Talk:Rick Perry veto controversy

Removed the non-free mugshot image until there has been a determination that the image is truly legally usable under fair use

I removed the mugshot image until image has valid reason provided on the image's talk page, explaining why this non-free image cannot be simply replaced with a free image of Rick Perry from his main article. It just seems that according to the fair use exemption to the copyright laws there must be compelling need to use the mugshot for Perry, instead of a free image, which Wikipedia already has in stock. There is a picture of Wikipedia has already acquired properly. The requirements of the fair use exception are not met.--NK (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Says who? There is no reason to remove the image. As explained above it fits smack into fair use doctrine. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What is general policy on this? This may violate WP:BLP. Afronig (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How? Please point to the exact text in the policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Restored image. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't come close to violating any policies.- MrX 17:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Read WP:BLPCRIME on the guidance of mugshots. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Afronig (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion on a civilized level. I don't see anything in BLPCRIME that mentions mugshots. Here is the full text:

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

- MrX 18:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't call what I'm saying nonsense (or tag team to that effect) and I won't call what you're saying bullshit. Afronig (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed not a tabloid, and we have great policies to guide us. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR which contains very useful information about how to source materials and how not to conduct original research. And please keep it civil if you can. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The policy is not WP:BLPCRIME, it is WP:MUG and it says this:

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed.

There is a general consensus minus Arzel and NK that the image is being used in appropriate context. Arzel has asked that the booking photo be moved down to the "mugshot" section and I think we can accommodate that just fine and use another photo of Rick Perry for the infobox. However, mugshots are not disallowed as a rule.--v/r - TP 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I planned to do it after I expanded on the mugshot section. There is quite a bit more media out there about it - I just haven't felt up to it.--v/r - TP 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC source.--v/r - TP 22:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(wow) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have moved the mugshot image to the mugshot section. I think it is best to leave any portrait photo out of the main infobox so readers don't think this article is a biography.- MrX 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Staying close to the sources

@Afronig: - I appreciate your efforts, but we have to stay close to the sources. The source says "surrendered" and that is what we have to use. We can't make up stuff, just because we "know" the source is wrong. We have to stay close to the sources, per WP:V. Ditto about your addition about a habeas corpus. Find a source for that and you can keep the edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The KERA (public television) source says arrived. Just because one source uses a loaded word does not mean Wikipedia has to, especially since in this case the word "surrender" implies arrest to the general reader, and thus WP:BLP issues arise. While arrest has different legal meanings, Rick Perry was not custodially arrested. The Writ petition is cited already. There is a paragraph blurb, and a Google search will give much more information. I did create another section in talk about expounding on this earlier. Afronig (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop using Twinkle. That does not assume good faith. Afronig (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Arrived" as if just went to see a movie? He did not "arrive", he presented himself to authorities as any other person in this country that gets indicted. Do we need to make some accommodations because he is a Governor? Absolutely not. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Our sources say: "Surrendered" and "turned himself in" - Please see WP:V - Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Afronig: Stop telling people to stop using Twinkle. Your assertion has no basis in policies or guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is a rollback tool and Wikipedia policy absolutely says it's not to be misused. If this continues, I will escalate this matter to a review of editorial misconduct pursuant to Wikipedia's arbitration procedure. Afronig (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Afronig: Please give a diff to back up your misuse claim. If you can't do this, expect your edict to be ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Rollback, not my edict. While this is now a moot point, if you intentionally disrupt Wikipedia now by rolling back edits through Twinkle or any other mode, I will escalate that intentional misuse through the dispute resolution process. Afronig (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Afronig: Might want to read what you're linking to more closely: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In :re Perry surrendering vs. arriving, there is a difference in what sources as to this verbiage. From a BLP perspective, the article cannot imply that Perry was arrested, because he was not. That's my main point there. Afronig (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong here. Apologies. Did not see this:

The patrolling tool Twinkle adds links in similar places to the "rollback" links, and also calls them "rollback". Anyone using both will see both types of "rollback" link, which can be a little confusing. Unlike rollback, Twinkle may be used by any autoconfirmed user. Other than this, the links are functionally the same, but differ in their choice of edit summaries. Twinkle also offers additional options.

As a fairly new editor, my belief is policy needs to change. I saw no difference between Rollback and Twinkle, but that's beyond the scope of us here. Afronig (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are indicted, you don't "arrive" at county jail. You are compelled by law to surrender yourself to authorities so that you can be booked. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the citation for this assertion, preferably from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure or a secondary source? KERA uses the word arrive, the other source uses the word surrender. Both mean the same thing, in this regard. Perry was not arrested, but still had to appear for booking, and in regards to WP:BLP, an arrest cannot be alleged. Afronig (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to present only one point of view.

Based on some of the cited sources, it appears that this article's stance is slanted toward the case "that the charges [are] political and partisan". Specifically citations number 7 (Nolan Hicks (April 24, 2014). "Perry aides offered Lehmberg a job for resignation". MySanAntonio. Retrieved August 21, 2014) and number 8 (Laurel Brubaker Calkins (August 21, 2014). "Perry lawyers dispute links between charges, ethics probe". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 22, 2014), contain statements by the special prosecutor confirming that the decision to indict had merit. Source number 11 (Root, Jay. "Five Things to Know About Perry Indictment". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 21 August 2014.) also contains a description of why the indictment may have merit.

On another matter, citation 7 is cited for the statement "Perry was never a target of the probe according to an affidavit by the investigator on the case.", yet the source does not refer to this.

I have not reviewed the other citations. eiwacat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiwacat (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So fix it... - Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since "the charges are partisan" are the viewpoint widely reported, even by very liberal sources, that is appropriate WP:WEIGHT to that viewpoint in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC, New York Times, and LA Times have all come out widely opposed to the indictment and calling them political. The mainstream viewpoint from all angles is that it was partisan. Balance is not achieved by making an article reflect minor viewpoints as if they are equal to the mainstream view.--v/r - TP 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

While political/legal commentary (even by respected attorneys like Alan Dershowitz) do not carry weight within the legal system, they give the reader context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a reputable attorney (i.e not Rachel Maddow) outside of the parties involved has defended the merits of this indictment. I think the comparison of this legal matter to a scientific matter is interesting. If a scientific theory is not conclusively refuted officially, but most scientists refute it, that's the weight we go by. Afronig (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Misdemeanor or Felony?

The article says that the remaining charges are misdemeanors, yet says that the penalty would be 5-95 years. But generally, the definition of "felony" is a crime punishable by over a year in prison. This sure looks like an inconsistency. Lurie2 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I find many sources attributing the misdemeanor statement to the attorneys, and other pundits saying felony, but nothing stating anything definitive. per the indictment [1] the law in question is [2] which could be a misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstance.WP:OR follows: as no "thing" was involved here, it seems like it would have to be under (1) "violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment" , which would be a class A misdemeanor which would be a maximum 4k + 1yr penalty. If it is considered "misuse of property" hen it could be a felony. good luck with someone trying to prove him using his veto is a misuse of property though. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

new name

Anythingyouwant Perhaps something like "Rick Perry veto controversy" would be better? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, but I think "controversy" articles are frowned upon. See WP:Criticism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy :) This controversy is itself notable which I think overrides the guidance in criticism (which says to spread that out over the relevant sections of the BLP) but this is a stand alone notable topic. In any case, indictment and exoneration just seems super clunky. I think we can figure out something else better. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

At first, I was willing to put "controversies" in article titles. Then I got talked out if it. But now it seems back in fashion. Maybe it's time to bring back this one that I started (especially since this is not chronological). Anyway, feel free to re-name this article, I just wanted to change it to something more accurate. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unusual move. The article is about the indictment. The fact that charges were withdrawn, can be presented in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)