Talk:Rick Perry veto controversy

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 the law in question is  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
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 The fact that charges were withdrawn, can be presented in the article's body.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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Requested move 25 February 2016
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)
 * Support per nomination. I note that the proposed title was suggested above by another editor.  A formal move request obviously should not have been necessary, but was made necessary by reverts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * support clear BLP issue that can be resolved with a more neutral title. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It is clearly a BLP issue and has been from day one. Now that ALL of the charges have been thrown out of court as unconstitutional it is time we fix this obvious violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No support for move The notability rests in his indictment, not his exoneration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @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)


 * 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)
 * @64.105.98.115: What would you suggest as an alternative name? --  ML (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose - There is no BLP violation. and I don't see how we can call this a "controversy", unless we have a POV to push. A neutral article name can be found, if the current one is not good. One possibility could be Rick Perry public corruption case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know better . 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140817050143/http://www.cnn.com/2014/images/08/15/rick-perry-indictment.pdf to http://www.cnn.com/2014/images/08/15/rick-perry-indictment.pdf

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

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