warming was a hoax. CBS suggested he said that global warming is a hoax. The article contains his actual comments, which is more accurate than putting words in his mouth based on someone's opinion of what he "suggested". This is a WP:BLP, so we need to accurately reflect the comments. Morphh ^(talk) 19:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a general observation since the article is no longer semi-protected. We are going to see more inexperienced and sometimes very passionate users contributing to the article. It may be helpful if we, myself included, link helpful policies within our edit summaries when editing newer user's attempts to contribute. Rereading WP:NEWBIES was a good refresher for me personally. Veriss (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to make sense to me that the semi-protection was removed. This article is only going to get more contentious. Morphh ^(talk) 21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That person is not a newbie. It is an Anonymous IP jumper that is focused pushing a specific agenda regarding Global Warming. This person uses the same edit style on a large number of IP's. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph is a bit of a whitewash given that Perry's position on global warming is really quite radical for a mainstream politician. The article states:

In a September 7, 2007, speech to California Republicans, Perry said, "Virtually every day another scientist leaves the global warming bandwagon. ... But you won't read about that in the press because they have already invested in one side of the story."[1] Perry has stated that he feels that there are "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects".[2]

[1] According to the video at 08:45, Perry's exact words were, "You know the fact of the matter is, almost every day there is another scientist that leaves the global warming bandwagon. But, you know, the fact is you won't read it in the mass media out there, because they've already invested in one side of that story." The page makes it sound as if this was a one-off remark, but actually it is his standard response to questions about this issue.

[2] Perry did not state that he "feels". He said, "I think there are..." Furthermore his comment came in response to a question in which he was pointedly asked about a statement in his book that, "it's all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." To not make clear the question and let him distance himself from his book is somewhat misleading. Brmull (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tried to address some of these thoughts. Morphh ^(talk) 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012

Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of this article Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012 and suggest you place it on your watch list. Yesterday it got stuffed with a lot of duplication and questionable material for the subject. We don't want it to become a POV fork where people can just dump material to avoid the more stringent BLP requirements and editorial oversight on this article. Morphh ^(talk) 12:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And the article Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry.. WP:AFD candidate? Morphh ^(talk) 12:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on Sodomy Laws

The Sodomy laws section appears to be bogus. The one citation is to a website which claims to archive AP stories, but a search on the AP Archive shows nothing for the claimed date. I'm removing the line. Mqbs (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Google search returns several results (ex: [1]), so I'm readding the section 141.211.231.228 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added civil unions and domestic partnerships to his opposition to same sex marriage. The only opposition that is verifiable is his support for the Texas 2005 Constitutional Amendment. That amendment bans "any legal status". The only current "legal status" recognized in the United States are the three - same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. To just list same-sex marriage would be a moderation of his actual position and a political calculation. Rsaustin31 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to find a source to back that up first. Musdan77 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll add, supporting a Texas bill does not necessarily equal opposing any and all such arrangements, particularly supporting the same measure at a Federal level that dictates it to the states. Many politicians will support a bill that doesn't fit 100% with their opinion - look at the recent credit cap, no one liked that bill, but they still supported and passed it. As far as we know, he may have just supported putting the ballot before the people and letting them decide. Not saying that is the case here, in fact I personally don't believe it is, but that doesn't make it fact. Also in that same paragraph, he stated that he supported NY's right to have same-sex marriage, so obviously we can't say he opposes any and all such arrangements. He does for his State, and if he could pass a Federal constitutional amendment, he'd make it the law of the land, but again, that doesn't equal what you're suggesting as a statement of fact and he hasn't detailed what he'd like to see in such a federal amendment, beyond the normal definition of marriage being between a man and woman. At this point, your addition is not supported by the current sources. Morphh ^(talk) 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Anyone interested in helping me get this up to good article status? I think that if we can fill in the areas where citations are needed, and do a little touch up work, the article could pass. Looking at the guidelines, for instance, I think it meets guidelines 1 (well written), 3 (broad in its coverage), and 6 (images) for sure, and with some work could meet the rest of them. Who's with me? Kessy628 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll assist where I can. :) Morphh ^(talk) 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Having participated in a GA project before, I think this article is not stable enough to pass review. One problem is the unsettled, long, ongoing dispute about the Bilderberg issue. My two cents. Veriss (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah my plan is to start working on this in order to get it ready, not submit it for review yet. I figure that while we get the whole Bilderberg issue worked out, the other issues in the article can be worked on and solved. I also agree that the article is not at a point where it can pass review, but I feel that with some work it can get there, especially once the whole Bilderberg dispute is finished with. Kessy628 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be good at finding sources, especially Texas sources. One big area looked at in a GA review is accuracy of cited sources, of course RS and then deadlinks. This article already has a number of deadlinks. We may want to get an editor from one of the major projects to consider evaluating it for B status first. Veriss (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still kinda new, so I don't really know the review process so well. Are you recommending launching the B status review now, to get an idea on where we are? And likewise, is it of your opinion that the article can pass it? I've looked at the Good Article process, but less so at the B status process, so I'm not 100% sure what it entails. Kessy628 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confident we can pass a B article review from one of the major projects this article belongs to. The reviewer may suggest a couple tweaks that we can easily address. I am pretty sure that any nomination for GA review at this time will be dismissed out of hand due to ongoing structural changes, conversion to summary style and the high level of edits since it is a bio of a newly high profile national candidate.

I suggest that now that the article is semi-protected again, once the conversion to summary style is completed we can request the Guild of Copy Editors to go through it to improve grammar, wording and readability with uninvolved eyes. After that we can post requests on the talk pages of the various projects for a B review. Hope this helps some, Veriss (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Education

"Pay increases for Texas's teachers have not kept up with the national average, but the educational indicators do not show any negative impacts from this lower pay. [164]"

The first part of this phrase is supported by the source, but I don't see where the source claims that there were no negative impacts of the low pay.Desoto10 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct (simplify) wikilink Anthropogenic.

Correct (simplify) wikilink Anthropogenic, please. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is currently in the Rick_Perry#Environmental_issues section regarding Scientific opinion on climate change (and the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming) and related Public opinion on climate change with Media coverage of climate change. 99.56.120.120 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am looking at both the links in the article and the comments here and am not quite sure what needs to be fixed. I replaced [Anthropogenic] with [Human impact on the environment| anthropogenic] to avoid the redirect in case you were looking for a more direct link. If I missed the point, please spell it out for me. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This maybe be useful also Talk:Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012#Resource_regarding_independent_voters. 99.181.139.223 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Organization of article

I agree that a section titled "Texas political career" is a good way to combine several relatively minor sections (push them to level 3), but I think it now puts the Texas governor section (which has the vast majority of the text) one level deeper than is desirable. I suggest:

• (level 2): Texas political career prior to governorship [with three subsections]
• (level 2): Governor of Texas

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.. I thought "Early political career" might be a more succinct title that presents the topic. Morphh ^(talk) 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now for a more radical suggestion, because I'm concerned about the length of the "Governor of Texas" section. Specifically, I'd like to keep elections in there, but move most of the rest of the content either to a "political positions" section (for example, his position on the religious beliefs isn't closely related to his governing of Texas) or to a daughter article. An example of this (albeit not a very good one, since the time period predates, significantly, Wikipedia's gaining momentum in 2003-2004) is the article George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. I prefer a different title (specifically, Governorship of Rick Perry), and to base it on the article of Presidency of Barack Obama, which is a good model, albeit for the U.S. President and not a state governor.

The value of this approach is that it encourages more content to be developed around what Rick Perry has done in 10+ years as governor. For example, I read somewhere that he has transformed what was a weak governorship, per the Texas constitution, into a strong one, without actually changing that constitution. This is certainly worth a couple of paragraphs, if the sources exist, and having a separate article could help the reader a lot.

If there is interest in this, the next step would be to lay out what goes where. And there is the challenge of writing good summary paragraphs in the main article, summarizing the content of the daughter article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. The main article has gotten too long. Sarah Palin is also a good example. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, the information in Wikipedia about Sarah Palin provides a very good example: Governorship of Sarah Palin, though I think that the text in the main article has far too much duplication (always a problem with daughter articles, admittedly.) Also, if the "political postions" section of the main article on Rick Perry gets too long, there is Political positions of Sarah Palin to use as a model for a spinoff/daughter article.

I'm going to be mostly offline for the next two weeks, so I welcome someone else taking the initiative here before I get back to editing in mid-September. Otherwise, I'll try my hand at this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I created Governorship of Rick Perry and copied all of the gubernatorial info from here to there. Now the hard part will be summarizing what's here. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ancestry

Perry is of primarily British ancestry which dates back to the original 13 colonies. Should that be mentioned anywhere in the article?71.210.165.105 (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? You could add it at the start of the early life section. Seleucus (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The contributer is an IP acct and may be looking to us to add it but we do need the sources. Veriss (talk)

entitlements

When you use the word "entitlement" you are using Republican propaganda. social security is something people pay into, they buy into it. That is not an "entitlement". I strongly feel that title should be changed to "social security" because THAT is what is being discussed. The Republicans try to portray social security as an entitlement, but again, it's something you pay into. Republicans and Tea Party zombies portray social security as some government give away program when in fact you pay to play. (WP:BLP violation removed.)

Does the article mentioned (WP:BLP violation removed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Consider [2] which is a neutral source:

Entitlements are automatic government payments to, or on behalf of, individuals or organizations that fall into some category defined by law, such as all college students or all homeowners in disaster-stricken counties. The largest entitlement is Social Security—more precisely, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance— the system of federal pensions for retired workers and their dependents, disabled workers and their dependents, and survivors of deceased workers. The next largest is Medicare, which pays some, but not all, of the medical and hospital expenses of people over age sixty-five, followed by Medicaid, a system of health insurance for low-income and needy people. The chart shows only the federal contribution to Medicaid; the cost of this expensive and rapidly growing program is shared by the states.

And other entitlements in lesser amounts are also listed. This is how the term "entitlements" is used in fiscal discussions by Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Perry is Federalist about entitlements. His statements seem to indicate Social Security "reforms" at the federal level combined with turning over all health programs to the states. Hcobb (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the Huffington Post a reliable source?

I have serious concerns about using The Huffington Post as a reliable source for a biography of a living person. Particularly of a presidential candidate and especially after their less then stellar objectivity during the 2008 presidential elections. I did some research and found what appeared to be a very reasonable analysis and discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Huffington Post. The consensus appeared to recommend finding alternative sources in most cases. Please read the entire discussion before leaping to conclusions.

This article will have to endure the 2012 election process and many people will use it to make personal electoral decisions. We should demand the highest standards for any citation we permit to be included. I recommend that we need to find alternative sources to any HuffPost, or any other blogging or quasi-news/blogging site, and we should limit their inclusion now before they become established within the article and a precedent is set by default. Veriss (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter HP doesn't do much original reporting, so you can usually find a better source someplace else. The complaints about HP reliability often arise from their dual editorial standard. There is a paid staff which is pretty reliable, and then there are volunteer contributors who range from the well-known (such as Robert Reich) to the barely-known who were invited to be a volunteer contributor for whatever reason. There is (at least up until 1-2 years ago) no proactive editorial oversight of volunteers. HP articles also tend to be infused with strong POV, something that's increasingly common in media in general. That doesn't disqualify HP as a source, but you have to be cautious not to introduce that POV into Wikipedia. Bottom line, I think it can be a RS but I use another source if available. Brmull (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

N.B. Lucia Graves is a professional journalist. She used to work for USN&WR. Brmull (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Lucia Graves has been hired as Press Secretary for Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). Graves has written for US News & World Report and was an intern for the McClatchy Washington bureau and for the Columbia Journalism Review. She replaces Erin Allweiss, who is now with the Natural Resources Defense Council." U.S. News Reporter Becomes a Flack, PotomacFlacks.Com, Laura Gross, 18 September 2008 Perhaps she was a professional, credentialed journalist, but now she is a party spokesperson who appears to be blogging on the side. The whole HuffPost morass is a swamp and I suggest we just navigate around it. Veriss (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

She's not working for Blumenauer anymore. She had a three month stint in 2008 according to payroll data. If we were to exclude any reporter because of government service we'd lose about half the national press corps. Brmull (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good research, but now the question is who was signing her checks when she wrote that piece? Is a HuffPost article/blog entry really worth this much time, effort and detective work? I don't disagree with your assessment of Graves and I certainly don't disagree with your assessment earlier of HuffPost articles in general but we can all see where the grey areas start to creep in when dealing with an organization with a reputation of questionable editorial oversight. The point is that it's a swamp that is best avoided since we can leave all this detective work up to the editors of the major respected media outlets and avoid the questionable stuff. That's their job, we have the luxury of being able to cherry pick the best, most credible and most reliable articles. We don't have to scoop anyone, we just have to get it right. Best, Veriss (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted some HuffPo-sourced material earlier, and was surprised that anyone would question it. I guess they've gained some respectability since I last heavily edited BLPs. Even so, I think Brmull's approach is best: they rarely have anything not in mainstream press, so why risk violating BLP rules when you don't have to? In BLP articles, I'd rather exceed the bare minimum of reliability. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post, which started out as Arianna Huffington's own project, was acquired earlier this year by AOL. Arianna Huffington is now an AOL employee with oversight of the Post and several other AOL properties, such as MapQuest. Previous discussions about reliability as a source are largely outdated, given that the content is now under the ultimate control of a major for-profit media corporation.

As with other such mainstream media sources, we have to pay attention to the particular author who's being quoted. A post by a nonnotable volunteer blogger is questionable because I don't know whether HuffPo does any fact-checking of such a submission. If not, it's somewhat comparable to a letter to the editor in a traditional newspaper -- the editorial oversight is that someone thought this POV was worth publishing but that doesn't mean that it's reliable for a statement of fact. For a staffer, or for someone like Robert Reich, there's no reason not to use Huffington Post. If a fact is cited to an acceptable HuffPo source, it should not be removed out of general anti-HuffPo sentiment; anyone who thinks that "better" sourcing should be used is always free to do some research and replace the HuffPo citation with some other source. JamesMLane t c 15:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent comments as I was hoping that someone would stick up for the The HuffPost. This brings us full-circle though as the question must be asked: how do we know who on HuffPost is a bonafide correspondent and who is merely a blogger? Even the blogs are made to look like the article was published by the most grizzled veteran of the NY Times. It's hard to tell who does hard news and who just does whatever. Veriss (talk)

If you're looking at The New York Times as an example of reliability, let's remember that we have the same problem. The Times pieces by Judith Miller and Jayson Blair were not "hard news" but were what you politely call "whatever". JamesMLane t c 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource on global warming and resulting climate change

Drought, Wildfires Haven't Changed Perry's Climate-Change Views — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.36.44 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

NPR 99.181.130.99 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

More on Talk:Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012#Resource_regarding_independent_voters 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's G.P.A.

The G.P.A. was calculated using simple arithmetic in a method acknowledged by the reverting editor Kessy628. This was reverted by myself Quophnix under WP:CALC. As the WP:CALC policy states, "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Kessy628 created consensus in their edit summary by acknowledging, "that is the method of calculating GPA". Therefore, the edit stands under WP:CALC. Quophnix (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To be 100% honest, I had not seen that part of the policy before. My mistake, still relatively new and trying to learn. Kessy628 (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the math per se, but there are other sources that report a different GPA. I've seen 1.9, 1.95, 1.99, 2.0, 2.22, 2.5. So does this then become WP:OR? Also, do we have enough context around it? Critics would imply that his academic GPA is an indicator of intelligence, but there could be many reasons for a low GPA. He may have just had a good time in college and didn't worry so much about GPA, instead socializing, partying, and participating in work or other programs. It's a WP:BLP so we need to get it right and not infer or imply something that is not the case. Has Perry ever talked about it? Morphh ^(talk) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem looking for additional material providing context but so far haven't turned up anything specific. It's likely that, due to the presidential campaign, he'll be under more scrutiny than he was as governor and will end up mentioning something about it at some point. As far as discrepancies regarding the number itself, I've already made one mistake (and, from the numbers you're citing, others have as well) by not counting the first three terms on a four point scale, which yielded the 1.95 figure. First time through I just added the totals the transcript provided. This time, I added the totals myself going class by class through the transcript counting A's for 4 points, B's for 3 points, C's for 2 points, and D's for 1 point. I've listed my work in the edit summary. So, feel free to double check me. In the meantime, I'll be searching for context. Quophnix (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's get this right:

A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt

• ENGL 103, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• HIST 105, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• A S 101, C, 1hr: 2x1=2
• BIOL 101, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 101, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• EDUC 101, A, 2hrs: 4x2=8
• ENGL 104, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 102, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• P E 101, 2 grade points
• A S 102, B, 1hr: 3x1=3
• BIOL 107, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 102, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• HIST 106, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 103, D, 3 hrs: 1x3=3
• P E 102, 2 grade points

So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+2+3+6+8+6+3+2=84 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:

• Fall, 1969: 38
• Spring, 1970: 17
• Summer, 1970: 15
• Fall, 1970: 36
• Spring, 1971: 32
• Fall, 1971: 27
• Spring, 1972: 39
• 1st term Summer, 1972: 12
• 2nd term Summer, 1972: 12

So, 84+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+12 = 312

312/144=2.166666

Let's triple and quadruple check this and make sure it's accurate. It's simple math but there are a lot of numbers to add up. Let's get it right. Quophnix (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I mentioned the GPA in a section above and possibly contributed to the discussion going in this direction, I feel obligated to participate. I had mistakenly assumed that his GPA was displayed on his transcript as calculated by the university under it's rules at that time. Since there are so many ways to calculate GPA and without knowing the method that the school used at that time I think we are merely guessing and going past WP:CALC into WP:OR. The transcript also mentions something about "PAGE 2" but it is too fuzzy to read so the document we see may not be complete. Perhaps GPA, class standing, honors, official activities, etc. are on the missing page. I apologize for opening this can of worms and not looking at the transcript myself before mentioning including the GPA earlier. Veriss (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First, page 2 is accessible and is perfectly readable on my computer. Maybe something's not quite right with your browser? Dunno, just guessing there. As far as how the school calculated the GPA, that's written into the transcript itself. For instance ENGL 203 is a 3 hour course in which Perry receives a B in Fall of '69. The school assigns Perry 9 grade points for the "B" grade. Therefore, the school assigns 3 grade points for a B (3 credit hours x 3 grade points=9 grade points). So, we know how the school assigned grade points. Additionally the first page of the transcript says outright "Four point system effective June 1969". So, the only part of the transcript that might be in question would be before June '69. However, Perry received each letter grade possible in those three terms. So, we know how the school was assigning points then, too. We're not doing fourier transforms here. This is just simple math, no cans of worms. Quophnix (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The only issue I may have is that this is a grey area between WP:CALC and WP:OR due to that first period. I'm not sure if it would count as OR to determine his GPA based on how you described it above (he got every grade, and we can figure out how the school calculated it, so we can convert it). I agree that for the rest of the transcript, once it went to the 4 point system, the calculations are standard and definitely known, however before that could be considered WP:OR. Kessy628 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If included, I suggest we put a brief description of the method used to calculate it in a footnote. Morphh ^(talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, once you go down that road, it becomes a WP:MOS issue more than anything as to how you want to present the data. We can calculate his GPA on the 3 point scale used up to June '69 or the 4 point scale used after but I don't think we should have two different GPA's listed just because they used different scales. It clutters things up. In either case, the conversion falls under WP:CALC and is, therefore, permissible. So, I think a single GPA listing is appropriate. As for which scale to use, the 4 point scale is more current and, therefore, more stylistically appropriate in my opinion. Quophnix (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisions needed:

OK, let's get this right:

A=4pts B=3pts C=2pts D=1pt

• ENGL 103, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• HIST 105, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
  • Term sub-total = 15
• A S 101, C, 1hr: 2x1=2
• BIOL 101, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 101, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• EDUC 101, A, 2hrs: 4x2=8
• ENGL 104, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 102, B, 3hrs: 3x3=9
• P E 101, 2 3 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
  • Term sub-total = 42
• A S 102, B, 1hr: 3x1=3
• BIOL 107, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• CHEM 102, C, 4hrs: 2x4=8
• HIST 106, C, 3hrs: 2x3=6
• MATH 103, D, 3 hrs: 1x3=3
• P E 102, 2 3 grade points (see equivalent "B" in PhysEd Spring Semester 1970)
  • Term sub-total = 29

So, 9+6+2+6+8+8+6+9+2 3+3+6+8+6+3+2 3 = 15+42+29 = 84 86 grade points for the first three terms The cumulative grade points for the subsequent terms (after the four point system is implemented) are:

• Fall, 1969: 38
• Spring, 1970: 17
• Summer, 1970: 15
• Fall, 1970: 36
• Spring, 1971: 32
• Fall, 1971: 27
• Spring, 1972: 39
• 1st term Summer, 1972: 12
• 2nd term Summer, 1972: 12 18
  
  

So, 84 86+38+17+15+36+32+27+39+12+12 18 = 312 320

312/144=2.166666 320/144=2.222222

Fat&Happy (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Very thorough. I agree with Fat&Happy's calculations. Sorry about the confusion. Quophnix (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the logic used to determine the math and the math look good. I still think we're stretching WP:CALC a bit but I'll support it. Good work decoding it all. Veriss (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, first challenge. Was working through sources to verify them and read this "And he was exceedingly loyal to the corps, which he credited with giving him the discipline to get an animal sciences degree — his 2.5 grade point average wasn’t high enough to go the veterinary route — and join the Air Force." Cite 15: Hooks, Chris (August 2, 2011). "Texas A&M Years Launched Perry — and a Rivalry". The Texas Tribune (Austin). Retrieved 2011-08-07. Veriss (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No response after more then ten days so I replaced the WP:CALC with a direct source that was already cited in the article. Veriss (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No response after ten days because the matter was settled. The source you cited in the previous edit is not "direct" in the context of the previous citation. Nothing is more direct than Perry's transcript itself and the GPA as calculated is merely a representation of his transcript in simpler terms under WP:CALC. Furthermore, after all of the math and work put into the topic on this page, a source citing a 2.5 GPA should at least provide (as we do) its method of calculation for comparison. Throwing up a source with a higher GPA just because someone says it's higher doesn't make it accurate...and nothing is more accurate than the actual transcript. Quophnix (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've read this section I have to say I think it is way beyond WP:CALC to take what is purported to be a transcript and calculate the GPA ourselves. This is classic OR. The GPA should only be cited if there is a reliable source to back it up, so I think Veriss1 was completely correct. And this is not because I want to push his GPA from 2.22 to 2.5 - I couldn't care less what the number is, I care about how we present information here. Go with 2.5 and the source or find other sources. Doing this calculation, without explicit information about how his university did their calculations at that time, is insanely original research. My edit was to link GPA to a page that explains what a GPA is - I was not endorsing either number at that point. But I think we must go back to the sourced number, per Veriss1. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, I alluded to something above - now let me spell it out. We have no way to verify that the source document you guys are using is a valid transcript. Where are the birthers now? This is completely absurd - we don't do GPA calculations here, and we have no way to know if this transcript is correct, complete, valid, or anything. Is it certified as his official transcript? Grades are sometimes changed later after petition or if a professor realizes he or she made an error, or any number of reasons. Do we know this is final? How was it obtained? Where is the documentation that says exactly how Texas A&M calculated GPAs at that time? There are variations from school to school, and you can't assume your formula was their formula then. This is way out of line - original research, and unnecessary, since we have sources available. And no, I am not a Rick Perry promoter. Tvoz/talk 00:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure you read the section completely. We dealt with this a month ago. An average, is a simple mathematic calculation that falls within WP:CALC. As far as calculating a "grade point" average, all we have to know is how the school assigned grade points. For this, we refer to the document itself. ENGL 203 is a 3 hour course in which Perry receives a B in Fall of '69. The school assigns Perry 9 grade points for the "B" grade. Therefore, the school assigns 3 grade points per credit hour for a B (3 credit hours x 3 grade points per credit hour = 9 grade points). So, we know how the school assigned grade points. (Read entry dated:19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) You can do this for all the courses on the transcript (not that you even have to since the school provides the grade point values explicitly in the document) to determine how the school assigned grade points and then calculate the average from there. There is no OR involved here at all. You simply take the grade points and average them to calculate the GPA. As for whether the transcript is a RS, it comes from a major news source and is subject to WP:NEWSORG. For the second time, we're not doing fourier transforms. This is very simple math and very clearly falls under WP:CALC. Quophnix (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Whose idea was this "equivalent B"? If a course doesn't have a grade listed, it, and its credit hours, should be removed from the calculation of GPA, as pass/fail courses are usually excluded. It is WP:OR to average in pass/fail courses into a GPA. Now, I realize this actually lowers his GPA as computed, but assigning a "B" to an ungraded course is WP:OR. Besides, that's a primary source about a living person. We should use reliable secondary sources. As the secondary sources disagree, if we include the GPA from the primary source, we much include the range of the secondary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; it's worse than I thought. PE is a non-credit course which, according to their numbers, adds "0" to the credit hours and 1 credit of B to the "GP" (grade points?) column. No wonder Aggies have a bad reputation! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubin, can you reference specifically which course is assigned the "equivalent B". I'm assuming you mean the required phys ed courses...??? Dunno. As far as pass/fail courses, I'm not seeing anything marked pass/fail on the transcript. Can you clarify? Also, I completely disagree about the use of secondary sources where primary sources are available, primarily because of the variance you mentioned but also, if for no other reason, than the fact that attempting to write this into the article would make a cluttered mess out of things. Quophnix (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it. However, PE, according to the official transcript, has no hours or credit hours, but adds 2 to 3 points to the total grade points. The method you're using averages it as 3 points of D. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by "The method you're using averages it as 3 points of D." According to the transcript, for each PE class listed, Perry receives the equivalent of a B grade in a 1 hour course but with the added bonus of not adding any hours to his transcript. The PE classes total to 12 grade points with no hours. Quophnix (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his transcript, it looks to me like the school assigns quality points and no course hours or credit hours for PE. This is effectively a bonus for students. I assume that's all this amounts to. Perry gets 12 quality points total for the 4 PE classes, which is the same as an A in a 3 hour course (3 hours x 4 quality points = 12 grade points). However, because the hours aren't counted in, this actually raises his GPA even higher than if he'd actually gotten an A in a 3 hour course. So, I think this is just the school throwing out a freebie for the students. That's my guess. Quophnix (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel I should summarize our method of calculation for anyone choosing to post further edits in this section, which should justify why the calculation stands under WP:CALC and is not WP:OR. We merely performed an average calculation using the grade points listed on Rick Perry's official college transcript. This was done by dividing the total grade points from the transcript (adjusted for the change from the 3 point to 4 point scale that occurred in June of 1969) by the total hours reported on the transcript. Very simple. Very straightforward. No WP:OR. Quophnix (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: As a response to the other objections that have been raised, Rick Perry's college transcript is a reliable, primary source published by a major news outlet rendering it more reliable for these purposes than secondary sources. Additionally, under WP:CALC, the GPA as calculated does not constitute "an interpretation" of the primary source as cited. Furthermore, all mathematical operations have been performed openly and anyone is welcome to double or triple check them for accuracy. Quophnix (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not disparaging Huffington Post, I am saying that their saying "A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University." is not the same as, say, "we obtained this under the Freedom of Information Act" or something like that. Has it beein independently verified as accurate? They don't say (unless I missed it). That's a problem with using what looks like a primary source. Tvoz/talk 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a major news outlet and, not that they don't make mistakes from time to time, not to accept them as having done their job is a bit birther-esque in what you seem to be willing to accept as factual. Most reasonable people would assent to the fact-checking ability of major news organizations. Seriously? Quophnix (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I get 320/147, using the total of the "hours" column rather than the "credit hours" column. GPAs normally include 0s for courses failed (except under the 3-point grading system). Perhaps we should settle on 2.2? One could also make a cases for disregarding the PE courses entirely (311/144 or 147), or adding 1 hour for the PE course using the usual formula class-time + lab-time/3, leading to (320/147 or 150). Just too many possibilities. Just say between 2.0 and 2.3? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubin, the transcript assigns grade points based on the "credit hours" column. This is consistent throughout the transcript. So, using anything other than the "credit hours" column for the grade point average calculation would be misleading. What reason do you have to use the other columns for GPA calculation? Quophnix (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But this is why I am uncomfortable with our doing the calculating - reasonable points on both sides, but nothing definitive about what Texas A&M would have posted as the final number. Tvoz/talk 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What's definitive is the math that adds up. There is no correlation between the columns Rubin mentioned and the calculation of grade points. That correlation only exists between the "credit hours" column and the "grade points" column. My entire argument is not to interpret. Look at the document to see how A&M was assigning grade points. That way, there's no ambiguity, no interpretation, and no OR. Quophnix (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Quophnix, yes, I read all of the above before commenting here in the first place. I understand what you did. But I utterly disagree that this is the kind of "simple calculation" that WP:CALC, which is a part of WP:OR, is talking about. In fact I believe this is classic OR. You cannot do a "simple calculation" of his GPA without reliable sourcing that indicates how Texas A&M did their GPA calculations. To do otherwise is to take a primary source and make assumptions about it, which is original research. You may think that primary sources examined and interpreted by you is better than secondary, but that is not Wikipedia policy - read all of WP:OR. Arthur Rubin is right. That some editors here agree with you that this is ok does not make it ok with policy. The very fact that you are saying "it looks to me like the school assigns...", and that you are "guessing" about the school's gpa policy points directly to the problem: we aren't supposed to be interpreting or guessing. This is not a "simple calculation" like calculating age from a birthdate which is not in any way subject to interpretation, and therefore acceptable under the WP:OR policies. This is obviously subject to interpretation - you are interpreting above - so it is not ok.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong - I have no idea (or interest) in what the actual number calculates out to. What I do care about is having editors deciding without any verification that a primary source is valid, and how it should be interpreted. How do you know it is his final, official transcript? And why do you think your calculating a GPA is better than finding sources that reliably indicate what his actual GPA was? I think this is a small point, but significant overall for encyclopedia policy. Perhaps we should get some other opinions on this discrepancy between your interpretation of OR and CALC and mine, mostly because it can have wider implications. I'll see which is the appropriate forum. Cheers - nothing personal, I am sure you are sincere in your convictions on this, but I really do not agree with you, from all that I know about OR policy. Tvoz/talk 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tvoz, I agree that this should be vetted according to Wikipedia policy and I see your point. However, where I say "it looks to me" and other things are statements intended conversationally and not as some interpretive reflection on the document cited. Let me be clear. I am not interpreting his transcript in any way. The point I have continually tried to make is that there is no room for interpretation as to how Texas A&M did their GPA calculations. This is written into the document itself. Before June 1969, for every A, Perry receives 3 grade points per credit hour, for every B, Perry receives 2 grade points per credit hour, for every C, Perry receives 1 grade point per credit hour and, for lower grades, he receives no grade points. Therefore, we know how Texas A&M did their GPA calculations. After June 1969, it becomes even easier: the grades points are written on the transcript. So, no 3-to-4 point conversion is necessary. So, there can be no ambiguity about how they assigned grade points and, therefore, no interpretation either. Now, once we know how many grade points Perry received, the only real mathematical work is a simple division calculation to get the average. All the values are written on the transcript very plainly. There is no interpretation involved. Quophnix (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And, let me clarify what I believe to be our main point of disagreement. Interpretation can only occur where there is ambiguity. Perry's transcript contains no ambiguity and, therefore, leaves no room for interpretation. The credit hours for a particular course are always an integral factor for the grade points assigned for that course...and, surprise, the other factor corresponds to the letter grade received for that course. This fact is consistent throughout the document. Recognizing that fact is in no way an interpretation of that document. It's more like reading a book and understanding what the author is saying because it's written right in front of you...and mind you this isn't Finnegans Wake either. Quophnix (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but for example you are deciding how to best integrate the 3 point and 4 point systems - a reasonable decision, perhaps, but how did they integrate them? They assign no points for Math 103 taken before the 4 point system, for example, but you convert it - how did they? Again, shouldn't we try to find something where Texas A&M provides what they figure to be his GPA rather than our figuring what we think it should have been? (And shouldn't that have been on his official transcript?) And the handling of the PE classes with grade points but no credits raises questions, and the assumptions about the answers is OR. What is the advantage of doing this? How about removing the GPA until we find something more reliable and instead saying something like his grade average was between B- and C, with citation? (I do think one thing we can be sure of is that he never got through Joyce....) Tvoz/talk 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we used A&M's own scale the entire time. You simply apply the same 4 point system A&M uses after June 1969 to all the classes before June 1969 to bring all the classes under the same system. And, lucky for us, Perry received every letter grade possible before and after June '69 (A,B,C, and D). So, we know exactly how they were assigning points in both cases, which makes the math like converting Fahrenheit to Celsius (covered by WP:CALC) And you apparently misunderstood the issue about the PE classes. They, the school, didn't assign credit hours for PE but assigned grade points for the class. We didn't decide anything. Rubin was merely confused and trying to understand it. Besides, he even admitted to reading it incorrectly. Again, there've been no assumptions made about anything. We used A&M's own system for all the grades. What "answers" are you talking about? And, whoa! Stating a letter grade like B or C is waaay more interpretive than reporting the numerical value of Perry's GPA. That's really your recommendation? Quophnix (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

[ edit conflict ] OK - I see your point as well, and it's a fair point - I'm not really convinced, but understand your thinking. I posted at WP: No original research/Noticeboard#Rick Perry's GPA - OR or acceptable under CALC? Hope I outlined it fairly. Let's see what others think. Tvoz/talk 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also put a pointer at WP:BLP/N#Rick Perry to the OR board and here - since this is a high profile BLP I think input from that perspective might be helpful. Tvoz/talk 19:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Removed per BLP policy, it would be inappropriate to readd it without secondary reliable sources. Kevin (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We're only reporting what the GPA is. It's your own business how you choose to perceive it. Facts aren't positive or negative. They're facts. Therefore, BLP does not apply. Quophnix (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." It is irrelevant whether the information is positive, negative or neutral. BLP still applies. Rlendog (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, can someone please explain this to me then??? By that logic nothing on any living person could be published ever. As far as I can tell, BLP is intended to protect Wikipedia from libel and to protect living persons from things like identity theft. How is this applicable??? Furthermore, I have a Texas Tribune article (secondary source) that cites the HuffPo article as a source in a story about Perry's GPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quophnix (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In re "hours" vs. "credit hours", the only difference in the columns that the failed course in Spring 1970 is counted in the first, and not the second. All schools I'm familiar with (and I checked the registrars of the two in which I had taken courses in, both using a 4-point scale) report F's as 0's, as hours (credit hours), but not as credit hours (credits earned), and divide by the first in calculating the GPA. I think we now have enough different ways that GPA could reasonably be calculated from the transcript, that it would be WP:OR to choose one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring all the other issues looking at it closer WP:BLP actually categorically prohibits from using a public primary source document like the transcript to say something about a living person anyway. And since WP:BLP is policy and not guideline, even an article-wide consensus that it was appropriate to include here could not overrule it. So - totally ignoring all the other issues it presents - we just categorically cannot use his transcript directly to make a statement. (WP:BLPPRIMARY is the relevant section for this particular concern.) Kevin (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly.

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Fat&Happy (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence explicitly forbids trial transcripts and all other public records. The second sentence says that primary source material may be sometimes appropriate. I parse that as "Don't ever use public documents; other primary sources are situationally okay." There are many types of primary source material (like a selfpublished biog) that are not effected by the first sentence; I assumed that's what the second sentence applied to. If that's not what it is intended as, it should be rephrased. Either way it's still categorically inappropriate to use without secondary sources backing it up, especially for something as NOR violating as this. Kevin (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with what several have said. We shouldn't be using a leaked transcript. If it's significant, the GPA should be discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources, if it isn't then it doesn't belong. And it's doubtful WP:Calc applies as illustrated by the numerous differents ways the GPA could be calculated and the fact the document itself doesn't even seem to say how the GPA could be calculated. BTW BLP isn't solely to protect wikipedia from libel (in fact if you've referring ti libel lawsuits, it should be a minor concern since our requirements are way more strigent) and to protect individuals from identity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in the beginning of the discussion in a response to an attempt to calculate Perry's GPA, I thought it was pushing into the realm of Original Research. I, unfortunately, caved to the consensus and hard work at the time. Later, while validating inline citations, I discovered that a reliable local, unchallenged source that was already cited in that section asserted a GPA of 2.5. I could care less if the article asserts a GPA of 0.2 or 3.9. The facts need to be sourced properly. WP:CALC is not a reliable source, never has been and never trumps a Reliable Source when one is available. Impeach the cited reliable source or find a better source. WP:CALC is out of bounds in this situation. Sometimes a SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) is appropriate, in the case of a BLP though, it is most definitely not. Veriss (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Veriss, I agree with you. And I support the reliably sourced inclusion of the GPA, as a valid part of the bio. Tvoz/talk 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That source doesn't seem clear to me if they're talking about his GPA when he made his decision to go another route, or his final GPA. It seems unlikely they're referring to his final GPA from the context, and it is not clearly stated that it was his final GPA.

Here's a source that says his GPA was 2.22, which matches the above calculation and was released after the transcripts were leaked, vs the other article which I believe was before the transcripts were released.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/25/2375100/gov-scott-wants-to-make-us-smart.html

Now it can hardly be considered original research, yet the transcripts seem to clearly support the 2.22 figure that is clearly cited as his final GPA, and dispute the 2.5 GPA as being his final GPA which I don't think is clear from the cited article at all. 205.217.239.59 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That source is an opinion piece from a member (a reader) "From Our Inbox" and can not be considered a reliable source for the content. It's very possible the individual got the 2.22 figure from Wikipedia, as that's what we had on that date. This is one of the reasons we need to be very careful with WP:OR, particularly in a BLP. We could end up being the source for our own content if we're not careful. Morphh ^(talk) 14:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that is an opinion piece, I didn't notice at first. However, how the 2.5 GPA figure was arrived at is just as questionable, it isn't clear whether it is citing his final GPA, or his GPA when he decided he wouldn't be able to do veterinary medicine, and it doesn't match up with the transcripts that are now publicly available. I can understand why not to give a GPA since his transcripts are available for anyone to see, and some people have a problem with doing the calculation. What I don't understand is why there's a 2.5 GPA in the article that is not supported and conflicts with his transcript. 205.217.239.59 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a calculation to see when Perry might have had a 2.5 GPA to make sense out of that number, and the only time he was close to that was after his first semester (though after his 2nd he was higher than that), so that may be what he remembers. I also noticed a problem, or possible problem, with the 2.22 calculation. With that calculation his organic chemistry II class which he failed isn't being counted against his credit hours (likely because he receives no credit for this). It would however most likely be counted against his credit hours attempted which would probably be used to calculate his GPA. If somebody can flush out the answer to this, or already has, please post that policy here. I was getting a GPA of 2.18 if the credit hours attempted are counted. 205.217.239.59 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Um -- "leaked transcript" != strong source for us doing calculations on a putative GPA - Wikipedia requires actual relaible sources for claims in any BLP, and such "calculations" would fall far short of the requirements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As any source of any GPA is going to be based off of the leaked transcript, and the leaked transcript really isn't a reliable source as is, would it be fair to say that the GPA just shouldn't go in the article due to the lack of any reliable source for it? I don't disagree that it's fairly important (though to be fair I did previously in a different section; since then I've changed my opinion that it is important enough), however with BLP's I've always seen people say that rather than include any dubiously sourced materials, information should just be left out in a rather safe than sorry approach. Failing that, I agree with what's said above by Veriss and Tvoz, of including the sourced 2.5 in the article, as it's really the only semi-reliably sourced GPA we have to work with. Kessy628 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That article says, "And he was exceedingly loyal to the corps, which he credited with giving him the discipline to get an animal sciences degree — his 2.5 grade point average wasn’t high enough to go the veterinary route — and join the Air Force." It's not clear that the GPA was his final GPA. There's nothing to indicate they're talking about his final GPA, and it could have easily come from Perry mentioning his GPA after his first semester. The thing is though, we have no idea where that GPA figure came from. We don't know if it was from Perry, from one of his supporters, made up, but it is clearly refuted by Perry's transcripts. I agree that calculating the actual GPA is a bit dicey, but quoting this one article as if it is a factual, researched figure is deceptive. This article was written before Perry's transcripts were released (and may have been the reason why they were released), and clearly Perry's documents weren't available to the reporter at that time. I think it's best to leave it off, and let people figure it out for themselves.

205.217.239.59 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In my view, there are two options: (a) find a better source, or sources, that assert a different GPA or (b) discredit or impeach the previously established reliable source that cites a GPA of 2.5 and have the GPA removed from the article entirely.

I personally don't think the GPA should be included at all because of many reasons; the main being that his peer's articles don't mention them. Another main reason is that the HuffPost link (link not included on purpose since the document may have been illegally released in the first place) is to a personal document released illegally, (as it is plainly stamped on the document), without the subject's consent (remember the issues with the illegally released copies of George W. Bush's military records?) and with an unknown chain of custody on top of all that mess.

Since there is an existing, currently undisputed reliable source, WP:CALC is totally out of bounds since we don't need to SWAG his GPA with Scientific Wild Assed Guesses based on a document of dubious origins. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

post edit war

1st sorry, thx for break, discovered the discussion page

1st you have a really tight site, good flow, wish you could help clean up the Paul site,

The small stuff:revision 450139281 was not replaced, just a former chairman in '11 - states he was Chairman during event - little space difference & lessens Chairmans Stature to know about the event - this is noteworthy - not WP:UNDUE - as it was better now and yes there is a longer article -

Bigger and more impactful 450097610, per WEIGHT, you did not allow a small reference to ===Crony Capitalism=== with the charges brought up in the debate yesterday, WAPO today, Palin the issue to the public IS Crony Capitalism,this is not WP:UNDUE

Industrial Policy can be placed under economny and Crony Capitalism can be rewritten but not made smaller, each example, within reason, but ones that make major papers could be woven together- WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negatives

N419BH use of WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism, to 450079681 - was excessive, my edits were to misleading text, were good, only wish I recorded the changes in the discussion page and not next to the edit (thought that was small space) - but thx for ban and day off

Note: Above submitted by User:Snettie, note by: Veriss (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take the plunge. You have been around for over two years and had complaints of article talk page conduct issues two years ago so one can assume you knew about article talk pages long before you found this article. Your first statement doesn't add up so please spare us the patronization.

You have just returned from a block because of problematic editing. Your recent edits here have indicated a desire to make WP:BOLD, but also, unfortunately, problematic edits. I do not have time to give an edit-by-edit review but the few edits you made here were characterized by misleading edit summaries (stating you are pasting in the text of a letter when you also deleted most of an entire section that was well supported with inline citations to previously accepted reliable sources), use of loaded or inflammatory words in section headings and in text, calling out opposing editors by name in your reversions which violates Wikipedia Policy: Assume Good Faith, etc. This is just a quick observation without detailed edit differences and analysis.

You did mention a reliably sourced (NY Times) assertion about political cronyism that should be discussed here for possible inclusion in the Wikipedia article. Please take a couple of days to relax, review the few policies that I have linked above, look over your posts, and return to discuss your concerns on this talk page. I have no authority here, this is just friendly advice as I think you do have some valid points, just that you have not really gone about things in the most effective way and need to work on building trust with your co-editors that you are also working in good faith. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lastly the letter to Hillary

the Letter is more important to his position as Agriculture Commissioner then space like ... "2,546,287 votes (62 percent) to Democrat Marvin Gregory's 1,479,692 (36 percent). Libertarian Clyde L. Garland received the remaining 85,836 votes (2 percent).[31] Gregory, a chicken farmer from Sulphur Springs, Texas, " this is WP:UNDUE - Rick Perry himself said on the radio that he wished the the voters would read the letter in the context of his job as Agriculture Commissioner. Well you have a detailed (if boring) description description of the duties of the Agriculture job, and could have the Perry letter giving voice to the Rural development and hospitals. seems very to have a copy of the letter. It would be a good idea to have links for the Perry site to the Paul site referring to each letter. This would really bring Wiki into the debates. Paul then Perry referring to letters, then links to the letters. One taking jab about health care, the other about disloyalty to Reagan, ===let the letters link=== then when one goes to wiki they would get primary resources, like history research, primary research is king. (it makes me happy when you said it Collect so I have to return it... CheersSnettie 02:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism. WP:RS reliable sources WP:UNDUE Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negative

Note: Above submitted by User:Snettie, note by: Veriss (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. Veriss (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial rumors

If articles in mainstream press carry stories related to rumors of (BLP violation removed), would it be okay to add it to the article? 216.15.127.217 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide specific articles? Kessy628 (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP is very strong on this - and you likely should read the ArbCom recent case on BLPs including political BLPs, as well as the extensive BLPCAT discussions concerning (BLP violation removed) etc. Cheers, but it is a quagmire editors are well-advised to avoid. Collect (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand why this question was edited to be nearly incomprehensible though I think it was an over reaction by a reasonable editor operating in good faith and performing due diligence. This is a talk page though and legitimate issues of policy should be openly discussed in my opinion. The question is reasonable and probably fueled by the unrestrained blogosphere and quasi-news media sites. Please see the section immediately above for a very clear and concise answer to your specific question. Veriss (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What you consider an "over reaction" removed unsourced, contentious material about two living persons. This is the heart of WP:BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

With BLP's better safe then sorry. I wouldn't consider most removals an overreaction, this included. Kessy628 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act

Please add this wikilink to Perry opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Views on "Conversion of the Jews" - et al

Seems like that’s a pretty big issue with him religiously. Maybe deserves it’s own section? Now that News.Google has turned to crap, having to dig deep in regular google to find reliable sources. For starters, following pretty good sources get into it;

• NPR
• Democracy Now
• New York Magazine
• Texas Observer 1 and 2 - added later
• DailyKos
• National Jewish Democratic Council - here and here.
• Many WP:RS refer to this speech at a Youtube video:Don Finto's Prayer for Israel at Rick Perry's August 6 Prayer Rally

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this could go under his religious beliefs. I think it's big, but not big enough to warrent another section. Perhaps a subsection under Christen Religious Beliefs? Kessy628 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll give it a few days and see if others chime in or do it and, if not, perhaps do it myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing is, I wouldn't use the daily kos as 1 of the sources, due to its obvious liberal tilt. If possible, stick with ones like npr and the texas observer over it. Kessy628 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Political organizations might have an implicit bias in attributing positions to those whom it opposes. I suggest scrubbing them off any possible list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading them all leaves one with nothing directly connecting Perry with the view - but a lot os attempts at mud-slinging guilt-by-association ("he sat in the same room as Hitler, so therefore he must approve of Hitler") reasoning. Such is not approved by [[W{:BLP]] that I can find. And some of the comments verge on the ludicrous. Collect (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. This is definitely a BLP violation. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association can be a problem and I haven't thoroughly researched these or other sources yet to see how great his involvement was in the August 6 event beyond promoting and participating. I was just seeing what the general reaction was. I'll look for other sources and see what is useable. Obviously, if many WP:RS are committing guilt by association and others then comment on that, that also becomes Wikipedia worthy. And if there are good sources that he has extreme views on conversion of non-Christians and Chritianization of Israel that might affect his decision-making as president there will be lots of info and opinion on that over time.

This Texas Observer accusation, for example, should be further researched since it says he's organizing the Response - i.e., inaccurate info here? Working on something else right now so can't thoroughly digest, but just in case someone else wants to delve in:

Perry has given self-proclaimed prophets and apostles leading roles in The Response, a much-publicized Christians-only prayer rally that Perry is organizing at Houston’s Reliant Stadium on Aug. 6.

The Response has engendered widespread criticism of its deliberate blurring of church and state and for the involvement of the American Family Association, labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its leadership’s homophobic and anti-Muslim statements. But it’s the involvement of New Apostolic leaders that’s more telling about Perry’s convictions and campaign strategy.

CarolMooreDC 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, he is a Methodist and subscribes to the doctrines of that church. He attended a gathering with non-Methodists who do not subscribe to the doctrines of that church. That does not mean he subscribes to their doctrines. See also Good_Friday_Prayer_for_the_Jews which rather implies every single Roman Catholic holds this extreme position (Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men). Cheers - this trash does not belong in this BLP. Collect (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see anything outstanding on this issue, but cleaned up the section a big with refs and chrono order. I'm sure it's part of his evangelical views but doubt we'll find him spouting off about it sufficiently to include it here under BLP. CarolMooreDC 16:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Texas BLS stats - relevant?

Is a 4.7K section on labor stats sourced to the BLS a relevant section to the biography? It seems to me that the only articles it would fit in are ones about Texas proper. The use here appears to be "campaign material" and is not properly in this BLP at all. Wikipedia is not the place for people to campaign for or against any candidates in their biographies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that as it stands the section is not relevant to the article. The material in it, however, is important, and should be mentioned in my opinion in a sentence or two that directly ties it to Perry. To have it as it currently stands, however, is not relevant enough to Perry to warrant inclusion in my opinion. Kessy628 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the section is too long. But the statistics describe the actual state of Texas' economy, which are directly related to the rest of Economy section. I hope someone can edit the statistics section so that it is shorter, but the relevant information still included. Ratemonth (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is called a "biography" for sound reasons. It is not described as "Wikipedia rebuttals of the person's positions" also for sound reasons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with the proposed expansion. One is that the statistics chosen are inevitably going to be arbitrary. The other is that they will be obsolete in a month. It would be good to expand this section, but it should be based on the major economic policies Perry has enacted as governor. Brmull (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've stated in the past myself that I think most of this belongs in Economy of Texas with some short statements that directly relate to Perry's biography, changes during his term, and policy he has enacted. If people want to know about the economy of Texas, it's history and statistics, and how it compares to other states, we have an article for that. Morphh ^(talk) 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The section being disputed contains a lot of irrelevant-looking information, but it is a very relevant topic to cover. Without this section, the Texas unemployment statistics aren't discussed at all, even though it is both Perry's foremost selling point and the first thing that his opponents dispute. The key here is to thoroughly cover the secondary sources that give these statistics specifically in reference to Perry's actions and his campaign, reinforced by references to (but not much discussion of) primary sources of the statistics so that the reader can look further. It should be written to be clear that the topic being covered is how Perry affected unemployment, not just what the numbers are. For example, even when Perry says that Texas created 48% of new jobs, what we need to cover is not just the number but whether he said it's a reason to vote for him and what policies he says he enacted to bring it about. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you stating that each BLP should have "rebuttal evidence" sections chosen by WP editors seeking to show how wrong the person is? I fear that is not a valid use of a biographical article - perhaps it is a proper use for campaign materials by opponents, and should be on those websites, not in Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There should be "rebuttal evidence" if and only if the sources present it that way. I presume that if you look up sources specifically discussing Perry's role on unemployment, roughly half will say he did something good there and half will say he did something bad, and of course both perspectives should be covered as they pop up in the sources people find. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is rebuttal evidence it should be listed, but we shouldn't go and try to make it more prominent than any other information. To say that Texas experienced huge job growth under Perry is a valid addition of this information; to go into detail the state of the Texas economy is not, and as many have said should be put into a different article. Kessy628 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say something like, "Texas created over a million jobs during Perry's first 10 years in office. The unemployment rate rose due to a large population increase." Whether they're good jobs or bad jobs is ultimately a matter of opinion, and we should try not to import that sort of media bias into Wikipedia. Brmull (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, you could equally say "Texas's unemployment rate rose by (X)% during Perry's first 10 years in office. Many jobs were created due to a large population increase." Chicken and egg, perhaps? Let's try to state the facts without attributing cause/effect. (for context, Perry's supporters go by your suggested statement; I know Paul Krugman the economist has gone by my example statement.) Seleucus (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For context, I was the person who wrote most of the section being debated here. At that time(I added it about a month ago, I don't remember), the topic was being highly discussed in the media, and Perry's supporters/detractors were adding many claims into the article when I wrote the section. My intention was to have a statistics-based section that would impartially cover the state of the Texas economy without getting into cause/effect, arguments and nuances on each side. I definitely think that it should be included, though I would not object to making the section more concise. Seleucus (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We definitely don't want to be making chicken/egg assertions if it's controversial. Maybe we should reconsider a argument/counterargument format, keeping in mind some of the concerns expressed above. It may be the least bad solution. Brmull (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not allow an argument/counterargument section unless each claim is specifically cited to a reliable source and is directly related to the topic of the BLP. Wikipedia is not a location for campaigning in any election at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My stance, again, is to present the statistics without further comment in an attempt to be impartial without turning it into an argument/counterargument section. The relevant question seems to be whether it's directly related to Perry. Seleucus (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There has to be some rationale for deciding which economic statistics are included. Jobs is something that Perry talks about often, sort of like Giuliani's 9/11. Therefore it should be in the article. To get around the chicken/egg problem we could do something like this:

Perry has noted that, "Since I’ve become governor, Texas has created more than 1 million jobs, while the rest of the country has lost 2.5 million jobs." Critics point out that job growth has not kept up with working-age population growth. The net result has been higher unemployment.

Brmull (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's a pro-Perry assessment since it emphasizes the job growth as standalone, while implying that higher unemployment was because the population growth was too high. Can't we just include the basic statistics (say, job creation, unemployment levels, wage levels) and call it a day without quoting anyone? Seleucus (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay here is the original wording (correct me if I'm wrong):

As of August 2011, Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate.[52][53] In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 9.1% in August 2011.[54][55][56] 25 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and 25 states (including the District of Columbia) have a higher unemployment rate, meaning that Texas has median unemployment among U.S. states.[57][58] Between June 2009 and August 2011, 237,000 jobs were created in Texas.[59][60] ...

Several of the business leaders who moved to Texas have ascribed their decision partly to business-friendly policies (including the lack of income tax, low regulation, anti-union laws, and financial incentives), and partly to the convenient Texas geography in the middle of the country with transportation hubs, a large bilingual population, mild winters and abundant space.[68] ...

Paul Krugman, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, attributed Texas' job growth to soaring energy prices, a growing population, and a gentler housing crisis, due to stricter regulation of mortgage lending, and that such factors are not reproducible on the national scale as a means to create jobs.[51]

(1) Shouldn't it say over 1 million jobs since Perry became governor? (2) Is the August 2011 unemployment figure helpful to the reader? In 2008-2009 it increased significantly. In the five years before that it decreased significantly. The only somewhat meaningful characterization is that over the time Perry has been governor it increased, because the economy didn't create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. (3) I would make some copy edits to shorten this down. Brmull (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source (ex: BLS database) for the 1 million jobs claim (other than articles stating it without source), or else I would have added it; June 2009 was the official end of the recession, IIRC. The August 2011 unemployment figure is just the most recent figure, (though now the September results might be out.) We could make a mention of the general trend and changes, but the unemployment increase from 2008-2009 is true in almost all states, it pretty much goes without saying. And no, that is not an impartial characterization, as I have stated several times. But in short, my proposed re-editing with comments in brackets would be:

As of August 2011 [Replace with Sept #s if possible), Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate.[References] In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 9.1% in August 2011.[References] 25 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and 25 states (including the District of Columbia) have a higher unemployment rate, meaning that Texas has median unemployment among U.S. states.[References] Between June 2009 and August 2011, 237,000 jobs were created in Texas.[References] Since Perry's inauguration as governor, X net jobs were created [find exact number, source]. According to a March 28, 2011 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9.54% of hourly-paid workers in Texas are paid at or below minimum wage. In comparison, the national percentage is 6.0%. Among the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, Texas has the highest percentage of workers paid at or below minimum wage; the state with the second-highest percentage is Mississippi, with 9.50%. [References]

The goal here as I see it is to concisely describe the statistical information without imputing any characterization or arguments/PR/etc. (the readers can come to their own judgments.) The minimum wage section was copied from the article pre-revision; wages, unemployment percentage, and job creation are the three main areas of evaluation that I can think of. Do you think there are any major statistics missing from this? Or other comments? Seleucus (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can get some other opinions. The primary source for the 1 million jobs, growing labor force, and employment trends is here: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST48000003 I kind of feel like the minimum wage thing is something that was cooked up by critics. Perry never claimed these were high-paying jobs. Texas cost of living is low, there's lots of agriculture. As others have noted this verges on campaign stuff that doesn't directly relate to Perry's BLP. Brmull (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

While I believe Seleucus has done a decent job of making the statistics sound neutral, it feels like WP:SYN to me. It appears to present various statistics and comparisons that advances a position. The position insinuated is a counter to Perry's claims of a strong Texas economy without including any context, but it's an apples and oranges insinuation (in some cases, one is an effect of the other). While I don't care for back and forth prose, I think I'd rather see a brief point counter-point. "Perry suggests xyz. Critics argue that Perry is overstating the Texas economy pointing to average unemployment rates and the highest percentage of minimum wage earners. So and so states these figures are an effect of the large population growth maintaining step with job creation." I'm not sure what the best way is... seems appropriate to include the criticism but it needs to be directed at Perry, not the Texas economy, and done in a way that's not a campaign debate. Morphh ^(talk) 13:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It definitely reads like SYNTH, and possibly OR. Information in a BLP must be reliably sourced and the source must present the information as relevant to to subject of the article. If the source isn't presenting the info as relevant to Perry, then it's the editor who's making the point, not the source. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

error in Gov. of Texas section

"Perry is currently serving as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association; he previously served as its Chairman in 2008".

Due to his run for President, he has stepped down from this position. Scott Walker is the current Chairman of the RGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.26.194 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral broker

Note that Perry is not accusing the Big O of not being a neutral broker. He is accusing him of being a neutral broker between Israel and terrorists such as Mahmoud Abbas and the new government of Egypt. Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing, but we can't go beyond what the ref says to avoid WP:OR. The ref says blamed the president for bringing on the crisis by siding with the Palestinians over the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and by saying the US would act as a neutral broker in talks. Or maybe find a clearer ref. CarolMooreDC 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1)To start with you [Added later: HCobb at this diff] have replace a sentence which repeats the order of his statement (and therefore not all that confusing) with your own WP:Synth:

• Original: Perry accused United States President Barack Obama of siding with Palestinians against expansion of settlements, of not being a neutral broker in peace talks and of ”having a willingness to isolate a close ally.” ("peace" can be eliminated since not in the reference)
• User:Hcobb's is : In 2011 he accused current President Obama of a "policy of appeasement" in attempting to be a neutral broker in peace talks.[219][220]

Ref 219 reads: "accused Barack Obama of appeasing terrorists and betraying Israel." and ""The Obama administration has appeased the Arab street at the expense of our national security," he said." and "blamed the president for bringing on the crisis by siding with the Palestinians over the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and by saying the US would act as a neutral broker in talks."

Ref 220 doesn't even mention "neutral" and just says "It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our ties to the nation of Israel."

This summary of the speech agrees with the first. I couldn't find that many articles about the speech. Probably because News.google returns so few results since they changed it. Very frustrating. (I did find one ref where Tom Delay accused Prez. GW Bush of trying to be a neutral broker between the parties! )

2) You remove the context of the statement "Perry held a September 2011 press conference in New York during opening United Nations sessions with Jewish leaders and Danny Danon, the deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset. "

3) You remove one 2009 and a 2011 quote on his faith and Israel. The most recent obviously is the most dramatic. You give no reason for doing this.

Frankly, the problem is the Perry is not making himself clear so we should just use what is clear and ignore the rest. Discussion of WP:Synthesis and removal of WP:RS relevant material appreciated. CarolMooreDC 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Since User:Hcobb hasn't replied s/he must agree with mey critique above! Busy til Sunday and will then revert back everything discussed above, without mention of the confusing neutral broker business unless it's covered in greater clarifying detail by WP:RS. Anyone else want to weigh in? CarolMooreDC 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Have not read the RP article so I am not sure if the statement in question was an addition to the article. If it was an addition to the article, the statement does not seem supported as CarolMooreDC has argued. WP:Synthesis policy would be relevant here. Also, context of a statement can be important to include as it can show an element of pandering and not just mere expression of personal conviction. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add relevant diff; doing here and above. CarolMooreDC 22:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I put in Perry's exact words, but he is AGAINST being a neutral broker. Hcobb (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)