Jump to content

Talk:Rick Perry veto controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 12:59, 21 July 2016 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

new name

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

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

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)[reply]

Restored original article name. If a change is needed, gather consensus via a formal move request. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite unusual to change the article's name because of charges being dismissed. If there is a need to change the title, lets find a suitable one that we can all agree upon. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title to "Rick Perry veto controversy" as Gaijin42 suggested above. All charges against the BLP subject have been dismissed. It would be scurrilous to not cover the dismissal in this article, or to cover the dismissal without hinting about it in the title. I may go to ANI or BLPN due to the scurrilous nature of this matter, and will make a formal move request if this scurrilous activity is tolerated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can and should include material about the dismissal of the charges, no one is disputing otherwise. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know very well, discussing both the indictment and the dismissal with a title that only hints at the former is just as ridiculous as only discussing the indictment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 February 2016

Moving. 4 to 2 consensus. The 4 cite reasonable BLP concerns. 1 opposed is an IP who argues WP:COMMONNAME, the other says there is not a BLP issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indictment of Rick Perry → Rick Perry veto controversy – All charges against the BLP subject have been dismissed. For the title to mention the indictment without hinting at the dismissal is obviously inappropriate and a gross BLP violation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@79.68.139.189: If the only argument that you have is that you believe that the indictment is "notable" and the dismissal on constitutional grounds is, in your personal opinion, not notable then you have no logical rationale for your disagreement. You did not provide a reason why one is "notable" and the other is other is supposedly not notable. You just said it. Also, notability is the standard used to decide if a topic can support an article. It has nothing, zero, nada, zip, zilch to do with naming conventions for articles. You have provided no rationale for your lack of support for the name change. And you have not responded to the fact that the title of the article violates BLP.--ML (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The nominator is correct that titling this article "Indictment of Rick Perry" when no charges were sustained against him at indictment is a serious BLP issue, and I support any change away from that over the current title - though the current article has similar problems in nearly every sentence. However, the proposed title is only a small improvement; there was no genuine controversy over Perry's veto outside a very small number of Perry's political opponents, and the controversial matter is the behavior of those same political opponents. It would be better to find a title that accurately describes this, and I would support such a better title over the proposed one. Of course, the title must also match the scope of the article, and that is currently an incoherent mess. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@64.105.98.115: What would you suggest as an alternative name? -- ML (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had a concrete suggestion; if I did, I would have listed it. As it stands, I understand that "such-and-such controversy" is a sort of fallback descriptor, and I do support at least dumping the current title. One problem with suggesting a concrete new title is that, as I mentioned above, the article at present seems to have an incoherent scope even though there is a coherent topic there. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know better Cwobeel. Seriously. Hillary Clinton FOIA thwarting and classified info leak investigation? Barack Obama a Muslim born in Kenya question ? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? If it would not be neutral language to use in the body as a wikilink, it should not be the article title. Particularly in a case like this where he has been officially and completely exonerated. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Perry veto controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Perry_veto_controversy&oldid=730853821"