Talk:Rick Perry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fiscal Policy

Why is there a paragraph with no sources under the fiscal policy title that talks about Perry's redistricting?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.112.120 (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I tagged three paragraphs in that section as {Citation needed|date=August 2011}. Thanks for pointing it out. Veriss (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So I'm slightly confused on which part of the paragraph needs to be cited, not because of the info in it but because of the location of the tag. Do we need citations on Perry supporting DeLay's plan? On the Republican gains due to the plan? On the "23-9 majority" statement? Or multiple of those/something I missed? I do agree that it needs citations, but I want to make sure I'm not adding unnecessary references and clogging up the page.

If it's the current majority, if someone can figure out how to get a static version of this page, we can use it as a citation, but it'll change once 2012 comes around: http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_tn Kessy628 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say that that section is common knowledge and doesn't need a citation, though I may be biased as a political junkie.Seleucus (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AGR (Alpha Gamma Rho)

AGR didn't have a chapter at Texas A and M until 1986. A 1972 graduate couldn't have been a member. "Perry attended Texas A&M University, where he was a member of the Corps of Cadets, a member of the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity and one of A&M's five yell leaders (a popular Texas A&M tradition analogous to male cheerleaders) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.178.233 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Alpha Gamma Rho itself, Governor Rick Perry is a 'famous alumni'. A&M has two chapters: Beta Nu (colony est. 1977) and Beta Lambda (I have no idea). 99.50.188.77 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a site used by one chapter as, among other things, a recruiting tool. Wikipedia itself is as likely as anything to be the source of such a claim. Beta Nu is the chapter at College Station, where Perry attended. Beta Lambda is at the campus at Commerce. The Beta Nu site does say that there was an effort to establish a chapter at College Station in 1967, but it was dropped. Unless they operated underground for 10 years? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(Updated) :According to a different Alpha Gamma Rho chapter, Governor Rick Perry is a 'famous alumni'. A&M has two chapters: Beta Nu (colony est. 1977) and Beta Lambda (colony est. c. 1968, but read this) at East Texas State University which later became Texas A&M-Commerce. History: "in 1962, the name was changed to East Texas State University and in 1996 became Texas A&M University-Commerce." So perhaps Rick Perry actually graduated from East Texas State University, now Texas A&M University–Commerce? 99.50.188.77 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other online sources about the fraternity. As Fat&Happy says Perry went to College Station, I'm totally confused. I'm not aware of any 'pre-colony' step in forming a chapter which would allow someone to be a brother. Surely there's an official list somewhere of fraternity brothers? This just seems really odd. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sheilakissane, 16 August 2011 - Bilderberg

Need to add the fact that Rick Perry was invited to and attended the Bildenberg conference in Turkey three years ago (May 31 2007). I have numerous sources--the Dallas Morning News (page no, date, article title, etc.), Glenn Beck, Austin TV channel 8 newscast, another local paper, etc. This is relevant because it violates the Logan Act and per your article on Bildenber--it is a secret organization of international whos whos--and voters have a right to know this and would want this information in evaluating Perry and other candidates. If you maintain that it is irrelevant you should delete the section you have in his biography on his vacation to Asia. Keeping this out is censorship.(Sheilakissane (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Sheilakissane (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my detailed response to your multiple posts on this subject in the section you created for it above at Talk:Rick Perry#Moved from WP:RFPP. Please do not create multiple sections about the same topic just because you don't get your way. Veriss (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not create the additional section on the Perry Bilderberg meeting. Someone else did. Check it out. Guess what?? I am not the only one who thinks the Bilderberg visit is relevant. Most of your voters may not care but a lot of them will. I the question of whether or not you print the truth in you articles determined by popular vote?? Governor of Texas went to a secret international conference of the world's whos who 3 years ago and now he is suddenly a viable presidential candidate with donations flowing in like water. Also CNN preempted their programming on Saturday morning to cover his speech announcing the candidacy. How many other candidates did they do this for? How many other candidates went to the Bilderberg conference?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. Perry has for a while now been incredibly good at fundraising, and likewise has for a while now been talked about as a candidate for president. As for CNN, when Perry said that he was going to officially enter the race, the entire news media went crazy. The fact that they "preempted" their Saturday morning programming to cover the speech is not at all abnormal nor unheard of. If Chris Christie or Paul Ryan said today that they were going to make a major announcement on Saturday, CNN would do the exact same thing.

Anyway, if you can find a source directly contributing his going to the Bilderberg to his viability for president by all means tell us. For now though, the RfC below is showing a consensus for exclusion of this over inclusion. Kessy628 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Perry has for while been incredibly good at fundraising". Since how long is awhile--since he went to Bilderberg three years ago. OK. About 12 candidates announced for president as republicans. Which other ones did CNN preempt its regular morning broadcasts for??? Yea. Right. Good luck(Sheilakissane (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Ok lets see here... For starters, here's an article about his fundraising prowess. Note how it says "over the past decade": http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7638138.html

Here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/us/politics/13donate.html?_r=2&hp

Here's a third: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_22/Perry-Fundraising-History-Faces-New-Test-208131-1.html

Ok now that that's out of the way, lets next look at CNN. I don't know if I would count a major new player in the Republican presidential field making a planned announcement that had been known for at least a week before would be called "preempting." CNN reports on the news, and this was a major news story. Now I'll be honest, I don't know what CNN's "regular morning broadcasts" are, so if you could give more information to this, specifically a listing of CNN programming by hour for a regular Saturday, it'd be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perry raised $100 million in 10 years as governor--more than half of it from 51 donors. All big corporations to whom he gave back a state with the most minimum wage jobs in the country and no limitations on illegal alien inflows. Let's see how he does post his little junket to Turkey. Watch the PAC contributions pour in.

The show that CNN preempted was "Your Money" in a week when the stock market looked like the cyclone roller coaster at Coney Island and everyone thought they would lose their 401ks. I have seen this show preempted twice before--once was for Katrina. Curiouser and curiouser.(Sheilakissane (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Intelligent Design

User:Corwin8 recently added the following line into the article: "However, the Houston Chronicle has noted that Perry was only "Playing to the base" and has taken no steps to promote intelligent design in the classroom," referencing the Houston Chronicle. I've reverted it, as the citation looks to fail WP:RS, as it appears to be a blog post. While I agree that Perry's actions are just as important as his views, a better reference would be necessary in my opinion for this to be considered reliable enough for inclusion. Kessy628 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since that same blog post was the only source for the original assertion, I've removed the section as unsourced. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but what about my passage that noted that since Perry has been Governor, he has made no effort to teach intelligent design in the classroom? Doesn't that clarify his position? For any politician, there is always a difference between what they say and what they do. Corwin8 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The current section on Intelligent Design is cited, however it should be expanded if possible. I've found a source with a couple of links to various speeches and press releases Perry has given/released, however I don't know how far into detail in fleshing it out and such. If someone is willing to give it a go, I'd be willing to copyedit it, otherwise I'll give it a try over the weekend when I have more time I guess. http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_religious_right_watch_rick_perry#CREATIONISM Kessy628 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for auto-archive?

We have comments from six years ago on this page and it is getting pretty long so I suggest we setup an auto-archive routine. I could probably figure it out but don't want to break the page. Concurrence? Veriss (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. This is getting to be way too long of a talk page. Kessy628 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Morphh ^(talk) 00:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seleucus (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've set up MiszaBot to autoarchive the page. Hopefully this will work correctly and solve the problems. Kessy628 (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have kicked in yet. The settings appear to be okay. Veriss (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual news articles

In connection with the above, I see the article currently has a WFAA and a New Yorker article in External links. If these could be moved to be references to the relevant material in the body of the article, that would discourage the addition of other separate news articles. They are about two very specific points, and it doesn't appear encyclopedic for those points and only those points to be highlighted in External links. There are so many collected news sources available for this person that separate news articles aren't needed in this section. 75.59.226.113 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The event the WFAA article covers does not appear to have retained historical notability. The New Yorker article already had two inline citations in the section about the condemned. Veriss (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Todd Willingham

Perry:""I think people are making a lot of this issue"

Shake-up in Texas execution probe draws criticism, questions, CNN, October 01, 2009.91.39.75.214 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The source and the quote is already in the article. Veriss (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rick Perry leaning against a jet.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rick Perry leaning against a jet.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg/Globalist or not?

Needs a section, one way or the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.132 (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? Veriss (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant to his qualifications for office, a link to this wiki article might be appropriate? List_of_Bilderberg_participants 173.247.29.132 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that list of attendees to an international discussion about various topics concerning the US and Europe. As the governor of a large state who attends hundreds of meetings each year around the world, why do you feel that his attendance at this particular meeting is important and merits inclusion in the article? Veriss (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular meeting might be more interesting to Wikipedia readers, and more relevant to their search for valid information, than the hundreds of other meetings you mention. There is quite a bit of background in the article already, however this is topical to current events. The hundreds of other meetings may not be as important to your readers. My search for this information is what led me to the article. What is the point of leaving it out? 173.247.29.132 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, not a news article. So it needs to be important to the general media and his biography, before it will be considered important here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it becomes a controversy or a criticism of Perry, then it would be worth noting, but we would need to see that reflected in the media and give it WP:DUE weight. We can't include every critical or positive thing about the man. We have to weight the news within a historical context and include material that is part of his notability. Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not realize this matter was already discussed and has been decided. The information is found in small/alternate US media, and also in another Wikipedia article. I just thought it appropriate to link to the information, because sometimes people use an encyclopedia to verify or dismiss articles found on the internet. When searching, the likely term will be "Rick Perry," and not "List of Bilderberg Participants." Thanks to everybody for the work on the article. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

from another section re relevance of Perry attending Bilderberg--

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 and so are 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" --Is Perry's attendance a possible violation of the Logan Act??? 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.

Who is not going to want to know this about a guy who suddenly becomes a viable pres candidate 3 years after he attends with money flowing in like water and CNN preempting its broadcasting for him???? Note in particular from Wikipedia quote above--and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names" (Sheilakissane (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilakissane (talk • contribs)

I don't think it was "decided", only that during the very short time it was discussed, no one interested in its inclusion was able to demonstrate it was important enough without veering off toward murky conspiracy territory. Please provide sources that it is somehow important for a biography of a living person and I will be happy to add it myself. Veriss (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It was removed with no edit summary (I spent quite a while finding that out). It's actively been discussed now as it's clearly relevant to his being a presidential candidate - why? because people who would otherwise support him are saying this upsets them. It's controversial. And was in the article for at least 3 years until it was removed without explanation on May 1st. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now replaced it twice. As I said, it was removed with no explanation on May 1st. Dead links are not a good reason for removal, see our guidelines on that, and [1] and [2] are live links. One brief sentence is not undue weight, and it seems unusual for someone like him to be an attendee. Maybe if he were much more liberal and a Democrat you could call it undue, but not here. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller: which people? I just did a quick google search for Rick Perry Bilderberg and practically everything I found was blog posts. I can't see any notable sources that talk about him going and its impact on him at all, though if people find them for me I'd gladly accept them. It's interesting, but it's not notable enough or talked about enough reliable sources to accurately source for inclusion. Also, just because it was in the article for 3 years until May 1st doesn't mean it has to go back in. I'd personally like to reach a new consensus on this before taking any action, and from what I can tell there's a consensus at the moment against it. If people have an opinion and haven't spoken yet, they need to. Kessy628 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, guy, look again. Dallas Morning News ran an article on it on May 31, 2007, page 4a, entitled--"Perry attends secret meeting in Turkey", Glenn Beck did part of a show on it, there is a channel 8 newscast recording of the story, and references to some smaller Texas papers who reported on Perry's attendance. Are you saying you doubt he attended??

Relevance to voters is this is a secret meeting with world leaders in attendance. Three years later the guy is a viable candidate for presidency with CNN preempting all their broadcasting to cover his presidential announcement. (Sheilakissane (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

If it's controversial, then there should be more reliable sources reporting on it, not minor and scattered news sources. Also, headings are reserved for Major areas of the person's biography. What is the justification for giving it a header and section of it's own? It has no context and appears to be something pulled together as a conspiracy theory. If we're going to include it, we need to understand why it is important to his notability (and not because a couple editors say it's important - reliable sources need to say it's important and why). Morphh ^(talk) 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you doubt that he showed up??? (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)) Kind of important if a guy comes from nowhere to suddenly become a presidential candidate with money flowing like water and CNN preempting all their broadcasting for him. Also according to your article--Wikipedia--on Bilderber--they are kingmakers.(Sheilakissane (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Morph, that's a subsection. Tell you what, I'll start an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, mis-spoke but still the same point. Subsections are to be important as well. See WP:STRUCTURE Morphh ^(talk) 21:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We're repeating ourselves, again. This discussion appears to have run its course unless some new information is found. Veriss (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's enough. I've removed Sheilakissane's last comments accusing him of violating the Logan Act. If anyone ever does end up in court for such a violation, that would be extremely newsworthy since there haven't been any indictments for the last two centuries. Don't repeat it here. Anyone wanting to discuss the Logan Act in general can discuss it at that article's talk page without mentioning names. It's a flagrant BLP violation and if you see any such accusations in an article or a talk page, they can and almost always should be removed.

According to Wikipedia's article on Bilderberg, it is an international gathering of 120 political, economic, and industrial leaders from all over the world held in secret. The purpose of the meeting is to foster international cooperation (according to Wikipedia). Let's drill down a bit on "fostering cooperation"--If governor Rick Perry is at such a secret meeting fostering cooperation, are you afraid your readers could speculate that Perry was discussing an international highway corridor through his state with a couple of Spanish Industrialists, for example. Or maybe discussing the "privatization" or fire sale of assets from the state of Texas (ostensibly to balance the state budget) to some foreign economists--in exchange for the funds needed to make a presidential run??? I believe you guys are afraid of the implications of the trip--not afraid that it is not relevant. Why not put a cork in the inappropriate censorship of the fact that the guy was invited and made the trip 3 years ago--and let your readers form their own conclusions if they wish? The truth will set you free and bookburning and yellow journalism are not cool. (Sheilakissane (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Are you done WP:COATRACKing yet? Or are you going to continue trying to pump spin into this? You need to review WP:BLP before you continue down this path. As I commented further down the page, if it's not verifiable, it can't be included in the article, and you've shown absolutely nothing in the way of reliable, verifiable sources that would support your edits. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite because you don't read. From another editor (sources) but I guess these aren't good enuff. You have to have been there, I guess--

Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Perry's road show‎; Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Jun 26, 2007; Rick Perry says he's eager to travel the state telling Texans his version of what ... A few weeks ago, he was in; Turkey to speak to the secretive Bilderberg ...

Dallas Morning News, The : Perry off to secret forum in...‎; Dallas Morning News - May 31, 2007; AUSTIN Gov Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul Turkey today to speak at the super secret Bilderberg; Conference a meeting of about 130 international leaders in ...

Austin American-Statesman : Perry speaking to top-secret...‎; Austin American-Statesman - Jun 1, 2007; Fresh off of Monday's end to the legislative session Gov Rick Perry is in Istanbul Turkey this week to speak to the Bilderberg Conference a topsecret ...

[two more sources:]

Perry's push for highway raises conspiracy buzz | Front...‎; Houston Chronicle - Aug 18, 2007; AUSTIN Black helicopters the Illuminati Gov Rick Perry and the ... Turkey to attend the secretive; Bilderberg conference which conspiracy theorists believe ...

Comments on: Immigration Collapse A Blow To Bush - CBS News‎; CBS News - Jun 9, 2007; Protesters in the Austin TX area will be joining together to demonstrate against Rick Perry's recent trip to Istanbul to meet in secret with the Bilderberg ...

Those sources, plus the fact that many anti-Perry forces are harping on the trip now (in 2011) make it at least worthy of a minor mention in this article. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read the Dallas Morning News article but would also add a video from Austin channel 8 news, a segment from the Glen Beck show. Hey, Allen, why don't you go and get on the US trip to the moon article and complain that there aren't enuff substantiating sources for that. You know--a lot of people like you believe that the moon landing was all staged. Another little job for you--have you substantiated that it was in fact Osama who was taken out by the uS Seals instead of a fake????? Some of you guys are a piece of work (Sheilakissane (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Local (Texas) news coverage

As a three-term governor of a large state with several major cities, every major Texas news source has a separate news section just for him, going back to the start of his governorship. To avoid a list of individual articles at the end of External links, including the two we already have from the Austin Chronicle, I suggest listing the following as representative of various local viewpoints. 75.59.226.113 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Local media coverage

• The Perry Trap at The Austin Chronicle
• Perry Watch at The Dallas Morning News
• Rick Perry 2012 at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
• Rick Perry at the Houston Chronicle
• The Perry Trove at the Texas Monthly
• The Perry Trail at The Texas Observer
• Rick Perry at The Texas Tribune

I think your suggestion makes sense and I would add them now. However, looking at the current EL section though it is large, ungainly and very unorganized. I think someone with experience in BLP EL policies needs to go through that section and clean it up some before we add a raft of new links. I can take a stab at organizing it once it's been culled. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We usually try to avoid such lists and focus on the primary sites about the subject, such as official sites. Otherwise, it grows and grows. Why this paper or site and not this one. Next thing you know it's linking to Media Matters and every other site that has a page on him. If we review WP:EL, this list should be fairly limited. At the moment, I wouldn't object to placing it under "Further Reading" but eventually, I think they should be removed and not listed. Morphh ^(talk) 18:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the dogged determination to make this article different from every other Governor and presidential candidate article over the years. Is there a reason for this? 75.59.226.113 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about your concerns. Veriss (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I looked at Obama, Biden, Hillary, Romney, Bachmann. None of them have additional links like this. What articles are you describing? They probably need to be edited. Morphh ^(talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Veriss suggested a mass cull. Morphh is probably looking at current versions of articles rather than the versions at the relevant point in time of the 2008 campaign. Official links (office and campaign) start the list. People with their own campaign site don't have additional social media links added because they're in the campaign site. This also prevents the addition of look-alike social media sites being added, which is a serious problem if they then link to fake fundraising appeals. Therefore, the Twitter link should be removed. I already suggested the separate article links be moved. People in congress have the CongLinks template, governors have the GovLinks template. Those who have been both have both templates. When a governor runs for federal office, federal links such as the FEC and Open Secrets are either added separately, or the CongLinks template is added to provide formatting. During a campaign, the number of relevant links increases. For example, I remember the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times coverage of Obama was listed, as he was then a Senator from Illinois and so Illinois coverage was the local coverage and Chicago is the only major city in Illinois. It was similar for McCain with Phoenix coverage and Palin with Alaska coverage. Clinton was in New York, which meant national combined with local. As the coverage grew across the country, these links were replaced with a link to the matching Open Directory Project category. The official links and the templates remained in External links, but the category took care of everything else. After the election, the categories and their contents might change according to what the person's position became (President, Senator and so forth). Mitt Romney currently has categories for his 2012 campaign and his 2008 campaign. Ron Paul also has two campaign categories. Today, many of the earlier 2008 links are no longer listed as they've been closed, and it's early in the 2012 campaign so links are still being created by the news media, supporter groups and others. In 2008 the major candidates had various subcategories, but after the election the remaining ones were merged into the one category. If you don't think it's too soon, you could add this instead of those seven local media links: Rick Perry/Archive 2 at Curlie The importance of local coverage, however it is included, is that it provides contemporaneous reports on the day to day issues of a state officeholder, which national coverage generally ignores at the time unless it's soundbite-worthy. 75.59.226.113 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to check the old versions of those articles, but I'll trust your logic, as it seems sound and feasible. I'd be up for adding the open directory project link, but I do agree that Veriss is right in the need to cull some of the current external links. Until that's done, I'd hold off on adding it, as there's a risk of losing it in the process. Kessy628 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done: I still think there are too many ELs in there but I've added all of the ones you requested. I took a stab at organizing it and it looks easier to use now in my opinion. Veriss (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The EL's needed culling and I culled the dead and broken links and weak, redundant biographies stipulated by the vaunted template. I detected a certain amount of condescension in your last post and I feel that I'm working for you because you chose not to register an account. A bit more respect would be appreciated.

The wonderful govlinks and conglinks templates though handy and nifty are rather inflexible and outdated in my opinion. I even took the step of editing the govlinks template to bring it up to date. I had noticed before that several links resulted in 404 or yielded sup-par biographies that did the reader no service and needed "culling", they were "culled". Please see my very detailed edit summaries. I never stated that a "mass culling" needed to be done, it appears that I need to be much more careful in my choice of words.

I added every link you explicitly requested and even links you intimated might be useful. I am prepared for your feedback. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The NGA changed their website on July 6, according to a press release on their site. If you replace the natgov parameter with "nga = current-governors/col2-content/main-content-list/rick-perry.html" it will work. (The change in parameter name is to allow an automated search of which current and former governor articles still need to be updated.) The National Governor's Association biographies are more useful for less well-known governors, particularly those with very short Wikipedia and state biographies, but they're included because the NGA is the official group. The Washington Post biography is really quite extensive and very different from the Wikipedia article, which is why it's included. Perhaps you didn't follow the additional sections of Path to Power, The Issues, The Network, and Footnotes. We realized readers were having similar problems with the Project Vote Smart site, which is why some subsections are now listed separately. We could do something similar with the Washington Post site if that would be helpful. The ";2012 Presidential campaign related links" title should be something like ";Government service" as it covers both his current campaign and his service as Governor. I see you didn't use the Open Directory Project template, but listed it in full. There are also templates for NYTtopic, WSJtopic, Guardiantopic and Economisttopic available for use. The advantage to a template is both consistency in formatting and ease of change (sometimes, not in the current case of NGA) if a website changes its structure. In this case, I doubt it matters. As for the rest of your comment, I have no interest in trading insults with you. I took the time to provide a fairly full explanation of the history of the EL sections in politician articles as many Wikipedians, Admins and project members, worked things out over the years. What others found to be useful, you found to be condescending. I was curious to see if that's the view you take when working with others on other articles, and I found it often was. You might consider if perhaps the problem is with your own attitude and assumptions, not with those of others. 75.59.207.72 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be an IP editor, but it doesn't exempt you from WP:NPA. He added the links like you asked, and made a simple comment. Watch it with the personal attacks, and if you think he's not doing what you wanted you're more than welcome to make an account and fix it yourself. Kessy628 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us know when the FEC and Open Secrets sites have information on Perry and I'll populate those fields in the Conglinks template. Veriss (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominionism

I think this belongs in the article, see [3], [4] and other sources. His religion section looks incomplete and possibly pov without this. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

His support from Dominionists is definitely relevant to his campaign and could be covered in the daughter article about the campaign (Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012). It's a little harder to get the wording right for the main bio article. The discussion of his big prayer meeting should report that it was criticized on grounds of the separation of church and state, but the problem with reporting his opinions is that, AFAIK, he's been largely dog-whistling. If he's overtly endorsed a theocracy, we can report that. If he's been cannier about it, though, then our task is harder. There are two obvious solutions that are both easy and both wrong: confining ourselves to reporting only his exact words, and giving complete free rein to every interpretation that's been offered. It would help if you (or somebody) would take a stab at using this talk page to suggest a first draft for discussion. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Governorship and political positions -- a suggestion

Right now we have a section on Perry's governorship that (properly) includes his record as Governor, but also includes things he's said -- and although he said them while Governor, they didn't relate to his office. For example, the Governor of Texas is not responsible for supervising the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or for having him beaten up when appropriate. This and several other passages in that section really belong in a separate "Political positions" section. This is the organization followed in, for example, the Mitt Romney article.

If the two subjects are broken out, there will be some duplication, as the "Political positions" section should include reference to positions he took in the course of being Governor. I don't see a big problem if there's some overlap of that sort.

Does anyone see any reason not to effect this re-organization? JamesMLane t c 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think yours is a good suggestion. Veriss (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to implement it now. Seleucus (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As you noted, there were a lot of passages that could plausibly belong in both sections; I only moved the unambiguous ones, for now. Seleucus (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Tracking the Flow of Money

"The administration of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, has doled out millions of dollars in grants that benefit some of his most generous donors. State money awarded to G-Con, a pharmaceutical start-up, provides an example of how state grants appear to be paying dividends for some major Perry contributors."

• Tracking the Flow of Money nytimes.com.84.147.102.235 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Perry Mines Texas System to Raise Cash for Campaigns nytimes.com August 20, 2011.84.147.102.235 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Porn profits

• Rick Perry accused of hypocrisy as he comes under fire for investment in America's largest pornography distributor.84.147.102.235 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed with the relevant link in the section right above this one. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

State of Texan economy

Why is this in Perry's biography? Economy of Texas is the appropriate place for this information unless we're directly relating it to Perry's notability, claims he's made, or other sources that directly correlate it to actions of Perry. As of now, there is no context here that would make this appropriate for this article. Morphh ^(talk) 03:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who added the section.

In short, since Perry began his presidential campaign, he and his supporters have emphasized the job creation number (237,000 in last two or so years) as a sort of argument that he would help the U.S. economy. His detractors, meanwhile, have pointed out the unemployment rate (exactly median among U.S. States) among other things, so I thought it needed to be condensed into a mention at least (besides, there were a bunch of others adding specific statistics in a somewhat onesided fashion), so this was my attempt to condense the hard numbers into a concise section without delving too deeply into the arguments between both sides.

You are right, however, that it needs to have relation to Perry, so I'll point out that the state of the Texan economy has been the subject of various claims by Perry's supporters and detractors. Seleucus (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I think these arguments need to be folded into the overall topic where we discuss his economic record in Texas. The economic claims by Perry's supporters and detractors need to be together so that the reader can properly follow debate. Morphh ^(talk) 11:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone collected some relevant BLS numbers on the economy. It looks like the reason Texas has median unemployment in spite of the highest job growth rate is partly from everyone moving there (BLS shows the population growth is much faster than the second fastest-growing state). The guy who posted it doesn't appear to be a Perry supporter, though, so I'm not sure if it's relevant, since the section seems to be about the debate between supporters/detractors, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about these figures. Beardc (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if it was created by a Communist as long as it's valid information. I looked this presentation over and found it to be very interesting. Unfortunately since it's an independent blog we'll have to wait for the mainstream media to pick it up. There was a reply (3rd post - AFMom) that similar data was available at the Texas Workforce Commission/NTI website but I was unable to dig it up. Veriss (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like The Economist at least treats the population growth data and more critiques. It also notes (along with politicalmath) that "Texas’s median wage is close to the national one." I haven't seen the politicalmath data in mainstream media, but Nate Silver (NYT columnist/blogger) and Tyler Cowen (NYT columnist/blogger/economist in his own right) pointed favorably to it. Not sure what counts for `mainstream' though. Beardc (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like ABC news picked it up too. Beardc (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Others (ex: Paul Krugman) have posited that the reason Texas has high job growth rate is just that it's undergoing rapid population expansion (mainly Hispanics who are not exactly motivated by the tax structure.) A bit of a chicken and egg problem here... 141.211.231.229 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The politicalmathblog pointed out a similar idea, I think ("more people = more consumers = more jobs."). The economist article includes another critique that Texas is simply 'poaching' jobs from other states. Not sure whether this is a good or bad thing. Beardc (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the blog is suggesting that Texas has an excellent economy (as exemplified in its job growth), which only looks bad because so many people are migrating there, so fast that it's economy can't create enough jobs. Whereas Krugman has suggested that Texas's job growth is mostly just because so many people are migrating there, thus raising the supply of workers and reducing wages (as also seen in the high number of minimum wage jobs.) Same statistics, different idea. I would be inclined to go with Krugman because his argument makes more sense (the blogger posits that people are moving to Texas to get jobs - an argument that does not make sense, given that Texas has had high population growth for ages, and that a good chunk of the growth comes from undocumented workers motivated solely by the proximity.) At any rate, the blog isn't exactly a journalistic source... Seleucus (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal points out that, in fact, Krugman is wrong. I quote,

BLS pegs the median hourly wage in Texas at $15.14, 93% of the national average, and wages have increased at a good clip: in fact, the 10th fastest state in 2010 at 3.4%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Texas economy section is written in such a way as to undermine perry's claims while maintaining a veneer of objectivity. Job GROWTH in texas is off the charts and is very much a function of the states pro-business policies. The high number of min wage jobs is a plus as it shows young workers flocking to Texas, the health insurance statistic is meaningless unless the high number of illegals in texas is considered..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.159.130 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so minimum wage jobs are a plus because it shows the large amount of young (a good chunk of whom are undocumented) workers flocking to Texas, but health insurance is meaningless since it shows a large amount of young (a good chunk of whom are undocumented) workers flocking to Texas? 141.211.231.229 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it's fairly one sided. It doesn't actually list any of Perry's claims or rebuttals to any of the information. It's pretty much a criticism section without any balance, so we need to improve it or integrate it into other parts of the article that discuss his job growth claims. Morphh ^(talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting article that puts alot of the information into context [5]. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Perry just sent this out, which he links to an article by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Probably good info for balance. Morphh ^(talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's abstinence education

"The problem here isn’t just that Perry has the wrong answer. The more meaningful problem is that Perry doesn’t seem to know how to even formulate an answer. He starts with a proposition in his mind (abstinence-only education is effective), and when confronted with evidence that the proposition appears false (high teen-pregnancy rates), the governor simply hangs onto his belief, untroubled by evidence. As Jon Chait put it, Perry seems to struggle “even to think in empirical terms"

• Perry, parties, and pragmatism washingtonmonthly.com August 19, 2011. (Featuring a very interesting v clip)
• A Portrait Of Rick Perry's Mind At Work tnr.com August 18,2011

91.4.231.207 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Parry with an A

Is it spelled with an A? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.123.137 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perry, as in the presidential candidate? No.

Parry, as in deflecting an opponent's sword or other type of weapon? Yes... Seleucus (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this chap? Britmax (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing of one sentence in section 5.3 - Social Policy

The explanation of Perry's "Mandatory Ultrasound Bill" says that "Before every abortion, the abortion practitioner must give an explanation of the sonogram images of the unborn child. The woman may waive this right only in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and judicial bypass for a minor."

The problem I see is that this procedure is mandatory, potentially against the woman's will, which means it is not a right, it is an obligation. I suggest an amendment of the explanation to read as follows:

"The woman has the right to waive this procedure only in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and judicial bypass for a minor."

This more accurately describes the relationship between the woman's rights and the law's force.

Mguttman (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. The former wording was ambiguous. Done. Kessy628 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Denial of being gay

I'm considering whether to add a line to reflect some recent international press comment on concerns in the Perry camp that resurfacing accusations of him being gay will impact upon his campaign e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006527/Possible-Republican-presidential-candidate-Rick-Perry-battling-gay-rumours--seven-years-denial.html It seems that he went on record in 2004 to specifically refute suh allegations. Any thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you wait, as it's unlikely to get any traction. It's certainly nothing I ever heard before. The Daily Mail does this sort of trolling on a regular basis, printing rumors to see if they're denied, admitted or ignored, and hoping they'll be picked up by other media (which now includes Wikipedia). They try get some back-and-forth going, and then they claim they "broke the story". Any reaction at all means they sell copies. Don't help them out, aka don't feed the trolls. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Contaldo80. I never heard anything like that either. Maybe you should ask yourself whether there's any actual proof that Perry was gay before you start editing wikipedia and inventing stories. In any case, it's not relevant to the article. Mardiste (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a google search and yeah it's there. But it doesn't change my opinion. Nobody's every proven a single thing. Ignore the trolls who are so sure about what they think they know. Mardiste (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding the policy but I believe in a nutshell it states that unless the subject of the BLP affirms they are gay or they are outed in a major reliable source, then wikipedia does not contribute to rumor mongering and the article should remain mute on the topic. Please correct me if I am wrong or better yet provide the link to the correct policy. Veriss (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Veriss has it right. WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:REDFLAG pretty much say this doesn't deserve inclusion from what I can tell. Kessy628 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Veriss! It was in the Washington Post. Mardiste (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.slate.com/id/2266921/

The article you linked stated several times that they were rumors. Why did you link it? Veriss (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I linked it because you asked me to link it. Please scroll up the page approximately two inches Mardiste (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not something invented by the Daily Mail. The rumors have been around for a while. My recollection is that Hutchison tried to push the idea in the 2010 primary but she wanted to do so without leaving her fingerprints on it, and it didn't have much impact. Well-sourced information on that point or on the impact of the rumors on his current campaign could be included in the daughter articles (each of those campaigns already has one), but I don't see anything there that's important enough for the main bio, unless it becomes much more prominent. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I could care less if he's gay or not. I requested an article where he stated he was gay or a major reliable source outed him. The article you linked stated several times, in the article, they were examining rumors. Full Stop...invalid cite...you know it is...why paste it except to be silly. Why did you waste everyone's time by pasting yet another rumor mongering article? Veriss (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Environment Positions need to be edited

I don't know why in the hell this article is locked, but the bit in there about his environmental positions related to climate change needs to say that he believes that "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects."

Here is the cite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/rick-perry-climate-scientists-cooking-the-books_n_929876.html

This is a key accusation by this dude on a major policy issue and needs to be included in this (rather lame) entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kessy628 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast, that's a HuffPost blog entry by what appears to be a freelance blogger. Need to be careful with HuffPost blogs appearing as articles. I know you meant well Kessy but I need to temporarily revert it until we can find other sources. Veriss (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Check lower on the page. There's a video of his speech if you want to link directly to that. Specifically look around 1 min in, and the exact quote is said. Kessy628 (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, was working on the image deletion nomination reply so hadn't had time to look for alternate sources yet. Saw you already reverted. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dudes for changing this--however, I think some caveat needs to be put in there that his accusations about climate science and climate scientists are not presented with reference to actual cases. There is a quote in there of this dude saying something about "every day another scientist is leaving the global warming bandwagon" and there is another quote where he says there are a "substantial number of scientists" pushing global warming for cash. These quotes are presented in the article as him "feeling" or "believing" these things. As a matter of accuracy it needs to be clarified that he is just pulling this crap from nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude, your quote of "As a matter of accuracy it needs to be clarified that he is just pulling this crap from nowhere" might be an interesting avenue to explore if you could provide some citations that you are not yourself pulling this stuff out of someplace dark and scary. If not, your comments come off as just partisan. Veriss (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry#Supreme Court Justice Steve Smith

This section has been tagged as uncited since June. After reading it twice, it seems to go into detail about the political misfortunes of a justice but barely relates to Perry. My inclination is that it can be reduced to a short paragraph and moved to the general section about Perry's term as Gov. or removed completely. In what ever form it takes it of course needs to be sourced or removed soon. Veriss (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking for sources in my free time for that section, and I've found limited nonpartisan, non-blog sources detailing it. It may be better to remove it completely, unless someone can find mainstream sources. Kessy628 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Over a week and no improvement. I'll just delete it. Veriss (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sub-articles?

The "Governor" section has gotten huge. Do you think it's time to move it into a sub-article and replace with a summary? That seems to be standard practice for articles like this, such as Barack Obama or Sarah Palin. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think yours is a good suggestion but that for now the article is currently too unstable to consider that option yet. Veriss (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

texas observer

The Texas Observer is a very good source for what's going on in Texas regarding Mr Perry http://www.texasobserver.org/the-perry-trail

It's already in the article. Look under the external links section, local coverage. Kessy628 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The page linked above is subtitled Investigating Texas' Longest Serving Governor. A popup signed Susan Longley, President, Texas Democracy Foundation, Publisher of The Texas Observer came up when I clicked on that link, saying, "Texas needs a progressive watchdog more than ever. All around Texas, The Texas Observer uncovers injustice and corruption with a fiercely independent spirit — and a big ol' dollop of wit." The The Texas Observer article says, "The non-profit magazine is nonpartisan, but the publication has historically been an advocate for liberal politics.", citing this. They might or might not be a WP:RS source re Perry (I have no idea), but they don't appear to be nonpartisan. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, by the same token I could say that (for instance) the Wall Street Journal is nonpartisan, but it's historically been an advocate for conservative politics. Still, the WSJ is a WP:RS.

I would say that the Texas Observer looks like a WP:RS, as it's a publication with editorial oversight, and it's won a fair number of awards. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any major controversies/misreportings in the past (at least, none listed on their WP page.) I would be cautious though not to rely solely upon it for sourcing, if it makes an unlikely-sounding claim.Seleucus (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I did most of the work on the external links and will take any blame if needed. Though I did not do an academic survey of each link, I added the links that were requested by editors and made sure there was a rough representation of both liberal leaning and conservative leaning sources and that the links were well organized to aid the readers. If I was asked to take a scientific wild assed guess, I would guess that the liberal leaning links outweigh the conservative at least slightly. Veriss (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add Perry's investment in pornography distributor to article.

I propose that the following text be added to the article:

Perry has been accused of hypocrisy for investing between $5,000 and $10,000 of his own money in Movie Gallery, the country's largest distributor of pornography. The company had been under boycott by the American Family Association, a supporter of Perry's.

71.182.251.33 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a poor source for controversial items. However it has also been mentioned by Salon and the International Business Times (which I've never heard of before). It's a rather small investment, and I wouldn't think it to be especially noteworthy. But in politics it's hard to say which story will get traction. If we add it we should say who is accusing him of hypocrisy.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I recall Movie Gallery mostly rented mainstream movies. Porn being a hot-botton issue, if the article includes this, fairness demands that a statement from Perry's camp also be included. It's going to turn into a whole paragraph devoted to what is not a major story. Brmull (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the original commenter in this thread. Only 3 minutes after posting, the commentator made this substantial post, and is therefore almost certain to be the banned editor User:Grundle2600. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After looking into the issue it appears to be a glob of mud hoping it will stick somewhere. Perry's camp states he sold the stock the same year he bought it. $10k invested in a large corporation such as that is nothing, it's not like he was a major shareholder or sat on the board. The IBT report appears to have based their reporting on Salon's article which cites blogs and other obscure liberal media so the RS appears to keep going downhill. I think if there was anything to it, the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times would've gladly picked it up by now but nothing shows when searching their sites, not even on their blogs. Veriss (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Obama2012.com

12.^ "Rick Perry's Texas A&M Transcript". huffingtonpost.com. August 5, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html. Retrieved August 16, 2011. 13.^ Computational methodology at Talk:Rick_Perry#Rick_Perry.27s_G.P.A.

The Huffington Post is notorious for being an attack website much as Fox News for being Faux News.

What is this "computational methodology"? I thought that Wikipedia had some sort of "no independent synthesis or research" rule? If so, someone is using their own calculator to prove Perry is an idiot. He is an idiot but so are quite a few politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User123456789A (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Post article is a upload of his transcript, not a written version of someone typing it up from looking at it. As for the method, its highly detailed here aka above. And wikipedia has that rule, but as mentioned above (in detail) WP:CALC is 1 of the various exceptions to it. Kessy628 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This WP:CALC issue may be "overcome by events" now. One of the previously existing citations linked to a Texas Tribune article that stated his GPA was 2.5. I pointed that out in the discussion above about calculating his GPA which determined it to be 2.22. After ten days without any discussion to resolve the discrepancy I changed the article to reflect the 2.5 and removed the reference to the "computational method" used. I remain undecided about the link to the HuffPost blog entry as no longer needed so left it for now though I would like to see a discussion about it's ultimate fate at some point. Veriss (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Should his biography include the fact that he was a Bilderberg attendee

This had been in the article for about 3 years until removed without explanation on May 1st. I only noticed this after someone removed his name from List of Bilderberg participants with no explanation, and it clearly belongs there. Perry is not a typical attendee and if it isn't appropriate here it certainly isn't appropriate in other articles such as Gordon Campbell's, so this may affect other articles. It's become a subject of discussion again in the last few days, see [6]. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll note for editors reviewing this, the current consensus through several discussions above is not to include at the moment. It appears to be WP:UNDUE and there is little context to why the meeting was important in reliable sources vs any of the other events he attends. There are some conspiracy theories around the event, but little specific to Perry. There does not appear to be any controversy around this topic at the moment to make it notable. Morphh ^(talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that this guy's attendance at a PTA meeting or a town hall is the same as if he takes off to go to a secret meeting in Turkey of world leaders and three years later suddently becomes a viable presidential candidate with money flowing in like water and CNN preempting their Saturday broadcasting for the guy. Maybe so--but aren't you stretching it a bit. What other normal meetings do you think a Bilderberg attendance is equivalent too??? --the Austin ladies' club??? Yea. Right. (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would agree with Morphh. After checking the articles on the other attendees, there wasn’t mention of their attendance in many of the biographies. Why is it any more notable for Perry than Colin Powell? ZHurlihee (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that Bilderberg should not be mentioned in the article. Seleucus (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The guy attends a secret conference of world leaders and 3 years later is a viable presidential candidate with money flowing in and CNN preempting all its programing for him last Saturday. OK. Let's just not include anything that's not favorable to the guy. Or why not just ask Perry and see what he wants??? Truth in journalism??? OK. (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's clearly not secret, otherwise we wouldn't know he was there. It doesn't seem to have any specific relevance to his biography. In my opinion it shouldn't be included. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think the Bilderber meetings are not secret you better do some editing on your wikipedia article on the Bilderberg which says that the meetings are secret--ie press not allowed. If you believe this guy did not go to a secret meeting in Turkey attended by world political and business leaders three years ago maybe you should be still waiting for the Easter Bunny.(Sheilakissane (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I've stated in several posts above, I remain opposed to including that bare bit of data unless there is also context as to why it is significant with reliable sourcing. Merely being in the article for three years does not somehow give the assertion more protection then any other assertion. It just means that someone finally caught it or cared enough to remove it. Veriss (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto to what Veriss said. My opposition to inclusion is said relatively extensively above. Kessy628 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is made up too. Hey guys. Wake up and smell the roses. There are three blogs on this subject. How often does that happen?? Guess that shows you may be wrong about this being important--but I guess that depends on your agenda. (Sheilakissane (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Saw this at RfC. It seems clear that one user wishes to put undue weight on a fringe theory. It's best left out. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you add some more information to the paragraph on his vacation to Asia? That's probably more non-fringe and more important than his trip to a secret meeting of the world's political leaders in Turkey.

Yea. Right. There are 3 or 4 separate blogs on this started by 3 or 4 different people. Fringe theory? What theory? Do you know what a theory is?? Are you saying you don't believe the guy took the trip and that it's just a theory?? Or maybe you think its not significant. Maybe next time he goes to a secret meeting in Turkey with world political and economic leaders we can get him to give a press conference announcing that he plans to make some deals, some quid pro quos, and plans to violate the Logan Act. Or maybe you just have an agenda and would still have another series of objections to including this information?? You are on the fringe in censoring information that is true, fully documented, and people want to know about. This is so much BS. (Sheilakissane (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia doesn't care what blogs say, or how many blogs were started, because blogs are not reliable sources. That's because anyone can set up a blog, and say anything they like - and yes, they can even set up four separate blogs and claim to be four different people. Are there any reliable sources that say this guy violated the Logan Act? I don't have "an agenda", I was selected at random by a computer program to comment on this, and I never heard of this guy until today. Your contributions, on the other hand, look rather like those of a single purpose account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Sheilakissane, is that there are no reliable sources supporting the thesis you are strongly implying here, which is that there is some sort of causal relationship between Perry attending a Bilderberg meeting "and three years later suddenly becomes a viable presidential candidate with money flowing in like water and CNN preempting their Saturday broadcasting for the guy", to use your words. It would be naive to not acknowledge that you would like readers to consider the possibility that Perry is some sort of Manchurian Candidate whereby the primary explanation for Perry's current prominence is that some time ago the Bilderberg Club decided that Perry would assume the Presidency such that what we are seeing now is simply the rollout of this plan. I'm sorry but this fits squarely into Wikipedia's definition of a conspiracy theory as a "fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators".--Brian Dell (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he attended is no less a fact, even if it is tied to "conspiracy." Kennedy was assassinated, would you leave out that fact just because there are various controversies over how it happened? The argument that including Bilderberg attendance is verboten, because some people consider that proof of conspiracy is a straw man. Please keep to the facts, thanks. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think people are mixing up the reasons here for not putting this in the article. No one is disputing that he attended the Bilderberg meeting, nor is anyone disputing that there are conspiracies about the meetings in general. What people are disputing is whether this is notable enough to include in the article. So far, no one has produced any reliable, non-blog sources about this event, which in turn has led to a consensus that the event is not notable enough to include. As a reminder, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is Wikipedia a comprehensive source of information on every event to have happened to a person. Also, see WP:EVENT. Kessy628 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, on to the notability. The article is a biography, and being invited seems to be quite an honor, why is that not notable? If I had been invited, I sure would want that in my biography? The whole point for me is that it should be at least mentioned, it is a pretty distinct privilege to be invited to a meeting. Since it is referenced in another Wikipedia article, a link to that information would enhance the ease of use for the encyclopedia, if people are interested in confirming or dismissing the fact as "conspiracy theory." Thanks for making Wikipedia easier to use and helping people find information in it. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Also notable and of significance--according to the Wikipedia list of attendees--Rick Perry is one of only two US governors who have ever been invited to attend a Bilderberg meeting. Also interesting that the only other governor invited was Mark Sanford who--according to Wikipedia--was also a leading candidate for the republican presidency in the 2012 election. Perhaps there are other governors who were invited by Bilderberg but Wikipedia censored this information too. Excluding this important trip from Perry's bio and--yet-- including a blurb about a vacation to Asia is blatant yellow journalism. (Sheilakissane (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Include very brief mention - If the sources indicate that he did indeed attend the meeting (an annual meeting which past presidents and other muckamucks have attended) that simple fact should be included in the article. Trivia could be excluded, but attending a significant meeting is not trivia. Undue weight could be a problem if it were a whole paragraph, but a single sentence is not undue. POV/Fringe could be a problem, if conspiracy theories were included, but if the sentence merely states that he attended, POV/Fringe would not a problem. An even better solution is to include it in a longer sentence that lists several events, such as "Perry has participated in several leadership forums, including AAA, BBB, CCC, Bilderberg, and DDD". That would be encyclopedic and should satisfy all concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Perry, he was invited to speak at the event. He gave a speech on energy policy and then left, only staying for a few of the presentations. We have much more coverage with him speaking at CPAC, the Republican Leadership Conference, and numerous other events. I guess we could list them all out, but I'm not sure we're doing that on other biographies, unless they are major and highly notable in his life based on coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, Bilderberg is not even close to the top. Morphh ^(talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to also mention, I just looked at the List of Bilderberg participants. Not only does the only other US governor on the list, Mark Sanford not have anything about him attending on his page, but the only pages that I found reliably sourced information about any US politician attending were Roger Altman (who's on the group's Steering Committee), Charles Douglas Jackson (who's a founder), and George Wildman Ball (who according to his article attended every meeting except one until died; much more than Perry's single visit). Many of the other people listed on the list have no reference at all in their articles (definitely a majority), including Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, and John Edwards, to name a few. For the ones who do have that they attended, it is either unsourced or in a style mentioned by Noleander above. I think the fact that Sanford not having anything listed, him being the only other governor on the list of participants, is the style we should be looking at, as it's the closest match in terms of similar articles. Kessy628 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

- Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. The fact that Sanford's attendance at Bilderberg is not included in his bio is merely an indication to me that --although it should have been--it was not because it was censored in the past. Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, and John Edwards should have the fact that they attended Bilderberg included on their history. So--rather than showing cause to not include the Bilderberg trip on Perry's bio--I believe you have turned up a number of past yellow journalistic censorships on the part of Wikipedia that have occurred (or possibly just omissions that should be cured). Interesting that John Edwards attended and he was a major Democratic presidential candidate in past years. Curiouser and curiouser. (Sheilakissane (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) — Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've dealt with accusations of law breaking above, and removed a post by an editor. Any accusations of violating the Logan Act should be removed from articles and talk pages. No one's been indicted under this act for over 2 centuries.

Likewise we should not be using adjectives to describe the Bilderberg group meetings in BLP articles, be the adjective 'secretive', 'controversial' or even 'prestigious' - clearly such adjectives are POV and generally used as a way to attack the subject of the article.

Given the number of meetings of various kinds that Bilderberg participants attend, there is rarely any reason to mention Bilderberg and in my experience for most mentions they have again been there to denigrate the subject of the article.

Bilderberg can be mentioned for some people when it's been an important part of their career in some way (eg the founders) or they have played some sort of major role in the Bilderberg group. If it becomes a more important issue in Perry's campaign then it's relevant and can and probably should be mentioned.

As an aside, some blogs can be used as sources where they are in mainstream media with editorial control. It doesn't mean they should be, just that they can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a law is not enforced is is not valid???

No. Better have a look at the wikipedia article on Bilderberg where the meetings are described as secret. "Secret" in the sense that the media is excluded, there is heavy security at the meetings to keep out snoopers (Wikipedia readers), and nobody but the attendees--whos who in industry, politics, and economics from all over the world--know what was discussed. Not "secret" in the sense that the Dallas Morning News did not publish an article on May 31 2007 entitle "Perry to attend secret meeting in Turkey." It is not a secret that the meetings take place.

Maybe you are right. It's much more important to mention that Perry took a vacation to Asia or that he attended a meeting of the Austin pta last week. Are you for real?? (Sheilakissane (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't see where the article describes a vacation to Asia or the meeting of the Austin pta. There is a mention of trade mission to Asia with regard to a controversy of spending Texas funds for the security detail. So the event is not the focus, but the spending of funds and the controversy around it. As for Austin, the only thing I see it added as a location description for other information, not a trip within itself. Could you clarify? We may need to remove the material you mention. Morphh ^(talk) 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg publishes a list of participants and their agenda. They say " Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.

Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-eight conferences have been held. The names of the participants are made available to the press. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, and their standing; all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity." And it is extremely likely that a law that has not been enforced in two centuries is not valid - it hasn't been challenged because there's been no reason to challenge a law that never gets used, but a number of people seem to think it is unconstitutional. But that's beside the point, which is that no editor should take it upon themselves to suggest that anyone has violated any law. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From the Perry bio. Even the guys trip to the Caymen Islands is mentioned but I guess Bilderberg doesn't count-- "In June 2010, Perry went on a 12-day trade mission to East Asia. The security detail for the trip cost $129,000 in state money. The Texas Government attempted to block the media's scrutiny of the use of the funds as they contained information that could compromise the future security of the state's senior executive. A member of White's gubernatorial campaign stated that Perry should, "stop hiding the facts on fiscal issues like what he's charging taxpayers for travel". Perry's campaign countered that the trip led to greater exposure for Texas business opportunities in Asia.[74][75] In all, Perry made 23 foreign trips from 2004 to 2010, including a vacation on Grand Cayman" Curiouser and curiouser. (Sheilakissane (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Caymen Islands is mentioned from what I can tell because it seemed to be a personal vacation on taxpayer money. Just my 2 cents there. Kessy628 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheilakissane, this is a controversy about government funding of trips, just as Obama is currently being criticized for tax payer funded campaigning on his bus tour. It's not about the location or the event, it's about the funding of the trip. Morphh ^(talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Sounds like he paid for his vacation to the Caymen Islands--might has missed it but I don't see where it says the state paid. His PAC paid for his trip to the secret Bilderberg conference so it's not necessarily about funding and most of the money controversy was around the $129,000 plus bills for security (some of which may have been incurred on his junket to Bilderberg). (Sheilakissane (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Seeking Compromise

I still have some reservations about this as I have long opposed mentioning the Bilderberg trip on the grounds of notability and WP:RS. I was also concerned that it would provide a beachhead for theorists to expand even a brief mention of it into something more. However, because an apparently intractable, single-purpose account has besieged this talk page for nearly a week over a single sentence, I am willing to find a compromise to clear the air and let us move on to more important issues.

I think User:Noleander's suggestion is a starting point. "An even better solution is to include it in a longer sentence that lists several events, such as "Perry has participated in several leadership forums, including AAA, BBB, CCC, Bilderberg, and DDD". That would be encyclopedic and should satisfy all concerns."

Please comment Support or Oppose and give your reasoning and if applicable, some suggested wording or attended events with reliable sources along with your position. Veriss (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Undecided: I still have reservations as discussed immediately above but am willing to support a reasonable solution that lets us move forward. Veriss (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I offered a route to a possible compromise but the SPA refused to seize the opportunity to change the disruptive behavior and work with other editors to craft a compromise. For this reason and the fact that I still don't think it merits inclusion at this point in time I have decided to oppose. Veriss (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems we're dealing with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is becoming disruptive. It bothers me that the clear consensus is being bullied with this OCD tactic. Stating that, I wouldn't oppose a sentence, as described by Noleander, that described major speaking engagements / events that included Bilderberg if we find that it's due weight. Problem is, we haven't seen that it's anything but a very minor event reported a few news sources. In relation to other events, it becomes a tiny minority. At this point, using Noleander's example, I see it as AAA, BBB, CCC, YYY, and DDD. YYY being it's relative order of importance in reliable sources, which seems to violate weight. Morphh ^(talk) 20:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I understand that Perry's participation in the Bilderberg conference is a fairly minor event in his life, but it did happen, and I'd err on the side of inclusion (and avoiding accusations that WP is whitewashing a controversial topic). Including it in a list of several political forums that Perry participated in (indeed, it looks like he presented at Bilderberg, which is usually a big deal) seems encyclopedic and informative. --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I understand that this happened, but there has been literally no reliable and mainstream coverage of it outside of blogs. To include this would be to open up for every convention and group that Perry has attended to be included. Furthermore, as noted above, except for those who have had major experiences with the group, no other politician that has attended this conference has this information listed on their pages. Until there is a reliable source that makes this more notable than any other run of the mill conference, I can't see grounds for inclusion. Kessy628 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Kessy628: could you check the sources listed immediately below and comment on whether they are RS? --Noleander (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

They're definitely RS by my opinion, but I still stand opposed. I'm not concerned about the reliability of sources looking at them specifically; like you said, blogs can be reliable sources as long as the info stated is fact vs. opinion. What im opposing its inclusion on is notability and standardization. As I said above, I still don't think this conference alone is notable enough to put in, and if it's added in it sets a dangerous precedent for including any conference Perry or any other politician for that matter attend in a biography. Furthermore, also as I said above, Mark Sanford and other major politicans who went to the conference, including Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford according to the list on wikipedia, don't have any reference at all to the conference. I know it's just an essay and not hard policy, but WP:OSE is another reason for my opposition to adding this in. It's just not important enough as of now, but I definitely agree that if the trip becomes an issue on the campaign trail it should be added. Kessy628 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oppose ...until there is coverage by multiple, reliable WP:RS sources, in which case a mention such as User:Noleander suggests is appropriate. Blogs aren't reliable sources for a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

LuckyLouie: I'm not sure where this "only blogs" information is coming from. Many notable sources wrote entire articles on the trip, such as:

• Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Perry's road show‎; Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Jun 26, 2007; Rick Perry says he's eager to travel the state telling Texans his version of what ... A few weeks ago, he was in; Turkey to speak to the secretive Bilderberg ...
• Dallas Morning News, The : Perry off to secret forum in...‎; Dallas Morning News - May 31, 2007; AUSTIN Gov Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul Turkey today to speak at the super secret Bilderberg; Conference a meeting of about 130 international leaders in ...
• Austin American-Statesman : Perry speaking to top-secret...‎; Austin American-Statesman - Jun 1, 2007; Fresh off of Monday's end to the legislative session Gov Rick Perry is in Istanbul Turkey this week to speak to the Bilderberg Conference a topsecret ...

[two more sources:]

• Perry's push for highway raises conspiracy buzz | Front...‎; Houston Chronicle - Aug 18, 2007; AUSTIN Black helicopters the Illuminati Gov Rick Perry and the ... Turkey to attend the secretive; Bilderberg conference which conspiracy theorists believe ...
• Comments on: Immigration Collapse A Blow To Bush - CBS News‎; CBS News - Jun 9, 2007; Protesters in the Austin TX area will be joining together to demonstrate against Rick Perry's recent trip to Istanbul to meet in secret with the Bilderberg ...

Those sources, plus the fact that many anti-Perry forces are harping on the trip now (in 2011) make it at least worthy of a minor mention in this article. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you post other linkable sources here for evaluation and discussion. The three Texas papers word-for-word phrasing suggests a single news org. The Atlantic is pretty good - however I'd feel better if they published a direct report rather than attribute it as allegations from talk show callers. Never mind, I found a number of G-news references from papers outside of Texas. So if reliable sources report he attended a Bilderberg meeting, we report it appropriately. What's the beef? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander has made some progress with getting sources, but having a reference does not mean it satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Ranked by reliable sources, what if Bilderberg is the 35 most discussed event he attended - do we list the other 34? Or should it be 1-5 and Bilderberg? Due weight takes into account the quantity and quality of sources and the prominence in those sources. Bilderberg does not appear to be anything but a minor news story - a tiny minority. So we can find a source for it, good step, but I can find hundreds of sources to thousands of facts. Why is it important to his biography based on what we have? Morphh ^(talk) 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have requested expert assistance at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:_Rick_Perry so we can get some outside eyes on this. Veriss (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The guy was invited--one of 120 atendees at a secret international meeting including top political, economic, and industry figures from all over the world convening to "foster cooperation" (according to wiki article on Bilderberg). Why conceal the fact that Perry attended and let your readers decide what "fostering cooperation" means-- if someone wants to accuse the guy of some conspiracy --so what??. Are we trying to control people's thoughts and imaginings here or include what is significant and noteworthy in peoples' bios?? I don't see anyone in any of the blogs proposing or putting forward the fostering of a "manchurian candidate" scenario here. That's an old movie and the cold war ended in case you hadn't heard. (Sheilakissane (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose at the moment - partially because I don't think we should be compromising with a SPA, and because although I think it's hovering on being important enough to be included (only due to his presidential campaign and for no other reason), I think it is hovering, not there yet, and our BLP policy I think suggests when in doubt, leave it out. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(Removed text which was a clear BLP violation) Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is any of this available from reliable, verifiable sources? If so, it can be included in the article. If not, it can't. It's as simple as that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And as it is just the SPA's forum style attack on Perry and Bilderberg, and a BLP violation, I've removed it. If he continues BLP violations or even forum style posts he's on his way to being blocked as a disruptive editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from above--in this same section. Duh. I dunno. You tell me---

Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Perry's road show‎; Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Jun 26, 2007; Rick Perry says he's eager to travel the state telling Texans his version of what ... A few weeks ago, he was in; Turkey to speak to the secretive Bilderberg ...

Dallas Morning News, The : Perry off to secret forum in...‎; Dallas Morning News - May 31, 2007; AUSTIN Gov Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul Turkey today to speak at the super secret Bilderberg; Conference a meeting of about 130 international leaders in ...

Austin American-Statesman : Perry speaking to top-secret...‎; Austin American-Statesman - Jun 1, 2007; Fresh off of Monday's end to the legislative session Gov Rick Perry is in Istanbul Turkey this week to speak to the Bilderberg Conference a topsecret ...

[two more sources:]

Perry's push for highway raises conspiracy buzz | Front...‎; Houston Chronicle - Aug 18, 2007; AUSTIN Black helicopters the Illuminati Gov Rick Perry and the ... Turkey to attend the secretive; Bilderberg conference which conspiracy theorists believe ...

Comments on: Immigration Collapse A Blow To Bush - CBS News‎; CBS News - Jun 9, 2007; Protesters in the Austin TX area will be joining together to demonstrate against Rick Perry's recent trip to Istanbul to meet in secret with the Bilderberg ...

And I would add video of a channel 8 newscast from Austin and a show of Glenn Beck's. Do you doubt that the guy attended a secret international Bilderberg conference 3 years ago in Turkey with politician, ecnomists, and industrialists from all over the world to "foster international cooperation"???? Do you think it never happened??? Do you believe we ever landed on the moon??? Hello.... (Sheilakissane (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please stop posting the same thing over and over and over again. It's giving me a headache. Morphh ^(talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I don't know why this is important, but a lot of people seem to think it is, so it warrants a brief mention. Brmull (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are a lot of people - a couple editors or prevalence in reliable sources? The latter is the measure for inclusion, not the former, and I haven't seen much to convince me that it's anything but a very minor event in his biography. Morphh ^(talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources, silly. Someone listed several above. In a 30 second Google search I found several more. Brmull (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What did you search? I just searched "rick perry bilderberg" and every link on the first page was a conspiracy theory blog posting. I've already given my opinion that the above sources are viable, but the issue here still isn't the reliablity of sources covering the event. I don't know why people keep bringing that up the issue when it's been solved the issue at hand here is WP:DUE. Nothing against you Brmull, but I want to make clear the reason for opposition given by me and at least 1-2 other editors. Kessy628 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mention in The Dallas Morning News in 2008. Opinion column from the Joplin Globe in 2008. Brief mentions regarding cost in The Chron in 2009 and 2010. Bilderberg was discussed in several recent articles in The New American. Also recently discussed in two Romanian newspapers Ziare and Realitatea. There's also Politico. Brmull (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The suggested passage seems reasonable and encyclopediac to me, but I do not like the idea of including something simply to appease a single disruptive editor. Seleucus (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen at support to include this from at least 4 or 5 others. So to say I am the only is a gross mischaracterization-again. Also have been 5 sections started on this and I only started one so you comment is coming out of your back end.(Sheilakissane (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your position is clearly non-neutral, and your tone above skirts very close to the WP:NPA line. Use extreme caution here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the caution. And I would advise you to get real.(Sheilakissane (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Trust me. I'm more than real enough. Real enough, at the very least, to state that I Oppose based on questionable reliability and non-neutrality of the sources. And real enough to recognize a single-purpose account when presented with one. My work here is done. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye. You need to go to the Wikipedia article on the US moon landing and contest it based on neutrality and the absence of reliable sources. A lot of people think that was faked on a Hollywood set. Maybe you can prove it(Sheilakissane (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Sheila, you realize that you have to get most of these editors you are insulting to agree to put Bilderberg in the article? Several including myself don't feel that strongly, so being nice would likely improve your chances considerably. Brmull (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the ones who supported inclusion provided it is weighted appropriately (i.e. Bilderberg mentioned in a list of several other conferences Perry attended) and does not contain or even obliquely suggest any fringe conspiracy spin. I do however respect the consensus of experienced editors. If there is a majority who do not want to include it, that's how WP works, I would not lose sleep over it. I suggest the SPA, having said their piece several times over, step back and let the process go forward without disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I hear you. Understand that some of my posts have been mischaracterized. I am not promoting the impuning of any quid pro quos or any conspiracy theories to the guy's attendance. No doubt but that the guy went and I believe it is important to include the fact that he was invited and did attend--120 attendees, the world leaders in politics, economics, and industry, trying to arrive at consensuses (don't have to say all that). I just believe to not report it is yellow journalism and do not understand some of the objections--just don't compute. Please understand that I am new to this just got hooked in because I looked at Perry's bio, tried to put it in, and had my info deleted. But not promoting the inclusion of any implications that the guy was necessarily doing any dirt. It should be reported and--as far as I am concerned--people can make up their own minds about it. I understand you guys don't editorialize--not advocating that. I will rest my case (72.222.135.204 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)) Sorry. Forgot to sign it.(72.222.135.204 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC))— Sheilakissane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

After ten days, the consensus appears to be double opposing. I move that this line of line of discussion be shelved until such a time as interesting sources make it relevant to the article. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Brmull (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Ri--Noleander (talk)

Sounds like truth in journalism on Wikipedia and the accurate recording of history are subject to majority rule. If Perry's invitation to Bilderberg is not important enough to include in a 500 plus word bio on the guy, maybe you should just eliminate it altogether from any inclusion anywhere. Since this is a secret meeting I'm sure the organizers will not be upset. (Sheilakissane (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC))

Ultimately that's true. Everything in WP boils down to "the side that has the most reverts wins" :) Brmull (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - of course this should be inclueded, chiefly b/c he could be billed as a picked canidiate, he is establishment, and not grass roots, he would be part of a list that was recruited from the Democratic Party, a switch he made in which he wrote no formal letter of resignation stating the reason why, he is described as having perfect timing, almost engineered, he could easily be listed in the cast of characters, http://theamericandreamfilm.com/the-cast.php, a closer look will put the bilderberg with this organization that created the Fed, which he critizies, but does that mean end? as far as weigot goes Republicanas google Crony capitalism you get 3573000 and yet that is not mentioned, finally b/c this is a presidential election, I beleive that all who edit on elections should provide their actual name and sign off so that their IP address is recorded - everyone else should be excluded from the discussion - otherwise there is no way to determine who is a paid campaign staff member of the Perry campaign ===A VIOLATION=== of Wiki rules, and who is a Foreign National interfering in a Presidential Election a VIOLATION of FEC rules(talk)